# Beginning to Doubt That RPG Play Can Be Substantively "Character-Driven"



## innerdude (Feb 7, 2020)

I've been thinking a lot lately about how despite having a tremendous amount of fun with RPGs over the years, I continue have a sense of lack, or dissatisfaction with one particular aspect of my play experiences---namely, I have found it to be nigh impossible to drift into what I would consider a true "character-driven" style of play.

Let me explain what I mean by that.

I know that most new systems these days have specific focuses on character backstory, personality traits, motivations, and desires. Even D&D, the long-time standard bearer for keeping the game more focused on gameplay rather than character driven needs, added new character-oriented traits in 5e, to say nothing of Fate which goes out of its way to purposefully bring these elements to the forefront of play.

And yes, these new character design features are incredibly useful in helping us as players come to "see" our characters as more "real" within the fiction. But in my experience, even the best of these character "hooks" or inputs don't seem to make a difference in driving an in-play narrative of substantive character change---i.e., the experience of watching a character _materially change_ _in ways that are fundamental to their place in the fiction. _

It's generally agreed that one of the vital, key elements of great literature is a character "arc"---the observed phenomenon of a character or characters fundamentally coming to view the world and their place in it in new ways. It is these character journeys that create some of the most powerful, compelling moments that cause as us reader-participants to feel emotional resonance---to feel as if we are experiencing something meaningful, even if we are only having the experience referentially.

Obviously not having this kind of emotional resonance in RPG play doesn't mean that our player-characters aren't making "meaningful" choices. Players are often faced with having their characters act out in response to moral choices, in multiple gradations---we choose to fight for the noble baron instead of the greedy viscount; choose to let the orc leader live rather than killing him; choose to steal, but from only the top 10% of most wealthy citizens; choose to kill the evil sorcerer now to prevent the deaths of thousands later.

But the actual mechanical interplay of rules in a typical roleplaying game experience does almost nothing to promote the kind of self-reflexivity that is necessary for the kind of deep-rooted emotional resonance found in literature. At no time during a roleplaying session have I ever come close to having the vivid, deep, emotional response I felt when reading the last 100 pages of Guy Gavriel Kay's novel _Under Heaven---_nor even upon reflection am I able to see how the act of tabletop roleplaying would provide the means to do so.

It's interesting, because though I find "Railroad GM-ing" to be highly distasteful and generally anathema to the types of RPG experiences I personally would enjoy, I can begin to glimpse why a GM might try to use specific GM Force©™ in a campaign---because they think that the application of force to the "story" is a means to getting to some of that emotional resonance. It's a recognition on the part of the GM that emotional resonance is possible through a "story focus" that leads to potential meaning. Unfortunately, it seems that the application of GM Force runs counter to both endpoints---it detracts from the aspects of player freedom and choice, while only minimally (if at all) leading to the resonance made possible through the act of "pure creation" of fiction whole cloth.

And so I begin to wonder if the desire to have those kinds of emotionally resonant experiences during RPG play are somehow a fool's errand on my part. That I'm looking for a "character-driven" experience that simply isn't there and never really can be, and so should just accept RPG play for what it _is_, rather than trying to somehow keep reaching for this illusory experience that it's never once provided before.


----------



## prabe (Feb 7, 2020)

I don't doubt your experiences, but I think some players *can* play that way, with some GMs. I don't think system really matters, here; as you say, there really isn't a rule that will change this. I know there are players in the longer-running of my two campaigns who are doing it. Now, at least one of them is a player who almost always manages to play her character, but the other is as capable of powergaming as just about anyone else I've gamed with.

I think there are some players and GMs who aren't interested in this kind of play, and I think there are some styles of play that aren't conducive to character arcs or other story-type concerns. My own campaigns are structured around the PCs choosing which goals to pursue, in which order, which seems to help some with this.

TRPGs have other pleasures though, and it sounds as though you're at least finding some of those.


----------



## John Dallman (Feb 7, 2020)

Well, I experience what you seem to be seeking, but it does not come easily. The two things that seem to be necessary for it, in my case, are:

Playing the same character a _lot_. After something on the order of 100 hours of play, I start being able to think as the character very easily, and they start having a voice of their own in my head.
Thinking about them, and as them, _outside_ of a game session. This is a kind of daydreaming, thinking about what the character's desires, fears, situation and environment are.
This combination of activities gives me a much deeper sense of identification with the character, and produces a sense of what they want from their life and adventures. It's - quite naturally - naturally easier with characters who think somewhat like me, but it isn't impossible with characters who are more alien.


----------



## Arilyn (Feb 7, 2020)

I'm not sure that it's something that can be forced. I have played in games that are very character driven, and games that are fun, but far from deep drama. Both are appealing. Sometimes, a group that seems it's made up of characters poised for lots of character driven stories fizzle. Other times, a group thrown together with little thought, end up having rich memorable stories. 

Having said this, I find games that focus on character, like Fate, are more likely to deliver.


----------



## Retreater (Feb 7, 2020)

As a player, I wouldn't want that kind of deep emotional experience. I want to have a fun time with friends, play a game, grow in power, and explore a magical world. Deep emotional experience is better in different art forms: literature, music, theatre, etc. The main difference is that stories and plots and characters can all be developed in those art forms because there's a real constructed format. D&D is more like a jam band session.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2020)

I've seen it occasionally; very rarely. Hakeem's dramatic arc in my Wilderlands online campaign, or my PC Zana Than in an old Midnight campaign. I don't think it can be forced.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 7, 2020)

innerdude said:


> But the actual mechanical interplay of rules in a typical roleplaying game experience does almost nothing to promote the kind of self-reflexivity that is necessary for the kind of deep-rooted emotional resonance found in literature.



RPGs are really much more like real life than they are like literature. You experience the world, and you make decisions based on those experiences, and things happen as a result of those decisions. 

Overwhelmingly, the narrative formed by such a process will be lacking in much literary merit, because it wasn't a story that was artificially crafted to invoke a particular response. The narrative is one which is only meaningful to you, because you crafted it organically, based on your own decisions. Such is life.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 7, 2020)

innerdude said:


> And so I begin to wonder if the desire to have those kinds of emotionally resonant experiences during RPG play are somehow a fool's errand on my part. That I'm looking for a "character-driven" experience that simply isn't there and never really can be, and so should just accept RPG play for what it _is_, rather than trying to somehow keep reaching for this illusory experience that it's never once provided before.




How many players do you have?

There are two things you have to appreciate. First, the more players you have the less character driven the experience can be.

Secondly, Celebrim's Second Law of Roleplaying:

"How you think about playing a system is more important than the rules system itself."

No rules system can create a character driven experience. Only the participants working together can create a character driven experience. Conversely, every rules system can create emotionally resonant and literary experiences.

In my experience with emotionally resonant and literary experiences, they do not come cheaply and they cannot be forced. RP tends to be a very organic form of story telling characterized by its slow pace and its lack of structure. It takes a long while for story arcs to come to fruition in a meaningful manner, and when they do it is often rather unexpected by all the participants. A good GM can sometimes help it along by laying in place the right Chekov's Guns, and waiting for the right time to set them off, but it's never likely to be something were you get that emotional high all the time.

And the more players you have, the slower it goes, because the aesthetics of play that create that particular experience take a back seat to various sorts of group and individual challenges. Nothing in my experience quite matches the dramatic intensity of one on one RP or similarly small groups, and in my experience it's actually easier to accomplish that with text or other forms of communication that create emotional distance than it is face to face because face to face just gets awkward. I suspect that there are people that can pull it off, but they are probably a group that overlaps heavily with the group of people that are talented actors.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 7, 2020)

Arilyn said:


> Having said this, I find games that focus on character, like Fate, are more likely to deliver.




If and only if, the participants in the game have narrative and introspective aesthetics of play when they sit down.

I'm convinced that FATE is only more likely to deliver narrative and introspective aesthetics of play, not because of its mechanics, but because it's players are more likely to think about what it means to play the game in that narrative fashion.


----------



## uzirath (Feb 7, 2020)

Yeah, I rarely see the sort of character arc that you're talking about. Most of my campaigns these days are shorter runs and lighter than the sorts of games I used to play. In my big campaigns in the 1990s and early aughts, I did see it with a few characters. I agree with @Celebrim that this can be system independent, but I do think some systems features can nudge people toward different playstyles. In my GURPS campaigns, for example, players tend to create more characters with tragic flaws because of the disadvantage mechanic built into the system. While this doesn't necessarily lead to great roleplaying or character growth over time, it can lay some of the groundwork for that. I've definitely played with players in long-term games who actively use the system to craft an evolving character: buying down disadvantages over time, adding new disadvantages after traumatic experiences, etc. When done deftly, it has led to some extremely satisfying campaign arcs. And, while the mechanics are ultimately unnecessary because you could always just roleplay all of it freeform, they often help players to remain consistent.


----------



## Arilyn (Feb 8, 2020)

Hamlet's Hit Points is an excellent book by Robin D. Laws that can help gamers create more narrative drama in their games. It lays out narrative beats, how characters swing between hope and fear in stories, and how this can be laid down in our GMing. These tools Laws discusses are very helpful to groups who want deeper character driven story. He breaks down Hamlet, Casablanca and Dr. No as examples in his analysis.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 8, 2020)

innerdude said:


> namely, I have found it to be nigh impossible to drift into what I would consider a true "character-driven" style of play.
> 
> Let me explain what I mean by that.
> 
> ...




So, it seems to me that there's two things being mentioned here - character driven play, and narrative-driven development.  I separate these because one is about play in the moment, the other is about long-term changes in the character.  You literally cannot do these things at the same time.

Some games are horrible for narrative-driven development, simply because the system doesn't support it very well.  D&D, for example, has rules structured such that there are choices which are highly effective, and those that are not highly effective, and if the narrative really says you want to do a thing that isn't effective... you are strongly discouraged from doing so.  

If you start with a strong, not-too-bright not too charismatic fighter, if events in the narrative say you'd want to pick up some arcane spell casting... you're basically out of luck.

Fate, by comparison, is perfectly fine with this - character development is as much or more about change as it is power advancement.  Swapping around skills and Aspects over time to react to what has happened in play is explicitly part of the system.

Meanwhile, considering character driven play, D&D is fairly rules-heavy, such that your options of what to do in a given moment is strongly influenced by what effective actions you have on your sheet - as a player, there's not a lot of incentive to do things that aren't among your most effective actions.  So, you're a fighter.  You fight, using the weapons and styles on the sheet.  That's what you do - play is very much a tactical exercise, largely because the rules are very focused on tactical action (as opposes to, say, longer term strategic choices).

