Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6806543" data-attributes="member: 177">This is part of why I noted definitions of &quot;character driven&quot; vs &quot;plot driven&quot;.&nbsp; These terms come from media - there is no &quot;player driven&quot; novel or movie out there.&nbsp; But, the fact that we have a &quot;player driven&quot; option, in which the character drives the action, and the player has an avatar of a character, that &quot;character driven&quot; means &quot;character drives events&quot;.&nbsp; It is a drift in language use I was trying to elucidate here.&nbsp; &quot;Character driven&quot; has little to do with how events unfold.&nbsp; Character driven stories are rather the opposite - they are less about how events unfold, and more about how *character* unfolds.&nbsp; Which is to say that, in the terms I'm using, &quot;character driven&quot; and &quot;player driven&quot; are more orthogonal than we might at first think.&nbsp;Yes, that is a possibility.&nbsp; But nothing is perfect.&nbsp; It is also a possibility that the players choices shape events, and the result is still unsatisfying, however.&nbsp; When you were a kid did you ever think, &quot;Gee, I'd love to have that toy!&quot; only to find that the toy, once gained, really wasn't all that fun?&nbsp; Or, it is also a possibility that you have a group of players who choose things that wind up in great conflict, and they aren't good at negotiating among themselves how to go, leading to an unsatisfying experience, and so on.&nbsp; Ultimately, &quot;I get to author things,&quot; is not a guarantee of anything, including player engagement.&nbsp; Even Stephen King writes stinkers, kinda frequently, even!&nbsp; Robert Jordan, given his head with little editing (I suspect because he *married* his editor, leaving her in a position with major conflict of interests) ended up with the quality of his work degrading rapidly, with lots of meaningless filler and very little action or development of character - entire novels of mostly stasis.So, there are pitfalls on all sides.&nbsp; Nothing guaranteed.&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; But you know what?&nbsp; I find the concern to be largely a boogeyman.&nbsp; Rare, indeed (IME) is the GM who, while pre-authoring, isn't also taking player thoughts into account.&nbsp; Having, for example, a pre-authored mystery (past events in which the PCs took no part are fixed, but resolution of the remaining conflicts of the situation not fixed) doesn't seem like it is at great risk of missing out on this particular distinctive feature.&nbsp; It is only the past which is pre-authored, after all, not the future.&nbsp; Other than having some expectation that the players may well figure out what's going on, there's not much preventing having the player choices given spotlight.&nbsp; And the pre-authoring in this example is only on a case-by-case basis, not pre-authored for an entire campaign.Being someone advocating mixed-approaches, you don't really need to convince me.&nbsp; All things are useful, when applied thoughtfully.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6806543, member: 177"] This is part of why I noted definitions of "character driven" vs "plot driven". These terms come from media - there is no "player driven" novel or movie out there. But, the fact that we have a "player driven" option, in which the character drives the action, and the player has an avatar of a character, that "character driven" means "character drives events". It is a drift in language use I was trying to elucidate here. "Character driven" has little to do with how events unfold. Character driven stories are rather the opposite - they are less about how events unfold, and more about how *character* unfolds. Which is to say that, in the terms I'm using, "character driven" and "player driven" are more orthogonal than we might at first think. Yes, that is a possibility. But nothing is perfect. It is also a possibility that the players choices shape events, and the result is still unsatisfying, however. When you were a kid did you ever think, "Gee, I'd love to have that toy!" only to find that the toy, once gained, really wasn't all that fun? Or, it is also a possibility that you have a group of players who choose things that wind up in great conflict, and they aren't good at negotiating among themselves how to go, leading to an unsatisfying experience, and so on. Ultimately, "I get to author things," is not a guarantee of anything, including player engagement. Even Stephen King writes stinkers, kinda frequently, even! Robert Jordan, given his head with little editing (I suspect because he *married* his editor, leaving her in a position with major conflict of interests) ended up with the quality of his work degrading rapidly, with lots of meaningless filler and very little action or development of character - entire novels of mostly stasis. So, there are pitfalls on all sides. Nothing guaranteed. Yes. But you know what? I find the concern to be largely a boogeyman. Rare, indeed (IME) is the GM who, while pre-authoring, isn't also taking player thoughts into account. Having, for example, a pre-authored mystery (past events in which the PCs took no part are fixed, but resolution of the remaining conflicts of the situation not fixed) doesn't seem like it is at great risk of missing out on this particular distinctive feature. It is only the past which is pre-authored, after all, not the future. Other than having some expectation that the players may well figure out what's going on, there's not much preventing having the player choices given spotlight. And the pre-authoring in this example is only on a case-by-case basis, not pre-authored for an entire campaign. Being someone advocating mixed-approaches, you don't really need to convince me. All things are useful, when applied thoughtfully. [/QUOTE]

Verification