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

[Manbearcat]

@lowkey13

Let me try to distill my premise into something pithy and maybe this will reveal the machinery of the purity test (and, of course, you know that “purity” here doesn’t mean “lacking badness”).

TTRPG Instantiation 1 features starting conditions A and 100 parameters (conflicts). At none of 1-100 is GM Force introduced to change the outcome of the conflict/parameter. Every moment of the gamestate and the ultimate end of the gamestate bears no “Force Noise.”

TTRPG Instantiation 2 features the same starting conditions A and 100 parameters (conflicts). At conflict/parameter 12, 39, 64, and 92, Force is introduced to alter/dictate the outcome of those particular sequences of play. Now that is only 4/100 conflicts/parameters.

My contention is that, despite it being a very small number of instances of Force, the 1st order and downstream effects are going to change all of the gamestates from 12 onward, and the ultimate gamestate as well (possibly significantly so).

That is why I’m calling it binary instead of a continuum. Obviously, more or less force (in quantity and potency) will affect the instantiation, but that isn’t relevant to my point. My point is that instantiation 1 will not be reproduced in trajectory, outcome, and agency distribution by any instantiation where Force is introduced (UNLESS more Force is introduced to Curve Fit the new instantiation with 1...which of course will perturb things again and impact the agency distribution...so...no).

 

[prabe]

@lowkey13
That is why I’m calling it binary instead of a continuum. Obviously, more or less force (in quantity and potency) will affect the instantiation, but that isn’t relevant to my point. My point is that instantiation 1 will not be reproduced in trajectory, outcome, and agency distribution by any of instantistion where Force is introduced (UNLESS more Force is introduced to Curve Fit the new instantiation with 1...which of course will perturb things again and impact the agency distribution...so...no).

I think I see why you're calling it a binary, here, and it's not entirely wrong. I think, though, that you could posit an instantiation where the Force was used to alter all the outcomes, and now you you have a game of Pure Force, and you're kinda back to a continuum or a binary where Force is always used, or not always used. This binary isn't any more (in)correct than yours, I think.

As a side thought, is the GM using judgment to interpret an ambiguous outcome (in, say, a skill--the question doesn't seem applicable in combat) Force? If so, it would seem to make a Pure Forceless game harder to achieve.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[prabe]

A: Player Agency is best accomplished through rulesets that allow specific rules to determine what the PC does. In other words, the use of specific and constraining rules regarding social interactions, or how the PC acts in certain circumstances, allows the Player to make informed choices given that they have adequate knowledge of possible outcomes.

B. Player Agency is best accomplished by allowing the Player complete freedom to determine the inner processes of the player (outside very limited circumstances). Rules that would force the PC to do something are a codifiction that prohibits player agency.

Oh, jeez. I think that both A. and B. are (or can be) correct.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[hawkeyefan]

So I've recently had the opportunity to play some Blades in the Dark, instead of running it for my group. And as I was playing, I was thinking about this thread a bit, and how I feel that Blades lends itself to character driven play more so than D&D does.

Again, I don't think D&D can't do this, I just think other games are designed to promote that kind of gameplay where as D&D leaves it up to the group to decide how they want to do this. I play and enjoy both games. Each does certain things well. In regard to character-driven play, I think Blades is better. I'll offer a couple of comparisons to show how.

In 5e D&D, the player is meant to choose two Traits, an Ideal, a Bond, and a Flaw at character creation. Per the rules, when the player evokes one or more of these elements in play, the DM can grant him Inspiration. This can then be spent by the player to gain Advantage on any future roll that he chooses. You can only have Inspiration or not have it, so you cannot bank multiple uses through repeatedly evoking your Traits/Ideal/Bond/Flaw during play. You need to spend Inspiration before you can gain it again.

