Beginning to Doubt That RPG Play Can Be Substantively "Character-Driven"

[Ovinomancer]

Well, this sure went a long way in the last 18-ish hours.

Without quoting a bunch of posts or going on at ridiculous length, I'll just sum up thusly:

To those who are speaking in favour of social mechanics being able to determine or force PC decisions/actions - that's all well and good, and no doubt such things enhance your games at your tables. All is good.

But if any of you ever start advocating for player agency (and some of you have in the past) I'll reserve the right to either take such advocation with a rather large grain of salt or outright call shenanigans; because the sort of mechanics you're favouring are completely antithetical to a player having agency over his/her character.

Is being beaten in combat in D&D antithetical to player agency? My answer to this rhetorical is no, of course not.

Same with social mechanics -- if the player is able to understand the risks and rewards possible with a given action, however adjudicated (mechanically or by fiat), then they have agency. If, as I think you incorrectly understand these mechanics to work, the GM is fiat imposing mechanics to take over the PC, that's bad in any system. One of the reasons I really don't like charm and dominate effects in D&D, either as a player or as a GM.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I dunno, all these rules systems, when time might just be better spent learning how to play a character in character. Seems like a little reading up on drama/acting, writing interesting characters, setting goals and getting a group who agree on approach could be done with any system or genre.

 

[prabe]

Is being beaten in combat in D&D antithetical to player agency? My answer to this rhetorical is no, of course not.

Same with social mechanics -- if the player is able to understand the risks and rewards possible with a given action, however adjudicated (mechanically or by fiat), then they have agency. If, as I think you incorrectly understand these mechanics to work, the GM is fiat imposing mechanics to take over the PC, that's bad in any system. One of the reasons I really don't like charm and dominate effects in D&D, either as a player or as a GM.

I concur with the first paragraph.

And, I concur with the second, though I tend to think, e.g., the approach in FATE is, exactly as you say, the GM imposing by fiat to take over the PC; also, enchantment-type magic--clearly such, to the relevant players--is one of a very few ways in which I'll take away a PC's agency (whether you think of it as character or player agency).

 

[Ovinomancer]

I concur with the first paragraph.

And, I concur with the second, though I tend to think, e.g., the approach in FATE is, exactly as you say, the GM imposing by fiat to take over the PC; also, enchantment-type magic--clearly such, to the relevant players--is one of a very few ways in which I'll take away a PC's agency (whether you think of it as character or player agency).

Disagree. The player chose their trouble aforethought as something that they want to be an issue for their character as they play. Each time it's compelled is still a player choice: let my trouble be a problem or expend effort to tamp it down (ie, FATE point). The player is making the choice.

 

[hawkeyefan]

As it relates to agency, there are any number of games and mechanics that will, in specific instances of play, necessarily inhibit player agency. This is pretty much a fact of play.

Advocating for such an element....whether it's a charm spell or a compel or some other game mechanic....isn't the same as tossing player agency out the window.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I dunno, all these rules systems, when time might just be better spent learning how to play a character in character. Seems like a little reading up on drama/acting, writing interesting characters, setting goals and getting a group who agree on approach could be done with any system or genre.

"Playing in character" sounds like acting? If so, that's one way to roleplay, for sure, but not the only or even best way, although it seems widely preferred (and is one of my preferences, largely). However, the topic isn't 'how to act at the table like I imagine my character being' but rather how to enjoy a game that focuses, at least largely, on characters growing and changing. Acting isn't necessary for this, nor does acting cause this -- it's orthogonal to the issue. So, no, I don't really see how your argument actually encourages character arcs. I mean, you can successfully act a flat, unchanging character with great skill and aplomb as much as you can terribly act or even third person a dynamic, evolving character. Acting doesn't mean much in the context of the discussion.

 

[prabe]

Disagree. The player chose their trouble aforethought as something that they want to be an issue for their character as they play. Each time it's compelled is still a player choice: let my trouble be a problem or expend effort to tamp it down (ie, FATE point). The player is making the choice.

Except it's not always the player's choice to compel it, is it? The differential is two FATE points, which is a pretty big deal mechanically, and if you're out of FATE points there's no choice at all, unless you as a player are willing to make a big enough deal at the table, during the game, to try to talk the GM out of the compel.

 

[prabe]

As it relates to agency, there are any number of games and mechanics that will, in specific instances of play, necessarily inhibit player agency. This is pretty much a fact of play.

Advocating for such an element....whether it's a charm spell or a compel or some other game mechanic....isn't the same as tossing player agency out the window.

This is absolutely true. Which ones you like are going to be a matter of taste and preference, neither of which is likely to be entirely rational.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To be clear. I like the system, but I know that it is for a particular style of game, and that's not a style I want all the time, much less expect everyone to want.

Likewise. Fate does what it does really well and I also think a lot of people benefit from understanding how and why it works. But that doesn't mean it's what I want for anything even approaching every game.

Hold on. Someone said FATE .... Fate .... FATE .... darn it, is it supposed to all-caps because of the acronym? Or is that just annoying?

Evil Hat have been calling it Fate rather than FATE for over thirteen years - but aren't that fussed. I find all caps simply looks ugly.

 

[Manbearcat]

Well, this sure went a long way in the last 18-ish hours.

Without quoting a bunch of posts or going on at ridiculous length, I'll just sum up thusly:

To those who are speaking in favour of social mechanics being able to determine or force PC decisions/actions - that's all well and good, and no doubt such things enhance your games at your tables. All is good.

But if any of you ever start advocating for player agency (and some of you have in the past) I'll reserve the right to either take such advocation with a rather large grain of salt or outright call shenanigans; because the sort of mechanics you're favouring are completely antithetical to a player having agency over his/her character.

Alright, before the proverbial horse that you're setting up to get out the gate wreaks its havoc, let me correct your misunderstanding (at least with respect to me...I'll let others speak for themselves or they can agree with me as they like):

When I use the term GM Force, its associated with a very specific type of player agency that is being subordinated to the whim of the GM. Now some systems promote this "GM Force subordinating player agency" as a "feature", the most famous being White Wolf with its Golden Rule, of which AD&D 2e co-opted (and spawned an orthodoxy henceforth). In that case its not "extra-system" GM Force. Accordingly, I won't decry it for being a game that is deceitful about what is happening behind the curtain, because it is honest that Illusionism (covert GM Force) is fundamental to play because the apex priority is about something else (typically "the GM tells a good story and controls the trajectory of play, while the players participate in the GM's story and everyone has a good time.").

But, regardless of the systemitized GM Force/Illusionism...its still there.

So here is my issue as it pertains to GM Force (covert or overt) and player agency.

GM Force is the subordination by fiat of a player's thematic, strategic, tactical (any/all) decision-making to the whim/will of the GM, for the sake of controlling the gamestate and the overall trajectory of play.

The games I'm talking about in this thread (a) don't have subordination by GM fiat and (b) they don't condone (in fact they do the opposite) GMs controlling the gamestate and the trajectory of play.

Social Conflict mechanics imposing states-of-being on PCs and creating finality of resolution are neither principally nor definitionally the same thing as GM Force (whether the system condones it as a feature or not).

Hopefully that makes sense and clears that all up.