I'll compare this to... Mage: The Ascension.  A character has extremely flexible areas of power.  Even fairly early in play, there's a wide variety of things they can choose to try to do to react to a situation.  If you have Matter 3, you are likely able to transform most of the basic physical items around you in any way you want.  If a car is trying to run you down, maybe you'll throw up a physical wall in front of it, or maybe you'll make the engine seize up, exactly how you address a situation can become much more about how your character approaches the world than what their character sheet says...


----------



## Umbran (Feb 8, 2020)

Celebrim said:


> If and only if, the participants in the game have narrative and introspective aesthetics of play when they sit down.
> 
> I'm convinced that FATE is only more likely to deliver narrative and introspective aesthetics of play, not because of its mechanics, but because it's players are more likely to think about what it means to play the game in that narrative fashion.




You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.  

No game system, be it Fate, D&D, Monopoly, or Diablo III on your Xbox, delivers any particular aesthetic or style of play if you aren't engaging with that style.  The rules are a tool, and you have to use the tool appropriately to yield a given result.  It cannot deliver a thing you aren't trying to get.

I am not really sure what "introspective" means in this context.  One of the first games published using Fate as Spirit of the Century, which is intended to be pulpy action.  You can engage in character navel-gazing... nor not.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2020)

innerdude said:


> most new systems these days have specific focuses on character backstory, personality traits, motivations, and desires.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...





Retreater said:


> Deep emotional experience is better in different art forms: literature, music, theatre, etc. The main difference is that stories and plots and characters can all be developed in those art forms because there's a real constructed format. D&D is more like a jam band session.



I think what Retreater points to is part of this - most great artworks are conceived of and produced with more preparation and curation than a typical RPG session.

There's also the fact that probably most RPGers aren't as skilled in their artistry as prominent novelists. For my part, I tend to think of good superhero comics (eg Death of Phoenix; Life Death; Born Again) as something to which a really good RPG session might come close.

But as far as your comments about system are concerned, maybe you need to try some different systems and even moreso some different techniques! Especially different GMing techniques. Not every character in every campaign I've ever played has had a dramatic character arc, but it's something I've seen multiple times in multiple systems. What will tend to produce it, in my experience, is (i) a player who is willing to find out where his/her PC goes (ie without too much preconception) and (ii) a GM who is willing to push on the player's willingness and follow it where it leads.

In my experience, it can be done without dropping the conceit of a "party". I don't think it can be done without dropping the conceit of the "adventure". The bells-and-whistles of the hooks/inputs you refer to can help, both by (i) helping the GM know where to push, and (ii) helping support the player in following the fiction without being worried about being hosed too badly. But again, in my experience at least, they're not essential.

One example where they did work to produce a very clear one-session character arc was in a session of Marvel Heroic RP. The player of Nightcrawler noticed his "Romantic" milestone, which culminates in 10 XP "
when you either break off a romantic relationship, or seek to enter into a more permanent partnership and ask your love to marry you." Over the course of the session he met a woman in a bar (a supervillain, natch), teleported her to the top of the Capitol Dome to have some intimate time together, and then abandoned her to join the fight against her friends in the Smithsonian Institute. The XP earned were used to (among other things) pay for a change of one Distinction from Devout Catholic to (I think, going from memory) The Devil Within.

It's not great literature, but it was character development that did produce emotional responses at the table - at least from me as GM (I wasn't expecting it, and was taken aback by this far-from-cute-and-cuddly Nightcrawler).


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2020)

Arilyn said:


> Hamlet's Hit Points is an excellent book by Robin D. Laws that can help gamers create more narrative drama in their games. It lays out narrative beats, how characters swing between hope and fear in stories, and how this can be laid down in our GMing. These tools Laws discusses are very helpful to groups who want deeper character driven story. He breaks down Hamlet, Casablanca and Dr. No as examples in his analysis.



I agree it's a good resource. But from memory doesn't he also suggest that, in RPGing, "procedural"/"external" beats are more common than internal/dramatic ones? Which seems to be @innerdude's concern.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 8, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I agree it's a good resource. But from memory doesn't he also suggest that, in RPGing, "procedural"/"external" beats are more common than internal/dramatic ones? Which seems to be @innerdude's concern.




Well, from a GM's point of view... internal beats are not something the GM has direct control over.  The GM can only produce an internal beat by having an external influence that then resonates with the player.


----------



## Arilyn (Feb 8, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I agree it's a good resource. But from memory doesn't he also suggest that, in RPGing, "procedural"/"external" beats are more common than internal/dramatic ones? Which seems to be @innerdude's concern.




For sure, the dramatic beats are a huge aid to the pacing of your game, which is external, but these beats are good to keep in mind with the tension arising between characters, both PCs and NPCs which drive drama and aid the GM in getting the players to examine and play out their characters' motivations.

I find the advice useful whether it's a light hearted action romp, or something more character driven.


----------



## Shiroiken (Feb 8, 2020)

prabe said:


> I don't doubt your experiences, but I think some players *can* play that way, with some GMs. I don't think system really matters, here; as you say, there really isn't a rule that will change this.



I concur, but even then it takes a masterful interaction between the player and DM. It's uncommon IME, but amazingly worthwhile when it occurs. One of my favorite characters went from being an arrogant snob, to an unworthy wretch, and finally redeemed himself and his family name. It was awesome, but took the entirety of the campaign from levels 1-15, which is not something that most players/DMs are willing to do.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 8, 2020)

To follow on from @Shiroiken 's point just above, IME while it's very possible to play a character based on its background and-or long-term goals, most (all?) of the time those long-term goals are going to span a much longer spread of time than the campaign can hope to cover.

As an example: in my current campaign a PC got lucky with a Deck and was granted a keep and title to a long-forgotten but very real Dwarven Duchy.  However on investigating this with the local bureaucrats, royalty, etc. he found that the associated rebooting and resettlement of said Duchy - never mind all the bureaucracy! - would take years if not decades.  As - barring something very unforeseen - there's no way in hell this campaign is going to span that much in-game time, the player kind of had to make a choice: long-term goals (sorting out the Duchy) vs adventuring (and largely ignoring the Duchy).  He chose the Duchy, and now that PC is seen only in cameo appearances now and then when people stop by his keep.

Also, in the heat of a combat in the middle of a regular-season adventure 2/3 of the way through the campaign, any thoughts of long-term goals get punted aside in favour of thoughts of what's gonna keep you alive for the next five minutes...and as typical adventuring is what we tend to spend most of our time doing when at the table it's hardly surprising that working toward long-term goals isn't easy.

Answer: more downtime.

Two reasons for this: first, more downtime allows characters more opportunity to work on non-adventuring goals and projects.  Second, more downtime means more time is passing in the game world, bringing the long-term - or at least the mid-term - more into play as the campaign goes on.  Things can be done while still adventuring, rather than having to be put off until after one's adventuring career is done.

But, the downside of more downtime (sorry 'bout that!) is that most downtime activities involve just one player and the DM, making them not that well-suited to being done at the table while everyone else sits and waits.

EDIT to add: long-term goals are often what drives a character to adventure in the first place, and thus can lead to character-driven play even in such things as choice of adventures, reasons for going along, etc.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Answer: more downtime.




Downtime though is often what happens that is not in the story.  It is the part of the movie that happens in the cut, or the part of the book that is off stage.  If the character development is occurring in the downtime, then that is the same as saying that character development can't be a substantial part of _play_.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2020)

So, it occurs to me that we might not be talking about exactly the same things.

When I talk about "character driven" play, what I imagine is play that revolves around exploration of a characters feelings and beliefs.  "Character driven" play usually involves low melodrama and is focused on intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts.   It mostly involves a whole lot of talking and involves play that is what Forge calls "actor stance" and often involves players using method acting techniques to get inside the head of a character and experience that characters emotions.   It involves the fantasy of being an alternate self.   You barely need any rules for it.  Your average four year old engaged in make believe has some amount of character driven play going on, and often has more real character driven play going on that your average table of adult RPG players.

To successfully engage in "character driven" play you need a table of players that all consent to it. The most important thing in character driven play is to be willing to be a sounding board for another player and to not be trying to win. Most attempts at character driven play I observe at tables fail either because the players lack the skills to respond to character driven hooks offered up by another player, or if they do respond the respond in a stance of trying to win as if a challenge has been offered up, often very obviously from a stance of real life annoyance because they feel the player is distracting from the "real game". Basically, if you have anyone at the table that has a 0% in how much value they perceive in character driven play, then you really aren't going to be successful with it as a player, or in fostering it as a GM. 

This is one of two reasons why "character driven" play as an aesthetic of play favors small groups. The other reason is that character driven play is slow and inherently puts spot light on a few players at once. If you have more than three or so persons engaged in low melodrama at a time, you have cacophony. Think about how a soap opera tends to put characters in two and threes, and allows the story to develop through interactions between individuals. This means that everyone has to be willing to wait there turn while people are involved in scenes, and the more people you have the harder that is. If you do have a large group that wants to play low melodrama, the most functional arrangement is little or no GM moderation and engaging in some sort of LARP where people can break into smaller groups to perform scenes. 

On the other hand, "narrative driven" play is any sort of play that focuses on the production of a story. Such play may or may not be "character driven" just as some stories aren't really character driven. Most often in RPGs you see narrative driven play in high melodrama, that is, involving contests between groups and ideological forces of which the characters are representatives or even archetypes. Where "character driven" play depends explicitly on the skill of the players, "narrative driven" play often depends explicitly on the skill of the GM to both lay out appropriate conflicts, and also to improvise creatively and opaquely to the players actions so that regardless of what the PCs do, it feels like the story is continuing in a meaningful manner. The common campaign format of "Adventure Paths" is designed to produce narrative driven play. In my experience though, it usually fails at this by offering too rigid of a framework, and most GMs simply fail to have the improvisational skills to keep the story going in a naturalistic way where the actions of the players seem to matter. This is the real failing of for example, the "Chronicles of the Dragon Lance". The possibility of a grand epic narrative is certainly there, but most players probably only experienced a railroad because it's entirely improbable that a DM wouldn't have to play the story out differently than it was laid out.

I've certainly experienced really great narrative play in a wide variety of systems, and I really feel that it is - like character driven play - independent of the system because the things that make it work work just as well without a system, playing make believe.   One thing though that bothers me is the difference between creation of story through play and creation of story through meta-play.   Just as @Lanefan suggested that one way to get character driven _play_ is to do it in the downtime, many independent or modern game systems seem to throw up their hands at the idea of creating narrative through actual play, and instead try a variety of techniques for creating narrative through meta-play.  For example, they may encourage you to retroactively and collectively craft a story explaining what just happened.  They may encourage the group to brainstorm about what the events of play meant, and to come to conclusions about how their character would respond to those events and mark some mechanical change in their character sheet.   And that annoys me to distraction, because we are no longer focused on creating good _play_, but on creating good transcripts of play.  Instead of experiencing a story through play, it seems like so many designers expect you to just produce the record of a story.   I consider this the difference in experience of being a character in a story, and being a member of a script writing team collectively producing a screenplay.   Both end up with a story, but the production of story wasn't in and of itself the experience I was going for.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 8, 2020)

Celebrim said:


> Downtime though is often what happens that is not in the story.  It is the part of the movie that happens in the cut, or the part of the book that is off stage.  If the character development is occurring in the downtime, then that is the same as saying that character development can't be a substantial part of _play_.



Only if you make it so. Downtime doesn't at all have to happen "offstage", or be handwaved.

If either the players are cool with taking turns with the DM during a session, or the DM is cool with doing some off-cycle work with individual players between sessions, all this character develpment stuff can occur side-along with adventuring play, and inform some events that might happen there along with whatever roleplay takes place.

But if it's all "cut" then of course it won't be seen as important.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> while it's very possible to play a character based on its background and-or long-term goals, most (all?) of the time those long-term goals are going to span a much longer spread of time than the campaign can hope to cover.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I think this is proving @innerdude's point more than explaining how to get more dramatic arcs.

Dramatic arcs aren't _playing based on background or long-term goals_. You can have dramatic arcs for characters who are spontaneous, or reckless, or careless with their lives.

And "downtime" isn't a solution to _the mechanics of play aren't producing dramatic arcs_. It's a concession of the point!

Anyway, your post is a really good illustration of why I say that, in order to get what the OP wants, one has to ditch the notion of "the adventure".


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 8, 2020)

Celebrim said:


> So, it occurs to me that we might not be talking about exactly the same things.



I think we kinda might be, but coming at it from different angles.



> When I talk about "character driven" play, what I imagine is play that revolves around exploration of a characters feelings and beliefs.  "Character driven" play usually involves low melodrama and is focused on intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts.   It mostly involves a whole lot of talking and involves play that is what Forge calls "actor stance" and often involves players using method acting techniques to get inside the head of a character and experience that characters emotions.   It involves the fantasy of being an alternate self.



All agreed, and this is often informed and aided by a character's long-term and-or short-term goals that don't involve adventuring.  That said, long-term goals often go far beyond the confines of the party (e.g. a long-term goal of a character of mine is to become Empress of [Rome]), but this can still inform in-party play as I try to form alliances, gain other PCs' trust and aid, and so on.



> To successfully engage in "character driven" play you need a table of players that all consent to it.



True, though I assume that consent always exists because otherwise why are you playing an *RP*G?



> This is one of two reasons why "character driven" play as an aesthetic of play favors small groups. The other reason is that character driven play is slow and inherently puts spot light on a few players at once.



I'll agree it's slow, and add that to me this is not a problem.


> If you have more than three or so persons engaged in low melodrama at a time, you have cacophony.



And hilarity, IME. 



> On the other hand, "narrative driven" play is any sort of play that focuses on the production of a story. Such play may or may not be "character driven" just as some stories aren't really character driven. Most often in RPGs you see narrative driven play in high melodrama, that is, involving contests between groups and ideological forces of which the characters are representatives or even archetypes. Where "character driven" play depends explicitly on the skill of the players, "narrative driven" play often depends explicitly on the skill of the GM to both lay out appropriate conflicts, and also to improvise creatively and opaquely to the players actions so that regardless of what the PCs do, it feels like the story is continuing in a meaningful manner. The common campaign format of "Adventure Paths" is designed to produce narrative driven play. In my experience though, it usually fails at this by offering too rigid of a framework, and most GMs simply fail to have the improvisational skills to keep the story going in a naturalistic way where the actions of the players seem to matter. This is the real failing of for example, the "Chronicles of the Dragon Lance". The possibility of a grand epic narrative is certainly there, but most players probably only experienced a railroad because it's entirely improbable that a DM wouldn't have to play the story out differently than it was laid out.



There's a third type of play - which I also commonly refer to as "character-driven" but defined differently than above - where instead of the DM choosing the adventures that get played the characters (via their players) choose, for in-character reasons likely related to their own goals.



> One thing though that bothers me is the difference between creation of story through play and creation of story through meta-play.   Just as @Lanefan suggested that one way to get character driven _play_ is to do it in the downtime, many independent or modern game systems seem to throw up their hands at the idea of creating narrative through actual play, and instead try a variety of techniques for creating narrative through meta-play.  For example, they may encourage you to retroactively and collectively craft a story explaining what just happened.  They may encourage the group to brainstorm about what the events of play meant, and to come to conclusions about how their character would respond to those events and mark some mechanical change in their character sheet.   And that annoys me to distraction, because we are no longer focused on creating good _play_, but on creating good transcripts of play. Instead of experiencing a story through play, it seems like so many designers expect you to just produce the record of a story. I consider this the difference in experience of being a character in a story, and being a member of a script writing team collectively producing a screenplay. Both end up with a story, but the production of story wasn't in and of itself the experience I was going for.



Yeah, that doesn't sound great. (actually it sounds like one of those hideous team-building exercises HR departments like to spring on employees at corporate conventions - bleah!)

That said, someone has to gather all the threads and try to string 'em together.  Usually that's the DM, going back over the game logs and seeing what might link into anything rsembling a story.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 8, 2020)

I think something people often miss is that their character is not the protagonist. They are the member of an ensemble cast.

They are also not the author, everyone at the table is and usually chance also plays a major role in determining the story.

This is going to provide a different experience than reading a novel.

RPGs are first and foremost social activities. It is important to not lose sight of that.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 8, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I think this is proving @innerdude's point more than explaining how to get more dramatic arcs.
> 
> Dramatic arcs aren't _playing based on background or long-term goals_. You can have dramatic arcs for characters who are spontaneous, or reckless, or careless with their lives.



Of course; but even a spontaneous or reckless or careless character is going to have some sort of goal(s), however off-the-farm those goals might be (says he, most of the characters of whom fall in to one or more of these categories!).



> And "downtime" isn't a solution to _the mechanics of play aren't producing dramatic arcs_. It's a concession of the point!



Yes it is a solution: if the downtime is played through at length rather than handwaved it then becomes the (or one of the) missing mechanical framework.



> Anyway, your post is a really good illustration of why I say that, in order to get what the OP wants, one has to ditch the notion of "the adventure".



From past and present experience I disagree.  One can have all kinds of character-driven play and still be running on an adventure-based framework - either that, or I've dreamed these last few hundred Saturday evenings instead of having been there. 

I suspect a lot of the problem might stem from some tables (or DMs) not allowing time for the melodrama and character interactions to play out, and then wondering why it doesn't happen.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 9, 2020)

innerdude said:


> And so I begin to wonder if the desire to have those kinds of emotionally resonant experiences during RPG play are somehow a fool's errand on my part. That I'm looking for a "character-driven" experience that simply isn't there and never really can be, and so should just accept RPG play for what it _is_, rather than trying to somehow keep reaching for this illusory experience that it's never once provided before.




No, it can be there. I've experienced it both as player and as GM...
But it requires...

A GM willing to work with the hooks the player provides
multiple players invested in it
players willing to let other players have story moments.
I've experienced it as a player, but only very rarely. Then again, I only play rarely.
I've experienced it most often in Ars Magica - 90% of the adventures were triggered by needing elements for player determined goals. The other 10% were added as "something big is happening"... but who responded was entirely player determined.

I've run Traveller games where everything was either player chosen or random rolled. Even the patron encounters were randomly selected from 76 Patrons. The players were free to explore the setting, or work on player determined elements, and because I backported TNE's Contacts to MT, the ability to add backstory people to the current fiction.

the thing is, if I hadn't been willing to let them define their contacts... or go with their setting decisions, or player set group goal, it wouldn't have worked.

Burning Wheel is better suited, but again, if the GM isn't on board, it's going to fail.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 9, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> There's a third type of play - which I also commonly refer to as "character-driven" but defined differently than above - where instead of the DM choosing the adventures that get played the characters (via their players) choose, for in-character reasons likely related to their own goals.




It's hard to know exactly what you are describing though with this sort of play though, and I feel it would cover basically any sort of game where the players have agency.

For example, it could be a traditional mega-dungeon with a haven/delve format, where the players decide each session which unexplored portion of the dungeon they wish to push based on their preferences.

Or you could have a sandbox of some sort, perhaps a hex crawl, where the players are exploring and evolving their own goals within the setting.

None of that need be particularly driven by the personality of the characters. For example, a wizard that is seeking a certain spell books, or a fighter seeking a famed magic sword, has a goal driven by the characters needs, but there is in this scenario no deep "emotional resonance" that the OP finds missing in his games. There may be great enjoyment, and feelings of accomplishment, and moments of awesomeness that earn one high fives that are latter reminisced about when recounting the good times of the campaign, but all of that really has more to do with the emotion of the player than the player connecting with the emotions of his character.

So what I feel is that what you are more often discussing is actually "player driven play" than it is "character driven play".   Player driven play is a great thing, but to me it feels rather tangential to what the OP is talking about.   Character driven play tends to produce deep emotional connections with NPCs and sometimes even with the characters of other players.  It gives you "the feels".


----------



## prabe (Feb 9, 2020)

Celebrim said:


> It's hard to know exactly what you are describing though with this sort of play though, and I feel it would cover basically any sort of game where the players have agency.
> 
> For example, it could be a traditional mega-dungeon with a haven/delve format, where the players decide each session which unexplored portion of the dungeon they wish to push based on their preferences.
> 
> ...




I can't speak for @Lanefan exactly, but I've gotten the feeling he's talking about something not unlike my campaigns, where there are goals the characters want to pursue, and they choose the order in which to pursue them. This is not exactly like choosing which door to kick open in a dungeon, or which hex to explore next in a wilderness. They come out of the characters' stories--sometimes backstories from before the beginning of the campaign, sometimes from things that have happened since--and there are frequently "feels" connected to them. Vengeance is common-ish, but there are mysteries to be solved and favors to be repaid; all of those can (and I'd say probably should) have emotional resonance.


----------



## dragoner (Feb 9, 2020)

I have a feeling that a lot of these posts are due to various systems that play differently.

In the trav pbp I run, the players do most of the heavy lifting in game, though I did a lot roughing out the near future setting. Some of the characters have been so good that random people reading the game have written me how much they appreciate it. Other games, not so much, though it is often one or two players driving the game, and others (like me) go along in their direction.


----------



## lordabdul (Feb 9, 2020)

I'm not quite sure what the OP is looking for... _of course_ a bunch of random nerds semi-improvising a story where there's no clear main protagonist and half the time they're busy looking up rules is _not_ going to come remotely close to a carefully and professionally crafted novel, at least in terms of thematic significance and character arcs. But it can be as satisfying and fun, or even more, because RPGs are way more than telling a story about a bunch of characters -- they're also a board game and an improv' show and a social gathering and so on. They're as much related to reading a novel as they are to playing in a free-style jazz band.

The thing about character arcs is that you tend to _design_ them. Knowing where you want your character to be at the end of the campaign isn't so much what I envision roleplaying to be -- I see it more as playing your character and seeing where he ends up. It's like throwing a pebble without knowing which way gravity points or whether there's wind, and watching what happens. You know the starting point and starting parameters, but you don't know quite what happens next. If you did, or if you were trying to force the end point (to get the arc you wanted) then it's... I don't know what it is. A kind of RPG equivalent to the "Once Upon A Time" card game (an awesome storytelling game where each player is trying to twist the tale to their ending card... try it!). For me on of the joys of RPG is that there's no character arc -- or only in retrospect, maybe.


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 9, 2020)

I think you just need the right DM and the right group of players. I happen to be blessed with a fantastic group of players. The amount of character growth I've seen in the last few sessions is incredible. They can fill a whole session with nothing but roleplaying. Just characters interacting with each other.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 9, 2020)

As a very recent example: in the game I just got home from we have in the party a Necromancer and two undead-hating Clerics (of which I play one).  We're in the adventure we're in largely because we're (we hope!) tying off some loose ends from a long DM plot; but most of the character development is coming from these three arguing about undead and-or trying to understand the uses and viewpoints of the other side.

My rp-ing in this case is largely informed by my backstory: to beat the setting's very long history down to 40 words, the game world MIRVed into four a while* back**; my character is from one world-version but adventuring on another, and the version I'm from is almost overrun with undead.

* - just how long ago depends on which world-version you're on, as time passed differently in each one.
** - and to add to the fun, the four world-versions just got mushed back into one a mere few weeks ago in game time.


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 9, 2020)

In my pirate campaign, one of my players has decided to follow the path to sainthood (a 3.5 prestige class). I made an agreement with the player that he would obtain sainthood as soon as his character performed a grand important accomplishment that was of religious significance. Unknown to the player in question, they were coming up to a quest that would do just that if they succeeded: To liberate a group of dwarven pirates from their ancient curse and restore their holy temple.

After they succeeded I gave him the prestige class of saint, but with all the crazy extras that come with being one. I had the player be heralded as some sort of prophet. Many people from around the coast had had a prophetic vision of him, and they all traveled in huge numbers to meet with him. People wanted his blessing, and wanted to touch him. A local nun came to verify his holyness, and wanted to wash his feet. Countless pilgrims brought small wooden statues of him. Others just came to ask him to heal their illnesses. The entire session was dedicated just to playing out this whole event, and the reactions of his companions.


----------



## Raduin711 (Feb 9, 2020)

I am a fan of the Mage: The Ascension rpg, and in my experience, it is an example of a game that only works as a character driven campaign. The scope of what a character can do is so broad in this game, that trying to come up with a D&D style challenge for the players is kind of a fool's errand. You might get a little mileage out of it, but the vast scope of what a Mage can do means that whatever web you weave will have the strings cut rather quickly.

Mysteries are difficult to keep secret when your players can read minds and look into the past. Things are hard to keep out of the player's reach when they can scry and teleport. Combat? If you know you are headed into a fight, most battles are over before they began. Supplies? You can manipulate fate and bet it all on roulette and win, or turn garbage into gold.

I have seen Mage GM's try to run games like this, and their plots just fall apart at the seams. It's very similar to the problems of high-level D&D games.

So the game has to shift to the other foot; rather than asking the GM "what are we doing today, boss?" it becomes "Alright, so you can look through time/go wherever you want/bend fate to your will/turn trash into gold/etc... what are you going to DO with this power?" So now instead of the players reacting to whatever scenario you've cooked up, you are reacting to the players. 

I think character-driven play is difficult for low-power characters because they lack the sort of power needed to influence the game world.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 9, 2020)

The OP includes the following key passages:



innerdude said:


> I have found it to be nigh impossible to drift into what I would consider a true "character-driven" style of play.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Examples of players inventing and pursuing goals for their PCs, or engaging in mechanically unmediated intraparty roleplay, aren't showing that the OP is wrong. _They're evidence in favour of the points made_.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 9, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> I've run Traveller games where everything was either player chosen or random rolled. Even the patron encounters were randomly selected from 76 Patrons.



My current Traveller campaign resembles this - though the random patron rolls are just on the main table, with me as GM using contemporary GMing techniques (standard scene-framey stuff) to decide what exactly the patrons want.

But the campaign is one of the less _character_-driven I've run in the past couple of decades. It's much more "procedural" than "dramatic". I haven't found that the system brings out much in terms of character inner lives.



aramis erak said:


> Burning Wheel is better suited



Absolutely - doing character-driven play in the OP's sense is more-or-less its schtick.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 9, 2020)

@innerdude

As I’ve suggested before, try Dogs and try Blades.

They don’t produce GM-curated, Player Power Fantasies or insipid, ensemble cast wandering through thematic murk. The mechanics and GMing produce people that struggle, often fail, may/likely break, and maybe redeem/recover (though often not).

You have to put in WORK to not derive what you’re looking for in the lead post in those two games. Simply playing the actual game does the trick.


----------



## lordabdul (Feb 9, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Examples of players inventing and pursuing goals for their PCs, or engaging in mechanically unmediated intraparty roleplay, aren't showing that the OP is wrong. _They're evidence in favour of the points made_.



But surely, even if it's "mechanically unmediated" (because the impulse is entirely player driven[1]), the mechanics play a role in both the ongoing events, and in their outcome? As the player pursue their character goals, they do so, by definition, by using the mechanics of the game. And every step of the way, their character sheet is modified by the choices they've made: they gain experience and levels, they lose sanity, they acquire new mental or physical disadvantages/traits/whatever they're called in your system, etc.... no?

[1] note that for some system, the impulse might be semi-rules-driven, like a character trait that the system incentivizes you to pursue.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 9, 2020)

pemerton said:


> <snippage>
> But as far as your comments about system are concerned, maybe you need to try some different systems and even moreso some different techniques! Especially different GMing techniques. Not every character in every campaign I've ever played has had a dramatic character arc, but it's something I've seen multiple times in multiple systems. What will tend to produce it, in my experience, is (i) a player who is willing to find out where his/her PC goes (ie without too much preconception) and (ii) a GM who is willing to push on the player's willingness and follow it where it leads.
> 
> In my experience, it can be done without dropping the conceit of a "party". I don't think it can be done without dropping the conceit of the "adventure". The bells-and-whistles of the hooks/inputs you refer to can help, both by (i) helping the GM know where to push, and (ii) helping support the player in following the fiction without being worried about being hosed too badly. But again, in my experience at least, they're not essential.
> ...




I was about to say something similar to this. In contrast to the chorus of "mechanics can't do it". You need mechanics to encourage it. The big carrot for players tends to be XP. So, you need to build an XP system that rewards going through a character arc of some sort. I think _The Shadow of Yesterday_ was perhaps the precursor for this sort of thing. Most of the ones I've seen follow suit. Swap the XP system out of D&D for some sort of character arc system and voila, you'll have it. The only problem you'll have (from experience) is players not taking it seriously, and just "popping" their arc-conclusions. A really good system will work them into the rest of the mechanics as well. I think Fate is (by default) mediocre at this, but there are some additional rules hacks that let it work okay.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 9, 2020)

Ratskinner said:


> I was about to say something similar to this. In contrast to the chorus of "mechanics can't do it". You need mechanics to encourage it. The big carrot for players tends to be XP. So, you need to build an XP system that rewards going through a character arc of some sort. I think _The Shadow of Yesterday_ was perhaps the precursor for this sort of thing. Most of the ones I've seen follow suit. Swap the XP system out of D&D for some sort of character arc system and voila, you'll have it. The only problem you'll have (from experience) is players not taking it seriously, and just "popping" their arc-conclusions. A really good system will work them into the rest of the mechanics as well. I think Fate is (by default) mediocre at this, but there are some additional rules hacks that let it work okay.




Agreed.

This is why you need (a) coherent incentive structures broadly, (b) multiple player-facing, mechanical pressure-points/levers that can materialize fiction (or not, given the product play) that integrates the premise of play (in relation to this thread; the dramatic arc of a changing character) and players' habitation of the mental/emotional space of their characters as outcomes propel play, and (c) well-rendered (meaning coherent and easy to understand), transparent GMing advice that synergizes with (a) and (b).


----------



## JeffB (Feb 9, 2020)

Having only read the OP-

"Books are Books. Games are Games."

That's an old, old magazine article in The Dragon from the 1970s. Still worth a read today.


----------



## LordEntrails (Feb 9, 2020)

I have found that character driven play is dependent upon several factors, one of which is the group of players, and a second is the format.

When everyone is sitting around a table for a couple of hours, the mini games of combat and acquisition seem to have a great deal of prominence, but when you change to a more narrative environment, the type of play can change as well.

Specifically, play by post (or email) is an environment that I've found to resonate with not only story driven players, but also with story driven campaigns. 

If you are not getting something you want you want from playing RPGs around a table, then try playing them another way. You might be surprised how much you enjoy it.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Feb 9, 2020)

Imagine you're a Game Master with players who are interested in whatever game, system, or adventure you're offering to run for them. Doesn't matter what it is. It could be the latest adventure module as written, or something completely homebrewed. Even if it is completely open-ended and sandbox-like, you have something in mind to lead the group and draw them into a storyline that you hope they will find compelling and inclusive for both the players and their characters.

For the sake of argument, let's assume you offer to run the latest D&D adventure product, and your players are excited for it. Everyone in the group is at least familiar with the system, and this is not your first time running games for them. But since you have a life and a full-time job outside of gaming, you tend to run modules mostly as written. Nobody really minds because you're a competent GM who is reliable, engaging, and always prepared even when the group inevitably goes "off the rails".

So let's say you propose to run *Tomb of Annihilation* (which is one that I am familiar with). You establish your parameters for the group during a session 0 and lay out the expectations. It will be set in *Forgotten Realms*, which is familiar to your group. You describe the setting where it is expected to take place (i.e. mostly in the jungles of Chult). And give a brief introduction of the themes, which include navigating the tropical jungles, fighting exhaustion from heat and dehydration, tomb raiding, and dealing with the death curse. Characters are expected to start at level 1 and get up to level 11-12 by the end.

Now here come your players with their character ideas...

_Player 1 _dives right in with one of his regular class/race builds optimized to beat the game. He couldn't tell you anything about his character except what is on his character sheet, though he could tell you exactly which options and level dips he will be taking during any step of the campaign. And his character's motive is to become the best <class> ever, which the player thinks is sufficient enough to appease the GM. It is not, but the GM knows how to pick his battles and moves on.
_Player 2_ wants to play the most exotic race imaginable (i.e. one that lives underwater, or usually reviled by others) because "humans are boring", and then proceeds to play his character like a boring human dressed up in some exotic costume. His background and motive may be suitable, but the GM must spend extra time and effort explaining this unusual creature and finding a narrative that is more interesting than the fact that the creature's existence in the campaign itself and why everyone else is okay with it. A more common and accepted race would require less explanation and shoehorning.
_Player 3 _rages against the idea of playing in another *Forgotten Realms* game and insists on having a character from another plane or world, complete with an over-developed background story that involves his preferred setting and can have NO CHANCE whatsoever of being worked into this campaign without porting over part of that world or setting with him.
_Player 4 _is all about roleplaying, which in her mind can only be accomplished through social interactions with accompanied skill checks, like Diplomacy and Bluff. She opts for choices that strengthen her abilities to influence anyone she can communicate with (i.e. control the actions and outcomes of others), thus removing any real GM agency or control. However, she quickly grows to loathe combat, for which many sessions will have in this campaign, as she is very ineffective and prone to fall unconscious whenever she becomes a target.
Finally, _Player 5_ is much like the OP of this thread. He cannot understand why the GM is incapable of providing a deep, emotional experience for his character even though he provided a fully detailed and interesting backstory, complete with motives, hooks, and potential tie-ins for the GM to use. The GM thinks he can incorporate some of those ideas with some tweaks and changing the details to use some of the things already in the campaign that the player doesn't know about, but the player feels that the GM is trying to rob him of his agency and creativity if he doesn't follow the player's ideas exactly.
If you're the Game Master here, where do you think the problem might be? Are you blaming yourself for not being more flexible and accommodating? Do you think maybe the players don't trust you because they feel more entitled to play exactly what they want, even ignoring the parameters and advice you are willing to provide at the start? Or are they satisfied to play in "your story", even though it's clearly not your story but a published module that you didn't create, as long as they can play "their story" in it?

In literature, as in any narrative, good stories are about characters; characters that belong in the story. If you want to create a narrative game experience that involves your characters, learn to collaborate with the people involved.

Only the GM has information and insight about what is to come, and they may not want to reveal and ruin some of the surprise. Give the seeds for your character and trust your GM to work it into the game in a way that you couldn't possibly foresee. The results may surprise and delight you.

Also, work with the other players to develop relationships between your characters beyond what skills and roles to take. They don't need to be friends or agree on certain topics, which makes it more interesting at times. But they don't need to blindly accept whoever shows up at the table, either. You want a deeper story for your hero? Look at your cast of co-stars. Remember: Monologues are for villains.


----------



## chaochou (Feb 9, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> As I’ve suggested before, try Dogs and try Blades.
> 
> They don’t produce GM-curated, Player Power Fantasies or insipid, ensemble cast wandering through thematic murk. The mechanics and GMing produce people that struggle, often fail, may/likely break, and maybe redeem/recover (though often not).




I tend to agree, although I don't think those games will automatically produce the richness of change and realisation the OP is alluding to... that takes good players.

I've been through a similar arc to the OP, and it took a long time to get my friends out of banale power fantasy land, with its cartoon combat and safe reliable magic, and back into the headspace of real people. And by a long time, I mean a number of games - maybe eight or nine.

If I was doing it again, I'd start with several one-shots - character change of the type in the OP can be realised in a single session very powerfully, and more safely from a player point of view. And I'd look for games which absolutely want that as a central tenet of play. Personally I'd go for Sorcerer (Adept Press) which is entirely about a character (or characters) each facing their own moment of crisis and how they change while dealing with it.

When the group is able to play Sorcerer _well_ as a one-shot or over three or four sessions to create a satisfying set of interlinked character arcs - then I think Dogs and Blades are great suggestions.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 9, 2020)

LordEntrails said:


> When everyone is sitting around a table for a couple of hours, the mini games of combat and acquisition seem to have a great deal of prominence



You seem to be assuming D&D here. Sit around the table playing (say) Cthulhu Dark or Prince Valiant or even Classic Traveller and, at least in my experience, this won't happen.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 9, 2020)

Jacob Lewis said:


> Imagine you're a Game Master with players who are interested in whatever game, system, or adventure you're offering to run for them. Doesn't matter what it is. It could be the latest adventure module as written, or something completely homebrewed. Even if it is completely open-ended and sandbox-like, you have something in mind to lead the group and draw them into a storyline that you hope they will find compelling and inclusive for both the players and their characters.
> 
> For the sake of argument, let's assume you offer to run the latest D&D adventure product, and your players are excited for it.
> 
> ...



What you describe here won't deliver the sort of play the OP is talking about.

There can't be dramatic character arcs if "the story" is already written (by the GM or the module author or whomever) and the GM _already knows what is to come_.

Doubly so if the GM has already decided what that story will be _independently of the development by the players of their characters._

This essay by Ron Edwards is pretty relevant to what @innerdude is talking about.

Here's a salient quote:

How this works is pretty simple: the primary pre-play creative work lies in character creation, with setting elements being utilized or even invented strictly to generate conflicts and issues are exemplified by those characters. “Real” setting, or rather, the development of setting that’s genuinely external to the characters, is an emergent property of playing for a while, and it emerges simultaneously with the emergence of plot from the characters’ actions and experiences.​
This is related to my comment upthread that the notion of "the adventure" has to be dropped. In my personal experience this is more important than particular mechanical bells-and-whistles.



Jacob Lewis said:


> regular class/race builds optimized to beat the game
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



There seem to be many assumptions here that are at odds with the sort of play the OP is talking about.

_Beating the game _only makes sense for a certain sort of RPGing, involving a certain range of systems (D&D and T&T most prominently). I don't think those are what @innerdude has in mind.

And there also seem to be assumptions about "GM agency" - often also called _GM force_ - which are pretty much orthogonal to what the OP is talking about. In RPGing, you don't get emotionally engaging character arcs by having the GM tell you what happens to your PC. The player needs to be able to impact the fiction. (Whether that is via social, combat or other mechanics seems a secondary matter.)


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Feb 9, 2020)

pemerton said:


> What you describe here won't deliver the sort of play the OP is talking about.
> 
> There can't be dramatic character arcs if "the story" is already written (by the GM or the module author or whomever) and the GM _already knows what is to come_.
> 
> Doubly so if the GM has already decided what that story will be _independently of the development by the players of their characters._



Yes, that is exactly right. My example was intended to illustrate the same dilemma that the OP described, but in a more detailed and all-too-common scenario with a popular system that doesn't normally support this kind of experience during play. In fact, it makes the same assumptions that you're pointing out - that everyone assumes the GM can't or won't engage with the players to incorporate their characters as the focus of a narrative because it may deviate from the written path. Likewise, players are unwilling to give up what they feel is their entitlement to have complete control over their characters instead of collaborating to create something complimentary and complete. System and mechanics don't matter. It can be done. I do it all the time.


----------



## Wulffolk (Feb 10, 2020)

The old White Wolf games had some excellent essays on role-playing and story-telling included in the core books. Ars Magica and The World of Darkness games really evolved my perspective on RPGs.

On some levels their influence ruined my ability to enjoy D&D because I was constantly seeking in D&D the depth of role-playing that I experienced in the various StoryTeller game systems.

One of the major differences I have noticed through the years is the trend of making maps and miniatures such a huge part of a game. I think this tends to focus the game more on combat and tactics. I almost always had much deeper role-playing experiences in the old days of D&D when we played in the "Theatre of the Mind" rather than on a hex map or grid. This is one of the advantages of the StoryTeller games, they are usually played in the "Theatre of the Mind" and thus require more imagination.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 10, 2020)

Jacob Lewis said:


> Now here come your players with their character ideas...
> 
> Finally, _Player 5_ is much like the OP of this thread. He cannot understand why the GM is incapable of providing a deep, emotional experience for his character even though he provided a fully detailed and interesting backstory, complete with motives, hooks, and potential tie-ins for the GM to use. The GM thinks he can incorporate some of those ideas with some tweaks and changing the details to use some of the things already in the campaign that the player doesn't know about, but the player feels that the GM is trying to rob him of his agency and creativity if he doesn't follow the player's ideas exactly.




Player 5 is problem enough that I'd show them the door. The intransigence makes them a total non-team player.

In a system like Spirit of the Century (FATE), with group character gen, and other players having input into your character, such a player simply cannot exert their control demand, because they're already had to forfeit it. Players like #5 will whinge through CGen, and then through play.

I don't see that intransigence in the OP's point of view, but there's not enough to dismiss intransigence, either. So I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

I will say that a deep (especially multi-page typed) backstory is an impediment to character driven narrative, not a benefit. The more, the harder to make use of, because what's important isn't clear.  If you have a 4 party group, and all four have 2 pages typed, that's 8 pages of potentially incompatible that the GM has to integrate. 

Meanwhile, if each provides 3-4 good strong bullet points of one  to two lines each, those are much easier to parse, and much less likely to be "run over" by each other and the GM.

I've found often enough that the best solution for frustrated players looking for character driven  is to play rules-less play-by-post. I've found the players in such tend to respect each others backstories, and engage with them, but it's a very different activity from FTF tabletop.

It's doable in FTF... but it's work that the whole party must agree to do, too.


----------



## prabe (Feb 10, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> Player 5 is problem enough that I'd show them the door. The intransigence makes them a total non-team player.
> 
> In a system like Spirit of the Century (FATE), with group character gen, and other players having input into your character, such a player simply cannot exert their control demand, because they're already had to forfeit it. Players like #5 will whinge through CGen, and then through play.
> 
> ...




I think that your definition of "deep" and mine are different. If I get ~1500 words of decently-written backstory from each of 6 players, I can incorporate that, so long as they all realize they're at the beginnings of their stories. Left to my own devices, I write backstories of between 1000 and 1500 words, including whatever mechanics are implicated.

That doesn't mean there's no such thing as "too much backstory," just that our thresholds are different. Probably it's a good idea to ask your GM how much he wants/


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Feb 10, 2020)

I'm not 100% sure that I understand what the OP is talking about. My role-playing experiences _usually_ have the sorts of character-driven play that @Celebrim described in some detail, which I'm grateful for. I think @innerdude  might be getting at something a bit different, but I'm not sure how to place it.

The primary group I play with does a lot of the "method acting style" and sometimes that ends up with characters developing and evolving internally in ways that make sense in the ongoing campaign. I am usually _intentional_ in choosing which part of my personality to  into a character I play, so that I will have something to strongly relate with and work with (or even work through in a therapeutic manner).

For example, in a very character-driven (by Celebrim's definition) 3.5e Ravenloft campaign, my character represented my "scared child" personality component. Over the course of the campaign, as he faced terrible Ravenlofty things and interacted with a group of other well-roleplayed characters, he was forced to address his "inner demons" (mechanically reflected  by his class, a variant Wilder whose powers were occasionally Ravenloft-corrupted, but thematically addressed through dream sequences and just normal choices during play). He experienced/expressed new aspects of his fears and gradual sense of empowerment through the psionic powers I decided to have him acquire as he leveled up. He also met, developed a relationship with, and eventually married a complex NPC (who, now that I think about it, might easily be described as having a transformative character arc as described in the OP). By the end of the campaign he had overcome/processed much of his fear. Instead of being an Innocent (Ravenloft jargon) farm boy cursed with terrifying powers, somewhat reluctantly traveling around with this motley crew to help out his cousin in the fight against evil, he was a competent, if humble, hero aware of and in reasonable control of those abilities within himself (mechanically reflected by taking a level of Psion near the end of the campaign to pick up a few low-level powers that he didn't have to worry about random downsides using), and willing to step up and do what needed to be done because it was the right thing, not just out of filial piety. Even though his personality is quite a bit different than my own, I was able to take the couple of elements I related to and "get into his head", so that I could experience his journey as if I were him.

I think this does differ from what I'd experience with a book or movie.

Despite my connection with the character, I couldn't be as moved _by_ him, because I was the mover _of_ him.

I think this is _huge_, and if no one has ever defined this principle before, I'm going to do it right now:

_The author cannot also be the audience_

If you write a story (say a book or short story), you will never get the same emotional effect as someone reading it might. You know what's going to happen. You have _control_ over it. You can have your villain massacre puppies and it isn't going to affect you the same way as it will the reader. More realistically, when you choose an ending out of a few possibilities, you might get a great sense of satisfaction out of making it work out according to your vision of how it should be, or feel a sense of dissatisfaction if it could've been better, but you will never feel the rage and anguish of those who are pissed off at you for "ending the story wrong".(1) _They_ got invested(2) with the characters and wanted a certain ending, and were devastated when that's not what happened. You might be sorry they felt that way, but you had a creative vision and think you did a really good job with it. While I remember those authorial betrayals (lol) better, the experience is similar with stories when you _really_ like the ending on an emotional level. For instance, I loved the final (2-part) episode of Star Trek: Voyager (other than the lack of post resolution denouement right at the end) because of Janeway's love for her friends and her conviction driving her to (in contrast with her normal choices) completely disregard all "the rules" and _literally go back in time to fix all the bad stuff_ that happened over the past (13?) or so years. There was just this exultant sense of _rightness_ to what she did. A strange, rebellious cosmic justice. And it didn't negate everything that had happened before, because all of the losses over the series were still there--just the losses in the many years between that episode and the previous one were resolved. I got that emotional connection you are talking about. If I had been the author I don't believe that would have been possible.

As far as the reason for this phenomenon, I'm not sure, but I suspect it has to do with there being interpersonal interaction when you are the audience consuming a story composed by someone else, whereas when you yourself are the author it is a solo experience that isn't as emotionally rich _in that way_ as the interpersonal one. The fact is, as much as you might be _creatively_ invested, even to the extent of strong emotion involving that creativity, as much as you might have a strong sense of delight, or disappointment with your work, you can't have the sort of _visceral_ emotional investment that the consumer has regarding the fate that you created for those characters.

So, although I'm still not 100% sure I've identified exactly what phenomenon @innerdude is referring to (and in this type of conversation, I think exact identification is essential), based on the medium of role-playing, I would be surprised if that principle isn't at play here. As long as you are playing (ie, authoring) the character, you can't have the same experience as you could have as the audience of the performance.

Perhaps a way you _could_ get something like that is through the character-driven development of your fellow PCs.

I also think there are experiences you can get through playing a character that you can't get as well through either authoring a story _or_ being a consuming audience. The one I brought up is the therapeutic element of self-exploration. Your ability to guide that interaction dynamically through your character's choices when presented with an environment (by the GM/setting) makes it more effective than authoring a story in the traditional way, or than identifying with the experiences an author chose for some other  character as you read/watch their story.

I get the idea that this therapeutic benefit is simply one manifestation of a larger beneficial effect (probably also themed around self-exploration) at work here--one in which role-playing is the best at providing--but I haven't really delved into exactly what that would be. Of course, now that's it's occurred to me I'm not going to be satisfied until I understand it.

Hope that was helpful!


(1) You might feel the rage and anguish of not being able to end the dang story, or not having it appreciated, etc, but that is all outside the story and different than audience investment.
(2) Apparently research indicates that binge watching/reading heightens this emotional investment


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 10, 2020)

prabe said:


> I think that your definition of "deep" and mine are different. If I get ~1500 words of decently-written backstory from each of 6 players, I can incorporate that, so long as they all realize they're at the beginnings of their stories. Left to my own devices, I write backstories of between 1000 and 1500 words, including whatever mechanics are implicated.
> 
> That doesn't mean there's no such thing as "too much backstory," just that our thresholds are different. Probably it's a good idea to ask your GM how much he wants/



In my experience, unless all the players work together to craft them at 1500 words each, there will be incompatibilities. Some players won't mind reconciliation between them, others will. I don't want the later

I've found that few players are going to play more than about 150 words worth of that 1500... and I'd rather have the bullet points than the prose.  Mileage may vary, But the basic point is, there is such a thing as too much, and the more one writes, the more one needs to coordinate with the other players for it to neither conflict nor be irrelevant.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 10, 2020)

A lot of games that might be thought of as involving and promoting "character-driven" RPGing - eg, as mentioned in this thread, DitV, Sorcerer, BitD, Burning Wheel - are a direct reaction _against_ a certain sort of approach to Storyteller and similar RPGs.

For instance, they tend to emphasise GM and mechanical transparency, resolution frameworks that can be initiated by players and are binding on GMs, and an absence of pre-written "story" or "metaplot".

Because of @innerdude's emphasis in the OP on _mechanics_ that produce, via play, character arcs, I assume that he (?) is thinking more about those sorts of systems than ones in which mechanics take a back-seat to GM decision-making and the players' principal job is to imbue their performances with authenticity.


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 10, 2020)

I'm not sure if gameplay mechanics are what you need to get to a character-driven experience. I do think that things such as handing out rewards for character development and good roleplaying, can certainly help promote a character driven experience. But I think at the heart of it all are not the mechanics, but the DM and the players themselves as the guiding force of it all.

I think it is up to the DM to come up with a plot and npc's that the players can get emotionally invested in. But it is also up to the players to make that connection, and interact with the fiction. It is then up to the DM to allow the players to further explore these narrative beats, and to respond to their actions in a way that feels meaningful.

Sometimes the DM may need to force a plot development in order to keep the players engaged. An important npc may need to die, in order for the plot to progress in an exciting way. But just as important is that the DM is able to tie the various sub plots and the players' choices together into a cohesive whole.

When all of these pieces come together, that is when you get a fantastic story that is a combination between the plot beats as written by the DM, and the choices of the players. I don't think there is a special trick, or a specific set of rules that will magically make all that happen. Some groups may never get up to that point.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Feb 10, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Because of @innerdude's emphasis in the OP on _mechanics_ that produce, via play, character arcs, I assume that he (?) is thinking more about those sorts of systems than ones in which mechanics take a back-seat to GM decision-making and the players' principal job is to imbue their performances with authenticity.



Yes, but I don't believe he (we) should limit ourselves by thinking that the mechanics of the game should inhibit our ability and imagination. A game like D&D, which is hard coded for combat and tactics, might not be the best system for deep, immersive, character-driven story telling. But that doesn't stop us from playing that way if we so choose. Like them or not, _Critical Role_ has proven that the system is not a barrier.


----------



## prabe (Feb 10, 2020)

Jacob Lewis said:


> Yes, but I don't believe he (we) should limit ourselves by thinking that the mechanics of the game should inhibit our ability and imagination. A game like D&D, which is hard coded for combat and tactics, might not be the best system for deep, immersive, character-driven story telling. But that doesn't stop us from playing that way if we so choose. Like them or not, _Critical Role_ has proven that the system is not a barrier.




I'd go further than "system is not a barrier" here. Not only will some systems work better for some players (occasinally in surprising combinations), some players will deeply engage with their characters in any system, using whatever handles they can find in whatever system they're playing.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Feb 10, 2020)

pemerton said:


> A lot of games that might be thought of as involving and promoting "character-driven" RPGing - eg, as mentioned in this thread, DitV, Sorcerer, BitD, Burning Wheel - are a direct reaction _against_ a certain sort of approach to Storyteller and similar RPGs.
> 
> For instance, they tend to emphasise GM and mechanical transparency, resolution frameworks that can be initiated by players and are binding on GMs, and an absence of pre-written "story" or "metaplot".
> 
> Because of @innerdude's emphasis in the OP on _mechanics_ that produce, via play, character arcs, I assume that he (?) is thinking more about those sorts of systems than ones in which mechanics take a back-seat to GM decision-making and the players' principal job is to imbue their performances with authenticity.




One of the things that I notice, as far as my own experiences go, is that the more a system hard-codes mechanical systems for encouraging, rewarding, and integrating that sort if thing, the less I can actually emotionally connect to it.

I don't know where exactly @innerdude is coming from, but to get strong experiences of emotional connection with a character I need to have as strongly first person, primarily actor stance style as possible. When a system gamifies the experience, that creates a level of abstraction (sometimes more than one) that is an emotional barrier between me and the character. Sure, it might assist in "writing a story" (as much as that is possible in this format), but it gets in the way of personal investment with the character. It's substantially worse in that regard than a detailed simulation -heavy character sheet with a big list of mechanical elements and game jargon.


----------



## lordabdul (Feb 10, 2020)

Sword of Spirit said:


> When a system gamifies the experience, that creates a level of abstraction (sometimes more than one) that is an emotional barrier between me and the character.



Very good point, yeah. And of course it depends on each player -- I know that some of my players for instance love systems with advantages/disadvantages (like GURPS or FATE and such), because they use these traits and rolls as a _support_ for their roleplay, but I know that some of my other players see it totally the opposite way, as something that constrains and formalizes their roleplaying performance in a "crude" way, and that they feel gets in the way... so I use other systems with them.

But that has to do with session-by-session roleplay though. The OP was talking about character arcs over the course of multiple adventures. In many ways, systems that formalize a character's traits ("who they are", as opposed to just "what they can do") actually help with character arcs because they almost always include mechanics for adding/removing traits during play (like "buying off" your drug addiction or kleptomania or selfishness or whatever), so they effectively promote character arcs, even if they do so in a way that some players will consider as clunky or as an "emotional barrier"... in which case, those players tend to play with systems that don't do that, and therefore really only have the GM and other people at their table to rely on to be able to engage in a character-changing narrative arc, so you either have the right group or you don't.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2020)

Jacob Lewis said:


> A game like D&D, which is hard coded for combat and tactics, might not be the best system for deep, immersive, character-driven story telling. But that doesn't stop us from playing that way if we so choose. Like them or not, _Critical Role_ has proven that the system is not a barrier.