In Blades in the Dark, the player must choose a Vice. This is the thing that they struggle with. It's both how they cope with the harshness of life as a scoundrel, and also a point of weakness. It is mechanically meaningful because it is the way that the PC can reduce Stress, which is a PC resource taken in order to power special abilities and to resist Harm and other consequences. So when a PC takes a Stress, they need to indulge their Vice in order to reduce their Stress. There is also the risk of overindulging, which can have consequences of varying degrees for the PC and their crew. Also, Vice is directly related to one of the XP Triggers: "You struggled with issues from your Vice or Traumas during the session." At the end of each session, the player decides to take an XP point if they struggled with their Vice or Traumas. If they did so more than once, they can take 2 XP.

There are a lot more differences I can go into, and maybe I will in a future post, but just looking at these two areas of these games, I think it's pretty clear that certain games are just designed to deliver play that's more character-driven.

In D&D, the entire structure of the Traits/Ideal/Bond/Flaw is optional. Yes, it's meant to be there to give the PC some sense of character, and the player may portray the character accordingly. If they do, they may be rewarded by the DM with Inspiration. Yes, there are ways to tweak this, or alternate systems we could use for this....but ultimately, this system as is is nothing more than suggestion.

In Blades, the decision of Vice will not only inform the player on how to portray their character, but it also determines a weakness that absolutely must come up in play. They will indulge their vice often, and will potentially accumulate Traumas that make it harder and harder to resist their Vice, and will also permanently impact and shape their character. Ultimately, their Vice may consume them. It also has the strong hook to grant 1 or 2 XP per session if the PC struggles with it. And I think this is a big distinction here.....not just that it comes up, or that the player portrays the character as having a vice, but that they must struggle with it. That's big.....it means that play is impacted in some way by this Vice.

So if a D&D PC has the Flaw of "I'm a compulsive gambler. Games of chance and taking risks gets my blood flowing like nothing else" the player may play that up quite well. He may earn some inspiration for doing so. He may even go above and beyond and make decisions for his character that may be harmful because of this Flaw. That's all quite possible, and can be a lot of fun.

He could also ignore it and never bring it up in play.

With Blades, there is no avoiding the PCs Vice. It is essential to the character, and essential to the game. Perhaps that's the big take away.....it is essential to the character and to the game. Hence, play is character driven.

 

[dragoner]

C. With a bit of luck, the PC's life was ruined forever. Always thinking just behind some narrow door in all of his favorite inns and taverns, men in red breast plates are getting incredible kicks from things he'll never know.

"I am that child with the dirty face, no doubt unwanted, that from far away contemplates coaches where other children emit laughter and jump up and down considerably"
-Reinaldo Arenas

Even rules, et cetera, can't solve this between character driven, or whatever; nevertheless it is good, because that is where the different games lie. In one game recently, the PC, she was on a beach at a resort, trying to convince a reporter to listen to her story and maybe glean other intel from her. How would this reconcile hacking up Orcs for xp? Backing it up to the let's play make believe stage of RPG's, one does seem more free-form and the other mechanical.

 

[pemerton]

I keep seeing examples throughout this thread (and, for that matter, in any lengthy thread on the subject here), usually involving "angels on the head of pin" discussions about what DM Force, of DM decides, or Player Agency really, really, really means.

Because the viewpoints of people contesting the jargon are not orthogonal; they are diametrically opposed.

Too abstract? Let's make it concrete.

A: Player Agency is best accomplished through rulesets that allow specific rules to determine what the PC does. In other words, the use of specific and constraining rules regarding social interactions, or how the PC acts in certain circumstances, allows the Player to make informed choices given that they have adequate knowledge of possible outcomes.

B. Player Agency is best accomplished by allowing the Player complete freedom to determine the inner processes of the player (outside very limited circumstances). Rules that would force the PC to do something are a codifiction that prohibits player agency.

