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

[Sadras]

I just posted an account of Prince Valiant play. In one session I initiated a social conflict which a player lost, with the result that his PC entered into a marriage somewhat against his own preferences.

That was not clearly evident from the excerpt you posted.

Later on, I used a GM fiat ability to have the same PC fall in love with a different NPC whom he was rescuing from her cruel husband (the Count of Toulouse). Looked at from the outside this might look more arbitrary than a compel: the player has chosen any sort of romance-related flaw for his PC, and there is no Fate point economy whereby he gains from going along with me, or can immediately pay me to leave his PC alone. He has to suck it up, at least until he earns a certificate (entirely in the gift of the GM, based on my sense of roleplaying intensity and entertainment) and so gets his own chance to use a fiat ability.

So you apply GM force (I'm assuming you have unlimited GM fiat ability) and the player has to suck it up until they earn a certificate, which earning of and number are also controlled by you as GM? Have I got this right?

 

[pemerton]

I'm a believer in social skills (or whatever the equivalent is in a given system) to account for differences in competencies between player and character.

This reason isn't very important to me. In 4e D&D - a rather tactical game - the fact that all the PCs have combat ability doesn't stop the best wargamer at the table shining in combat.

And the system has social skills, but the player still has to understand social dynamics at least to the extent of declaring relevant actions. So a player with more social imagination has more scope to do stuff here.

That's not to say that the reason should be irrelevant to everyone, and maybe I'm underestimating how weak some players' social skills are. But for me it's much more about what domains of activity are subject to finality in resolution as opposed to sheer negotiation/consensus/fiat.

Maybe you could unpack why character-driven play necessitates imposing those sorts of consequences on NPCs? I'm not sure I understand the relationship.

Here's a gratuitous self-quote from somewhere not too far upthread:

I think that character-driven play of the sort @innerdude describes can't take place of players don't have some agancy in respect of the shared fiction, including in respect of the emotional states and social responses of NPCs. (Eg it has to be possible for a PC to befriend a NPC without the GM being the one who decides it.)

If player agency is confined to fighting and climbing and other feats of physical prowess, it will be very hard to get character-driven arcs because those things on their own tend not to reveal enough about the character.

That's the reason. I just think, based on a mixture of intuition and experience, that non-social (ie primarily physical/environmental) conflicts are not revealing enough of a character to produce character-driven arcs. The players also need to be able to have their PCs make changes to the social/emotional elements of the fiction.

That's not to say it has to be unlimited fiat power. It can be done through skills, rationing, etc. And sometimes it might fail, so the would-be friend becomes an enemy instead. That's part of putting the character at risk.

I don't think the mechanics for this need to be very complicated: the 1st ed AD&D reaction system might be enough, if used with a bit of imagination. But I think you need some way for the PC's persona/nature to feed through. That's why, for me personally, Oriental Adventures was so significant as a RPGing experience: PCs' honour, status etc affects reaction rolls and so suddenly what happens in the social sphere isn't just the result of an arbitrary roll but starts to tell us something about the character.

 

[pemerton]

That said, in my 5E games, I don't have absolute authority over the world. Players have established facts about it, which I have incorporated (or occasionally altered slightly). The PCs can change the world in the course of their adventures (which may not be exactly what you're talking about).

I think what you say is what I'm talking about. That sounds like an approach closer to my experience with (original) AD&D and less "DM empowerment" than I often encounter associated with 5e D&D.

(I don't play 5e myself, so my impression of it is based on reading rules plus others; accounts of it.)

 

[pemerton]

But for the purposes of the points I'm trying to make in this discussion, they're more or less the same

No. You were accusing multiple posters, including me, of self-contradiction. You don't get to impose your meaning on our assertions and then infer that we've contradicted ourselves!

if the player of an NPC (that being the GM) can be forced to play a character a certain way then it naturally follows the same can and will happen in reverse: the player of a PC can be forced by the same mechanics to play that PC a certain way

Here's evidence that it doesn't "naturally follow" - there are many RPGs in which what you assert is not true. Upthread I posted the seduce or manipulate move from Apocalypse World, which is an example of this.

I'll cut off the "PCs and NPCs work differently" argument right now by simply saying don't bother, as that discussion is a non-starter

Last I knew naturally follow wasn't a synonym for decreed thus-and-so by Lanefan.

 

[pemerton]

That was not clearly evident from the excerpt you posted.

I think that was a tag issue. I've removed the spoiler tags (which were meant to help manage a long quote).

So you apply GM force (I'm assuming you have unlimited GM fiat ability) and the player has to suck it up until they earn a certificate, which earning of and number are also controlled by you as GM? Have I got this right?

GM fiat ability is not unlimited. I'm not sure why you would make that assumption.

The discussion of how to manage GM fiat abilities is one of the important bits of advice in the system. From pages 43-45:

Special Effects are ways in which a Storyteller (or, in the Advanced Game, any player) can decisively affect the action of the game without any coin throws. Special Effects give the Storyteller control over the course of events, even in the face of very powerful Adventurers.

When possible, the Storyteller should use coin throws to impose his will on the Adventurers. For example, it is more realistic and entertaining to assign a high Difficulty Factor to a task, and let the Adventurers all try and fail, than to simply say “it’s impossible to do that.” But leaving your story vulnerable
to a lucky coin throw can be risky.

For example, if a puny Adventurer was fighting your main villain and making excellent coin throws, fairness dictates that he win, even if it spoils your story. But a Special Effect gives the Storyteller an event that occurs without fail. This can help him control the story without being too dictatorial. To continue the example of a fight, the villain might be able to knock the annoying Adventurer unconscious using the appropriate Special Effect, KNOCK AN OPPONENT SENSELESS.

Special Effects are normally linked to specific characters
in the story (see the Episodes for examples). Usually no more than three characters with Special Effects, or one character with three Special Effects, should be used, so as to let the players retain some control.

The players should not know what Special Effects your characters have, but they should be logical ones for the characters. For example, a beautiful girl is more likely to have the Effects of INCITE LUST or INSPIRE INDIVIDUAL TO GREATNESS than she would be to have HIDE or KILL A FOE IN COMBAT. Your players may be able to guess what kind of Effects a character has, and this increases the fun of the game.

Only one character can be influenced directly by a Special Effect, although the ramifications of the Special Effect may affect a group. The holder of the Special Effect decides which character is affected. Both Adventurers and characters controlled by the Storyteller can be aided or influenced by a Special Effect.

The user states that he is putting into action a Special Effect and reads it into the plot. The desired event happens, and the story is changed, often dramatically. The Storyteller must create a reasonable explanation for the way in which the Effect takes place, in terms of the current situation.

Special Effects are available from two sources: Episodes and Storyteller Certificates, the latter used only in the Advanced Game. Thus in the Basic Game, only Storytellers will be using Special Effects, while in the Advanced Game, any player may use a Special Effect.

Special Effects from Episodes may be used more than once if specifically stated in the Episode writeup. Special Effects can be used only once when derived from a Storyteller Certificate​

The award of Storyteller Certificates at out table combines the rules on pp 55-56 for the award of Certificates and Gold Stars:

[T]he Chief Storyteller may award a Certificate to any player as a reward for good acting or other reasons.

Anytime during play, whether or not they are the current Storyteller, the owner can turn in the Storyteller Certificate to the Chief Storyteller and exercise one use of a Special Effect. . . .

In the Advanced Game, all Storytellers can use gold stars to reward good players.
​

(The Chief vs all Storyteller stuff isn't relevant to us as we're not using rotating storytelling. I'm the sole GM.)

In our game we've probably averaged a bit less than one Certificate per session. We think of them as a bit like Persona or Deeds points in Burning Wheel - awarded for big achievements and/or impassioned roleplaying.

 

[KenNYC]

You will never get a meaningful roleplaying experience worrying about rules. The moment you look at your sheet the roleplaying is over, so to achieve whatever character immersion you want, you have to go back to OD&D or D&D or a relaxed AD&D and just roleplay with a system that has next to no stats. It also helps if you have a DM that doesn't worry about rules either and just says "yes, and..." a lot and you say it right back to him. This is why 5e was such a letdown to me after 30 years away. I don't want to make a religious check to see if I know something. I want to approach an NPC and have a conversation with them and learn something, Keep on making tedious skill checks and you'll never have a character driven campaign. And throw away those backgrounds the books try to foist on you. I have to play a character four or five times, get the feel of him, and then I know what his background is. Yes I can act out playing whatever was randomly rolled for me, but it is certainly more immersive and natural to just play five sessions, realize my character detects magic a lot, and suddenly the answer comes to me and the character is fleshed out. Then I play accordingly.