Um... no.  Or, not quite.

Do remember that Critical Role is made up of _professional actors_ - people who have specific talent, extensive training and experience in emoting and acting in distracting situations.  Saying, "Well, it can be done on Critical Role, so it can be done by anyone," simply is not true, and does a disservice to folks who are trying, but not succeeding, by blaming them for not being good enough.

Imagine that that you are playing, and at random moments, a 7 year old kid in the room blats out horrendous noise from a trumpet.  It's probably really distracting.  It probably puts you off your game, brings you out of the moment.  That's what an ill-fitting ruleset, or one ill-designed for this purpose, can do to a player - be a horrible distraction.


----------



## prabe (Feb 10, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Imagine that that you are playing, and at random moments, a 7 year old kid in the room blats out horrendous noise from a trumpet.  It's probably really distracting.  It probably puts you off your game, brings you out of the moment.  That's what an ill-fitting ruleset, or one ill-designed for this purpose, can do to a player - be a horrible distraction.




Sure, but it might that *that* system doesn't work for *that* player. Another player may be able to work in that system without problems, and the player may be able to work in another system without problems. That's not to say that some systems aren't better-designed than others, just that there are personal preferences at play as well.


----------



## lordabdul (Feb 10, 2020)

Umbran said:


> That's what an ill-fitting ruleset, or one ill-designed for this purpose, can do to a player - be a horrible distraction.



Not even counting the people who _actually have_ a 7 year old kid running around the gaming table making horrendous noises from a trumpet  (yes, many of us game with kids around at least occasionally)


----------



## uzirath (Feb 10, 2020)

lordabdul said:


> I know that some of my players for instance love systems with advantages/disadvantages (like GURPS or FATE and such), because they use these traits and rolls as a _support_ for their roleplay, but I know that some of my other players see it totally the opposite way, as something that constrains and formalizes their roleplaying performance in a "crude" way, and that they feel gets in the way....




I've experienced this range with player preferences too. I once played in an innovative GURPS game with a bunch of hardcore method actor types that attempted to circumvent this to some degree. We developed characters with skills and advantages but left disadvantages and quirks blank for the first few sessions. Then, after experiencing the characters facing challenges (both internal and external), we added character elements that fit. It helped that the GM was completely willing to customize or invent new disads to fit the character concepts. This wouldn't work with every group, but it was a pretty fun way of going about it at this particular table.



> In many ways, systems that formalize a character's traits ("who they are", as opposed to just "what they can do") actually help with character arcs because they almost always include mechanics for adding/removing traits during play (like "buying off" your drug addiction or kleptomania or selfishness or whatever), so they effectively promote character arcs, even if they do so in a way that some players will consider as clunky or as an "emotional barrier"...




I have also played at GURPS tables where official disadvantages were entirely optional. Players that found them cumbersome skipped them and roleplayed their characters as they saw fit. This worked well but required two things: a GM who was flexible about character point values, and players who were committed to roleplaying complex characters who didn't just choose system-optimal choices at every turn. While the latter would technically work in GURPS (no disads mean you have no mechanical limitations within the scope of your character's defined attributes and skills), it would depart from the culture of the table which was very much about flawed heroes.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Feb 10, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Do remember that Critical Role is made up of _professional actors_ - people who have specific talent, extensive training and experience in em6oting and acting in distracting situations.  Saying, "Well, it can be done on Critical Role, so it can be done by anyone," simply is not true, and does a disservice to folks who are trying, but not succeeding, by blaming them for not being good enough.



That is not what was implied; that is what you inferred. Happens a lot around here, actually. It was meant to be a relatable point, but I see some people have different opinions about the show and what it represents, so apologies for bringing that up as an example. 

My point still stands, however. It is quite possible, even if you're not a trained actor. That shouldn't even be a qualifier in this discussion, come to think of it. And my comment certainly wasn't intended that way. So again, inference just muddies the waters. :/


----------



## Sadras (Feb 10, 2020)

pemerton said:


> There can't be dramatic character arcs if "the story" is already written (by the GM or the module author or whomever) and the GM _already knows what is to come_.
> 
> Doubly so if the GM has already decided what that story will be _independently of the development by the players of their characters._




For a long time I would have agreed with this point of view, but my players have taught me otherwise. I cannot claim to be a great DM or player, I try as best to provide reasonable/logical twists that surprise the players and engage the characters using as much of their backgroud they allow me to mold but the best dramatic arcs and character development have occured between party members, and sometimes independent of the main story.

Just this weekend I witnessed this - an incredible piece of invested roleplaying between two sibling PCs. This had all been pre-thought out by the players that at some point they would have an epic argument about their relationship and their "shared" beliefs that would effectively forever change them and their relationship.

I and the other player present did nothing but watched in awe as this all played out in a game of D&D. No rolls were needed, just an intense honest conversation that flowed naturally between two characters.

At the end of it, I felt that I should have given them xps or some reward for this amazing piece of roleplaying. I'm still thinking about it...

It is not the system, but the players. I imagine some systems assist with this - but a good roleplayer, is a good roleplayer - despite any system.

EDIT: Not to labour too much on this point, but I'm amazed how some players are able to weave invested storylines through the main arc. Essentially I'm providing them material which I didn't even know I was. I'd be happy to provide examples of this in PM.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 10, 2020)

Jacob Lewis said:


> Yes, but I don't believe he (we) should limit ourselves by thinking that the mechanics of the game should inhibit our ability and imagination. A game like D&D, which is hard coded for combat and tactics, might not be the best system for deep, immersive, character-driven story telling. But that doesn't stop us from playing that way if we so choose. Like them or not, _Critical Role_ has proven that the system is not a barrier.




Could you describe in 5 bullet points the way that you feel this show has (a) characters who have "dramatic arcs with teeth", (b) of which the consequence on play is that they change viscerally in such ways that both their outlook and the attendant suite of action declarations by the player playing them is fundamentally changed in terms of both availability and effectiveness (meaning their decision-tree is fundamentally changed due to physical/emotional/social/ethical alterations to their characters).  And this means CONSISTENTLY; meaning, they can't just opt-out of this change in disposition.  If they (the player) can opt out, its not fundamental...its just characterization.  Nothing more.

I think that is a big difference between myself and you and others that agree with you.  

The ability to opt-out through their own agency and/or the ability for the GM to curate the experience so either (a) they never have to opt-in and/or (b) they can eventually opt-out at GM discretion means that its not "visceral change with teeth."  Its just characterization and emoting.  Skillful, sure...but that isn't what @innerdude is looking for (I don't think).


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2020)

prabe said:


> Sure, but it might that *that* system doesn't work for *that* player.




Yes.  People are individuals.  There is no system that wil be perfect for everyone.  But, we can consider design elements that _tend to work_ for more people ...



lordabdul said:


> Not even counting the people who _actually have_ a 7 year old kid running around the gaming table making horrendous noises from a trumpet  (yes, many of us game with kids around at least occasionally)




Yep.  And, honestly, rare indeed is the person who, on their leisure time, can just totoally ignore the real world.  Like, if you have a headache, or work has been stressful this week, or what have you.  It pays to check in with yourself before you begin play, and note how you are really feeling, so you can take it into account.



Jacob Lewis said:


> That is not what was implied; that is what you inferred. Happens a lot around here, actually.




With all due respect... it may not have been intended, but the inferred/implied thing is a dodge.  You said a thing.  This is how it came across.  If you want to quibble over how far I have to stretch to get from, "Critical Role has proven system is not a barrier," to what I raised, we can do that.   I don't think it would be constructive.

Critical Role demonstrates that some people may be able to overcome system barriers - not that system is no barrier at all to anyone.


----------



## chaochou (Feb 10, 2020)

Sadras said:


> I and the other player present did nothing but watched in awe as this all played out in a game of D&D. No rolls were needed, just an intense honest conversation that flowed naturally between two characters.




So what was at stake then?



Sadras said:


> EDIT: Not to labour too much on this point, but I'm amazed how some players are able to weave invested storylines through the main arc.




If the characters being themselves isn't the main arc, then you're not describing character-driven play. 

What you're describing is players adding thespian touches to GM-driven play.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2020)

chaochou said:


> If the characters being themselves isn't the main arc, then you're not describing character-driven play.




Well, hold on there a minute...

What constitutes the "main arc"?  I would take that to be roughly the same question as, "What is this novel about?"

Two people could see read/watch the same story - one takes it to be horror, the other takes it to be a teen-relationship drama.  And, they can _both be right_.  

What matters is what the participants think is the main arc.  If they feel they have an arc of personal development going on in an action-adventure backdrop, and they drive the things that matters to them, that's perfectly reasonable character-driven play.


----------



## prabe (Feb 10, 2020)

chaochou said:


> So what was at stake then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Who said there had to be exactly one main arc? There can be more than one arc happening in parallel. There can also be multiple arcs happening in sequence (which is probably more common, certainly more common in my games), with the possibility of overlap around the edges.

I think @Umbran has at least a portion of the right of things as well, in that "main arc" may well in in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## innerdude (Feb 10, 2020)

Sadras said:


> Just this weekend I witnessed this - an incredible piece of invested roleplaying between two sibling PCs. This had all been pre-thought out by the players that at some point they would have an epic argument about their relationship and their "shared" beliefs that would effectively forever change them and their relationship.
> 
> I and the other player present did nothing but watched in awe as this all played out in a game of D&D. No rolls were needed, just an intense honest conversation that flowed naturally between two characters.
> 
> ...




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:

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?
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?
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.
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. 
This goes back to @Celebrim'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.
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.

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.


----------



## chaochou (Feb 10, 2020)

Umbran said:


> What matters is what the participants think is the main arc.




Not if you're discussing the techniques to get somewhere, it isn't. If you want to learn the techniques of character-driven play it isn't enough to describe a game where the players are happy emoting their way along a GM railroad. That's a pure cop-out.

The OP asks for character-driven play techniques and what he's getting is advice for GM plots, 1,500 word backstory and conflict-less thespianiasm. None of which are even remotely good techniques for what he's requested.


----------



## innerdude (Feb 10, 2020)

chaochou said:


> If you want to learn the techniques of character-driven play it isn't enough to describe a game where the players are happy emoting their way along a GM railroad. That's a pure cop-out.




Absolutely this. Flaffing about spouting Shakespearean witticisms in a faux-British accent (I'm American) isn't remotely the same as creating a substantive, character-driven arc. (No offence intended to any Brits or Shakespeare fans on the board! I'm a regular attendee of our state's renowned Shakespearean festival.)


