Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7915007" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER]'s comment about putting the character at risk is highly apposite.There are varying degrees of risk - Ron Edwards says some helpful stuff about this, with reference to various RPG systems, in <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">his original essay on character-driven play</a>.John Harper - the designer of BitD - has said somewhere ([USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] will know where) that we should treat our characters like stolen cars. Which is to say, we take them out for a pretty exciting spin and don't worry if we crash them!This can be hard for RPGers who are used to cherishing their PCs. And sometimes, at least in some groups, even if we put the instinct-to-protect aside, there may not be the appetite for deeply moving or confronting character-driven play.In my own group, most of the time most of the character arcs are happening at a lighter level than (say, and to stick to superhero comic comparisons) Frank Miller's Born Again arc for Daredevil. We're playing matinee melodrama at best. (See eg the post upthread about the Nightcrawler arc. Or check some of my Prince Valiant actual play threads.) The systems we use are generally light in tone also - MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic and Prince Valiant. Burning Wheel is more hefty both in system and in degree of risk, but for those reasons some in my group prefer the lighter games.I also think risk to the character and system are connected, but it doesn't have to be via character-oriented mechanics. This is where I think finality of player-initiated resolution is crucial. To go back to Nightcrawler - in that system NIghtcrawler's player initiated various actions which placed effects (from memory, infatuation-oriented complications) on the woman Nightcrawler was romancing. This was what enabled him (i) to successfully woo her, and then (ii) to ruthlessly abandon her. If those actions had failed, then the character arc would have gone differently - eg the character couldn't have emerged with the same externally-validated self-image as a wooer and user of others.The point of the example is to suggest that good faith GM framing that follows the fiction combined with finality of player-initiated resolution and good faith GM narration of consequences can go a long way to establishing character-driven play independent of particular character-focused mechanics like Beliefs, Aspects etc. And conversely, without them - eg if all finality is just a matter of GM fiat, and/or consequences are established without good-faith regard to actual outcomes of player-initiated actions - then I don't think character-driven RPGing is possible. (Of course there could still be authentic player performance - "emoting" and "thespianism" I think are other terms that have been used upthread - within the confines of the GM-authored story.)</blockquote>

Verification