 

[Sadras]

You will never get a meaningful roleplaying experience worrying about rules.

It is important to note the OP is discussing a particular type of roleplaying experience which includes a risk of the foundation of the character. It is not about simple immersive play.

This is why 5e was such a letdown to me after 30 years away. I don't want to make a religious check to see if I know something.

You do not have to. The DMG provides the die route, the middle path and the limited/no die route as possible options when handling a situation. It really depends on the DM.

I want to approach an NPC and have a conversation with them and learn something,

All still possible within 5e.

And throw away those backgrounds the books try to foist on you. I have to play a character four or five times, get the feel of him, and then I know what his background is. Yes I can act out playing whatever was randomly rolled for me, but it is certainly more immersive and natural to just play five sessions, realize my character detects magic a lot, and suddenly the answer comes to me and the character is fleshed out. Then I play accordingly.

Again, you do not have to randomly roll your background, every table I have known has players select their preferred background for their character. I believe the background rolling possibility might have existed within AD&D.

Keep on making tedious skill checks and you'll never have a character driven campaign.

The idea by some is that GM-force based on DM-decides whether for or against the character works against character-driven campaigns. Some, similar to you, have advocated for less die-rolling system.

 

[chaochou]

I'm not certain if the correct term should be "at stake" as this fallout was already pre-planned by the players upon character generation...

Right, so the characters weren't being changed as a result of the events of play. This was planned prior to any play having happened.

and although they had laid the bread crumbs for this story arc along the way (now evident), both myself and the other players had missed them.

And these changes were so 'dramatic' that everyone else failed to notice them.

They also had such an impact on the events of play - what was going on in the game - that no-one else noticed.

Sound exactly like what the OP is after, and what @pemerton and I and others are discussing.

Needless to say, the player of the paladin is retiring her character (for now) - while the warlock now free from the burden of the lie, looked to continue on a different path (new class).

So the players finally resort to the only way they're allowed to impact the actual subject matter of the game by nuking the one thing they have control of - they're own characters. I wonder what effect that had... it must have completely changed everything...

The player of the paladin is to create a new character to join the others.

Join the others. On the main railroad 'story arc'.... to add some colour to your scripted plot with their 'unscripted dialogue'.

I feel the above statement is clearly false, given my above example.

Your example only demonstrates how powerless your players are. They can roll dice then they're told, and fight what they're told (but only win when you decide). And if they're having fun, good for you. Just don't bring that into a thread about character-driven play and expect plaudits from anyone other that railroaders also seeking to validate illusionism as a technique.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yep, acting could be one way of exploring character growth, but certainly not the only way. Plenty of books on writing character in short story or novel or screenplay form. Trying to codify it in a rule set only creates constraints as players try to squish their play into the framework or terminology. Just play a.character. It’s much more free and natural especially if you find a like minded group.

No, acting is orthogonal to exploring character growth. Orthogonal, in this sense, meaning 'not related to.'

I say this because I can look at acting and determine if it is either necessary to have character growth, meaning that acting must be present to have character growth, or if it is sufficient to have character growth, meaning that acting alone can cause character growth.

The necessary part you've already noted isn't true -- there are other ways to have character growth, so therefore it's not necessary to have acting be present to have character growth. I'll leave aside your attempt to limit other methods to writing for now.

That leave sufficiency. This is as easy to show because all I have to do is show that you can have acting while not having character growth. This is a trivial show -- there's a wealth of acted parts with no character growth in all forms of media, including at the table. I, personally, have acted the part of many NPCs that have had no growth, and not a few PCs that have likewise had no growth, in both 1-shots, short campaigns, and even in longer campaigns. So, therefore, acing is not sufficient to have character growth.

If acting is neither necessary nor sufficient for character growth, then it's not really part of the discussion of 'how do we do character growth.' It is a useful discussion for 'how to we connect to our characters in play?' This is because, while acting is not necessary to connect to character, it can be sufficient. It's just not terribly interesting in regards to the discussion on character arcs, as it's not an important component of having character arcs.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*