Worlds of Design: "Your Character Wouldn't Do That"

The Mighty Jingles (on YouTube) described what he really disliked about Far Cry 5 New Dawn (video game). The game took away player control at vital junctures. I wonder how often this happens in RPGs, and offer some reasons why it does. With a poll!

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

I watch a few YouTube channels regularly, some about games, some about cooking. So I watched The Mighty Jingles’ review of Far Cry 5 New Dawn (video game). Jingles was dismayed that the game took away player control at vital junctures. In one particular case (there were several), the protagonist found the ultimate bad guys - and walks in without his weapons. He stands there passively and gets handcuffed and hung from the ceiling. And does absolutely nothing. (No, not magic or some kind of psychic slavery.) Later, once the villains are defeated and are making a tiresome speech, he can’t even fire a gun to shut them up.

This is closely related to player agency (which I discussed previously). How much opportunity do the players have to significantly affect the outcome of the game?

The specific question for RPGs: how often does the GM tell a player what his character does, that the player might not want to do? I’m not talking about involuntary reactions to events such as “your character falls unconscious” or “your character exclaims in surprise.” I’m talking about the kind of thing that happened to Jingles.

I recall watching an RPG session where the GM told the players that their characters were running after someone (whether they wanted to or not). I later asked him about it, and he said he didn’t normally tell characters what to do, but there was a time problem to getting the session done, so he hurried the players along in the easiest way available. I wouldn’t like it, but I see the point.

Typically, though, I think this “involuntary action” is part of telling a story. The author of any story must control what happens in order to express what they have in mind, to reach the intended conclusion. If they don’t control the action, how can they be sure they get where they want the story to go? So in some campaigns, say where the GM is telling the players a story, there might not be much player control (Player Agency) to begin with.

This depends on who is playing. Traditional hobby games players usually want to feel they control their own fate, that success or failure is up to them. On the other hand, RPGers who prefer an overarching narrative may not mind being constrained by the story. Other gamers fall somewhere in between.

I personally hate being “Led around by the nose,” that is, I want to be in control as much as possible. If I want to “consume” a good story, I’ll read a book by a professional storyteller, not rely on today’s GM. But I know of many people who disagree with that. If you want the players to write their story from your situation (as I do), you are unlikely to tell them what their characters do.

So I’d estimate that, generally speaking, the more the session is about storytelling, and the less about opposed game playing, then the more likely it is for the GM to say “your character does <such-and-such>”, the more the GM has characters do things the players might not/would not have their character do, in order to continue to control the story.

YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary). I have the feeling that some people will read this and say, “of course I do, frequently”, while others will say, “I (almost) never do that.” The trick is to make sure that the GM and the players all like whatever style the GM uses.

This brings up another topic, how often the GM provides hints to the players about what they “should” do, but lets them make the choice. That’s for another column.

Let’s have another poll to see what readers do.

 

[Campbell]

There are some things that I find objectionable to have a player character do no matter which side of the screen I am on because I find them morally reprehensible and I will establish firm boundaries on, but that discussion does not take the tenor of what your character would do. It's mostly that a game where a player character does those sorts of things is not something I want to run or play.

In all other cases I am a firm believer in what Apocalypse World calls Explain The Consequences And Ask. Basically when a player declares an action that might result in fictional consequences that the player might not be aware of, but their character definitely would I explain what might happen if they go through with it. I do so only as an advocate for the fiction. I am not trying to deter them from their declared action. I just want them to make it on an informed basis.

Count me as someone else who is not really a fan of villain and hero terminology. It's not my place as a GM to determine how the players choose to interact with any scene or scenario I have framed or to decide what their goals or motivations should be. I view the player characters as protagonists. It's my job to place adversity and antagonism between them and the things they want, but how they go about overcoming that is up to them.

 

[pemerton]

It's not my place as a GM to determine how the players choose to interact with any scene or scenario I have framed or to decide what their goals or motivations should be. I view the player characters as protagonists. It's my job to place adversity and antagonism between them and the things they want, but how they go about overcoming that is up to them.

This is one of the more exciting things as a GM - finding out how the players will respond to the characters whose interests they collide with.

I've had PCs ally with Vecna. And with Kas. Make bargains with demons. Ally with a banished god. In our last session (a week ago) one of the players was updating another who had missed a session or two, explaining how his PC was now married to the noble lady who (the PCs had discovered in a previous session) had bricked up her brother in a ruined hunting lodge, so that she could succeed her father as (somewhat brutal) ruler of their Duchy.

It's all good stuff!

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

As a player, no one gets to control my character but me, unless some sort of compulsion is in effect. That's why I would never do this to a player in my game.

Compulsions need to be used very sparingly in my experience, just like capture scenarios or other similar things that involve violations of player autonomy.

When it comes to the scouting and narrating examples listed above, I ask the table if they want to play out an hour or so of exploration, or if they want me to narrate it. My players trust that I won't abuse the opportunity by putting their characters in terrible situations, or causing them to miss important stuff.

I've heard DMs say "there was a lot there but you guys just didn't explore it". However, that relies on the shared understanding that heavy and thorough exploration is expected and necessary so I think it violates their trust, just as you say, but kind of sneakily.