These are 100% completely different viewpoints that cannot be reconciled, and yet they are debated

I don't think I"ve seen A and B debated in this thread by anyone who is familiar with both. Various posters have put forward instances of the system you describe in A (eg I've talked about MHRP/Cortex+, and maybe morale in Traveller, and Prince Valiant). Various posters have also put forward instances of the system you describe in B (eg Apocalpyse World, Burning Wheel at least as far as PCs; Beliefs are concerned, @hawkeyefan's excellent post about BitD).

Who is asserting that MHRP is better for character-driven play than BitD? Or vice versa.

What is being widely asserted is that a game in which the character's emotional/social state is at risk is better for character-driven play. @hawkeyefan has give a terrific explanation of how this is so in BitD. And it doesn't turn on A vs B - after all, BitD (at least as he describes it) is an instance of B. (Which would make sense - Apocalypse World, of which BitD is sort-of a derivative, is an instance of B.)

@Lanefan and maybe one or two others are asserting that A-type systems are incompatible with player agency, but without actually ever having played such systems, or even read them as best I know. That is angels-on-the-head-of-pin territory.

 

[pemerton]

PC trained by master. Master disappears for a number of years popping in and out of PC's life. PC discovers his master was the werewolf the party had been chasing for months (Secret Backstory by DM) and who is responsible for an ally's death.

I guess my first question is how is this secret backstory? If the PC discovers it (by whatever mechanism) it's not secret!

It could be a consequence (eg following a failed check, the GM - to borrow AW/DW terminology - reveals an unwelcome truth ie that the master is really a werewolf). Or it could be an element of scene-framing. From you description either possibility seems open.

PC confronts master with the truth. With the mask now off, the master attempts to manipulate/seduce PC to his cause which is played up....

DM invokes mechanics (sanity/morale) to prompt change in aspect of PC. The player can allow the mechanics to play out with the risk of effecting change or utilise a character resource (inspiration) to ensure the emotional fallout does not affect the character - because the player does not want it.

This seems like it could happen in any system with some sort of PC-affecting social/emotional mechanics. Assuming the GM is not just cheating, the resolution will depend on the outcome of the mechanical process (which in your version depends on whether or not the player spends a resource).

The DM does not know how it will play out but suspects if the PC beats the mechanics or utilises a resource, the PC will likely attack the werewolf, at the very minimum deny his call for joining. If the player suffers a change - who knows what could happen.

Given the bolded part, I still don't understand how this is meant to be an example of character-driven play occurring when the GM knows what is going to happen in virtue of having pre-authored "the adventure" or "the plot".

Is this an example of character-driven play in your estimation - whether this revealed backstory is part of the main storyline or not in a GM-driven rpg.

Whether or not it's character-driven in my view can't be known from what you've set out due to the stuff I mentioned in my first paragraph of response in this post - without knowing where the revelation came from (what sort of consequence?; what sort of framing?; how did it relate to already-established fiction?; how was that prior fiction established?) we don't know how this moment of crisis is related to the character who has the master.

Probably the best-known variant of what you describe in popular culture is Darth Vader being revealed as Luke's father. In the fiction, the ground has been prepared in all sorts of ways - we know Luke is an orphan, who knows little about his father except that he was great pilot; Luke has a mentor who knew his father, and who taught Darth before the latter turned to evil; Darth himself is a mysterious figure with his face hidden behind a mask, but is said to have killed Luke's father.

Whether or not the RPG version of this counted as character-driven would turn on how all that unfolding stuff was actually done. If the GM just narrates it all through to the moment of revelation than it is certainly not what the OP is talking about, because the mechanical process of play hasn't had any hand in it.

But suppose the backstory is gradually set-up as some sort of interplay between player and GM in the course of play (eg Luke's player fails a check, and the GM reveals an unwelcome truth via narration from the NPC Obi-Wan - My former star pupil killed your father - sorry about that!). And suppose further that the final revelation is the ultimate unwelcome truth narrated in response to some failed check by Luke during the confrontation with Vader. That looks like it could be an instance of what @innerdude was referring to.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*