Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 7914738" data-attributes="member: 85870">Had to comment here, as I've been following the thread closely since I wrote the OP, but haven't replied to anything in particular since.At first glance, this would be the type of thing I'm talking about---a conscious decision made by the players to have some kind of internalized character stakes, and to make those internalized stakes become a real part of the narrative/fiction.But part of me is feeling unsure if this is EXACTLY what I'm looking for. As I analyzed this, several thoughts came to mind:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It's very cool that this was purely player-driven . . . but would it have been better if the players and GM had been collaborating to have this kind of experience all along? Would the rest of the players at the table been as equally invested and enjoyed such a thing had they known it was an available avenue of player agency?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Is it even possible for this type of thing to be GM-led, or GM-guided? Or is this something that the GM cannot and should not try to artificially build or constrain?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">While this type of interaction could happen in any system, there are definite constraints in the core conceits of stereotypical fantasy roleplaying that would make sustaining this kind of activity difficult.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The idea that you have to have a "party", and that the "party" is supposed to stick together will quickly become a sticking point. In real life, when we as people begin to have divergent worldviews, or changing allegiances due to new life perspectives, we tend to change who we spend our time with. Truly character-driven play is going to be nigh impossible if the primary goal of the game is for "the party to stick together, because without you we can't defeat the big baddie, and no, I don't really care if your character would actually be involved or not. Figure out a viable reason for your character to do what the party is doing!" For character driven play, you have to accept the reality that the party is going to have to focus on character-driven needs. Otherwise, just like real life, the most "realistic" thing for a character to do might be to leave the party. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">This goes back to [USER=4937]@Celebrim[/USER]'s assertion that this kind of play is exceedingly difficult with a large cast of PCs. I'm guessing the most PCs you could have in a party to come even close to doing this kind of thing long term would be 3.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">To really accomplish this kind of thing consistently, you have to be willing to accept as players that there's going to be a lot more "split screen" / non-focus time on your character. You have to be willing to let other people's characters "go where their desires take them," and sometimes you're going to just be the tag-along.</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">For this kind of interplay to be more than just an incidental, one-off experience, the GM must be willing to let go of any notion of "where the game is supposed to go." It would require extreme flexibility and willingness on the part of the GM to truly go along with the player/character choices to their endpoint.</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification