Correct. Which is why I play my own system that focuses more specifically on what I want. If there was a system I found more accurate to my preference, I would be playing it. FATE is okay but it doesn't meet my needs, nor do other games like BW, Dungeon World, etc. They all have aspects I like but as a whole their play procedures don't meet my needs, which is more of a bookkeeping assessment than a feeling assessment. Those games are all still focused on "adventure" and getting right to it. I like a slower development than they provide. Most, if not all, of those types of game are designed to get right into the action, they still require the development of concept which I'm not ready for at the start of a game if I want to be invested in it. I can still have lots of fun, but it's not ideal, just as I can still have fun in an AP. Sandbox is another story, but that's just my personal preference.
What I'm saying, in probably an awkward way, is that those things shouldn't define the character, they should test and challenge what the character has already developed during play. At the start of the game, I'm not in a position to know those things, I can guess at them, but that's about it. There's nothing more frustrating for me than to have to change concept, belief, goals during play because I didn't have enough play time to make accurate decisions. Sandbox play tends to exaggerate this because the choices seem to get more locked in because of the pre-authored nature of the choices. Do you go left or right? Ummm, left looks interesting and fun. Nope, I made a mistake, it's not really interesting to my character after all, although it might be fun for the player. I'll just sit back and wait for it to be done (uninteresting), leave and derail everyone else's fun (Jerk), or alter my character to fit into the game and the direction it's heading (should have been unnecessary). Even in a game that @
pemerton would run, I might still find myself in this situation, but I have more confidence in the types of play, that by the nature of the system and the play style, would be able to find a way to make it more individually interesting to my character. That's just based on my experience and not anything else.
What does play look like for me? Micro-choices. The types of choices we make every day in our lives that define who we are and our preferences. We all agree on the type of genre we want to emerge into (sci-fi, fantasy, modern, etc). I like to start my character off with what I'm in the mood for, physical, mental, or social play. Some thought into what the character looks like. Maybe a few personality quirks (winks a lot, is grumpy, likes to hug people, etc.). After a few sessions of character interactions and a few decisions where the players make micro-choices and help to define who they are, we'll slowly move into real choices. The GM's role at in the beginning is simply to react and provide opportunity for character exploration. The players need very little from the GM other than to begin to blend the choices into a coherent world (this is sometimes harder than I'd like but it's fun). These micro-choices and character interactions will start to develop into beliefs and goals. Maybe my character, through his interaction with another character, comes to view himself as a helpful person or maybe he realizes he's greedy and jealous. If I had chosen "likes to hug people" I'm now starting to see why he hugs people. If he's helpful, maybe he does it because it will make the other person feel better, and if he's greedy, maybe it's his way of determining what the other person has on him he can steal. I find it important for me, if I am to become invested in the character, if this opportunity is given a spot light at the beginning of the game, rather than throughout the game, when the choices are more significant and death is on the line.
I find it's significantly more difficult for this type of play to work under pre-authoring for me, since the GM is purely reactive to the characters rather than pro-active. The backstory that emerges is not secret and remains in play throughout the game. I've certainly tried to do it taking a more pre-authoring stance, since I've had this preference for a very long time and when 99% of the games were pre-authored heavy, it was less gratifying. I found myself, when I ran these types of games, steering players toward pre-authored materials (as I was encouraged to do by the system), rather than react to the choices and needs the players had. They were still fun games, as most games with friends are, they were just lacking for me. I ran a 3 year champaign in a sandbox 10 or so years ago that was hugely successful, but I found that it wasn't the pre-authored bits that made it so, but rather the focus on the character and the improvisational nature of the way it was run. We had to fight against the system on many occasions and it made me question the reason we were still playing under it (d20), when we could use another system that supported that type of play as a focus was an option (we were already familiar with the d20 system at the time).
End thoughts - find a system that supports your type of play and if one doesn't exist, make it so. It's your fun to be had. And continue talking about it in places like this. It's where I started to question my own needs and begin to find out what I really want out of a game. It's still a work in progress, but progress is being made.