----------



## billd91 (Feb 10, 2020)

pemerton said:


> You seem to be assuming D&D here. Sit around the table playing (say) Cthulhu Dark or Prince Valiant or even Classic Traveller and, at least in my experience, this won't happen.




But with Classic Traveller (or any of the Traveller iterations), it can often bog down in determining what systems to head to for speculative trade runs. So it's not like D&D is the only game that players can bog down into a mode of play that isn't conducive to character development driven play.


----------



## prabe (Feb 10, 2020)

innerdude said:


> Absolutely this. Flaffing about spouting Shakespearean witticisms in a faux-British accent (I'm American) isn't remotely the same as creating a substantive, character-driven arc. (No offence intended to any Brits or Shakespeare fans on the board! I'm a regular attendee of our state's renowned Shakespearean festival.)




So, is the priority (or at least what's missing) character development? That's not the same thing as thespianism, no argument there.

It seems as though what you're looking for is something emergent from a collaboration between the GM and the players. Yes, you probably need a smallish table, but I've seen good character play at large ones. There are some systems that claim to encourage such play, but there are players who find they get in the way more than they help. Some people find that knowing what happened to the character/s before the game began is helpful, others don't, and there's a spectrum of preferences.

So, people matter more than game rules, I think. It doesn't seem there's much more to pull out of this in the way of anything like a consensus.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2020)

innerdude said:


> Absolutely this. Flaffing about spouting Shakespearean witticisms in a faux-British accent (I'm American) isn't remotely the same as creating a substantive, character-driven arc.




I wonder who said anything about Shakespeare and faux-British accents, other than you?  

A main arc of a story could be about a friendship forming, an apparent betrayal, and the resulting reformation of that friendship.. or lack of same.  Perfectly comulent arc... and it can happen within the context of virtually _any_ action-adventure story ever written, without any input from the GM.

This is not to say that a GM cannot aid and abet character-driven play.  But you _absolutely cannot do so_ if you don't recognize the domain the players wish to have that arc within.  The Players are driving this, by definition.  You cannot support them along the road if you do not know what road they are on!

So, again - what matters first is what the players think or want the main arc to be.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 10, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Do remember that Critical Role is made up of _professional actors_ - people who have specific talent, extensive training and experience in emoting and acting in distracting situations.  Saying, "Well, it can be done on Critical Role, so it can be done by anyone," simply is not true, and does a disservice to folks who are trying, but not succeeding, by blaming them for not being good enough.




That seems to be putting the Critical Role players up on a pretty high pedestal, when what they do is far closer to being in reach than you imply. Aside from their skill with different voice characterizations, which really is dependent on their talent and training, there's really not that much they do that I haven't seen around various gaming tables for the last 40 years. They're just a bit better at it, but *not in an unobtainable way* if that's really the style of play you like to engage in. 

Honestly, there are a *lot* of people around here who let their prejudices and assumptions about Critical Role and the people involved run away with them, for good and bad, which I think does the show a massive disservice.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 10, 2020)

Sadras said:


> Just this weekend I witnessed this - an incredible piece of invested roleplaying between two sibling PCs. This had all been pre-thought out by the players that at some point they would have an epic argument about their relationship and their "shared" beliefs that would effectively forever change them and their relationship.
> 
> I and the other player present did nothing but watched in awe as this all played out in a game of D&D. No rolls were needed, just an intense honest conversation that flowed naturally between two characters.




Siblings are the best, especially if both retain their inclination to play make believe with all the enthusiasm of children. One of the most fun I've ever had as a DM was watching a brother and sister just run with intraparty RP, basically knocking ten years off their life experience and be kids again.

I can barely imagine how great it would be for them to combine that authentic and natural interplay, with the cunning and skill of an experienced RPer taking cues from their fellow players.



> It is not the system, but the players. I imagine some systems assist with this - but a good roleplayer, is a good roleplayer - despite any system.




I often feel that attempts to put a system around this just get in the way, so that counter-intuitively, some of the best RP comes out of systems that don't mechanically support it at all. I mean, really, we are talking about an experience that doesn't have much to do with the "game" part of RPG.

Right now there is a lot of buzz around Laura Bailey's carefully constructed con with the cupcake on Critical Role, and how solid that scene is from an RP/story moment. What does it really have to do with system?

I still insist that the aesthetic of play a table has in a given moment has vastly more to do with how they think about playing a game and the processes of play that they are using (for example, the first person dialogue between Laura and Matt as the primary scene resolution), than it has to do with mere rules.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 10, 2020)

pemerton said:


> What you describe here won't deliver the sort of play the OP is talking about.
> 
> There can't be dramatic character arcs if "the story" is already written (by the GM or the module author or whomever) and the GM _already knows what is to come_.
> 
> Doubly so if the GM has already decided what that story will be _independently of the development by the players of their characters._




Depends on how you approach it. If the GM has written various story threads, including what would happen if the PCs do not interact with them, but leaves it up to the PCs how or even whether they will engage with them and has the various threads react to the actions and choices of the PCs, then I don't see how this makes delivering the sort of play the OP is talking about impossible... or even harder for that matter. 

One of the GMs I play with maintains a number of small notebooks. Each one covers various story threads in his campaign setting - some involving the overall politics of the empire and succession, some the prominent arcane guilds, some the relations between the human empire and the humanoid nations, etc. In the course of a campaign with a new set of players and PCs, some of those notebooks and their story threads will be active in an area and may form initial hooks bringing the PCs together for an initial story, but the introduction of new notebooks or alternative notebooks will depend on what the PCs are doing, where they're going, how they're getting involved (or not getting involved) in the stories inherent to those notebooks. And he's constantly updating them with the implications of events the PCs trigger. It seems to me that the players have plenty of options to really explore their PCs' inner motivations, adapt them, and change them based on how the game is developing - if that's what they choose to do.
And it's all using the D&D rules - with version in 3e and 5e.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 10, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## innerdude (Feb 10, 2020)

Umbran said:


> I wonder who said anything about Shakespeare and faux-British accents, other than you?




Look, just to be perfectly clear: 

I've done semi-professional theater (i.e., I've actually been paid to act on stage). Granted, it was hardly a sum worth talking about, but nonetheless . . . . 
I've performed Shakespeare any number of times. Doing a convincing British accent is hard. 
(For example: I love the _V for Vendetta_ film. And the one thing that still pulls me out every time is that Natalie Portman's British accent is still just a tiny bit . . . off. It's just touch too pure, too affected to be totally convincing).

I'm not casting aspersions on anyone who actually tries to act in character during roleplaying, or uses any or all voice characterization techniques to help them feel more immersed. I've done it myself any number of times. 
The point that I agreed with from @chaochou is that _characterization_---no matter how well done or voice acted---does not inherently lead to a character-driven arc.

I've watched some Critical Role, and while I found it entertaining, I'm thinking of the one actor whose primary character interest always seems to be grog, and he voice acts that character as a big, dumb, lovable meathead.

Fun character. Easily pictured in context of the game world. But if the point is simply to "act out" by having your character speak English with a British / Scottish / Irish / German / Russian / Italian / Israeli / Jersey / Boston / Spanish accent, that may be fun, but if it's not backed up by an intent to have a character-driven _arc_, it's all just window dressing.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 10, 2020)

billd91 said:


> That seems to be putting the Critical Role players up on a pretty high pedestal, when what they do is far closer to being in reach than you imply...They're just a bit better at it, but *not in an unobtainable way* if that's really the style of play you like to engage in.




Agreed.

Are they better at what they do than the best players I've worked with? Maybe. Is Matt better at what he does than I am? Maybe a little (it certainly helps that he can devote his full energy to it).   Are they better entertainers?  Certainly.

But they aren't so much better that what they do is out of reach of the average player. The real question is less can your table do what Critical Role does, than it is "Does your table even want to?" There is a big difference I think for most players between enjoying the game and treating the game like a craft to hone and improve in. Seeing the game as a craft to improve is may itself be a sort of aesthetic of play, and as such may not at all appeal to everyone.

But if you want to get there, or what to get to where the OP wants to get (which is a somewhat but not completely related goal), I don't think it's unobtainable.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 10, 2020)

Can someone provide a link to this (I guess) infamous scene where the Critical Role GM and the player had this heist scene with the cupcake?

I'd like to view and do a post-mortem as it relates to this conversation.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 10, 2020)

uzirath said:


> We developed characters with skills and advantages off but left disadvantages and quirks blank for the first few sessions. Then, after experiencing the characters facing challenges (both internal and external), we added character elements that fit. It helped that the GM was completely willing to customize or invent new disads to fit the character concepts.



The systems that some others have mentioned in this thread as relevant to the OP - to reiterate, BW, Sorcerer, DitV, etc - might be seen as adopting but formalising and prioritising this sort of approach.

But they often also reverse some of the direction of fit - so instead of the players feeling things out for the first few sessions to get a feel for the GM's priorities, the players establish priorities via the build and play of their characters and the GM feels those out and respond to them.



innerdude said:


> 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.
> The idea that you have to have a "party", and that the "party" is supposed to stick together will quickly become a sticking point.
> <snip>
> 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.
> ...



That last dot point is absolutely true. As I said, the idea of "the adventure" has to go. Though I don't think it requires as great an abnegation on the GM's part as you suggest.

The first two (sub-)points, in my experience, are not as straightforward as you suggest. The X-Men are a team and yet have character arcs. It's not great literature, but it's certainly as good as I could ever aspire to at my table (none of us is a professional creator of fiction). A different model that might work for some tables is Doctor Who.

That's not to say that "the party" is mandatory. Plenty of RPGs eschew it. But it needn't be a total stumbling block.

The bit about screen-time is also less stark, I think. The real issue here is _who is talking and interacting, at the table_. There are ways of handling this so that it doesn't have to be much more brutal on the group activity than running around the table in a D&D-style combat round.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 10, 2020)

Jacob Lewis said:


> Yes, but I don't believe he (we) should limit ourselves by thinking that the mechanics of the game should inhibit our ability and imagination. A game like D&D, which is hard coded for combat and tactics, might not be the best system for deep, immersive, character-driven story telling. But that doesn't stop us from playing that way if we so choose. Like them or not, _Critical Role_ has proven that the system is not a barrier.



Critical Role, as far as I understand it, is a professional ensemble performance. I don't think it shows us much about how "ordinary" RPGers might go about achieving the sort of play @innerdude hs described.

I also don't think that D&D is especially relevant in this thread (which is in the General forum). For one thing the OP is not a D&D player, but rather prefers Savage Worlds and is curious about Burning Wheel. Secondly, D&D - at least in its 5e variant - has many mechanical limitations that get in the way of mechanically-driven character arc play; namely, it has no mechanics for player-imposed finality of resolution outside of combat.



Sword of Spirit said:


> I'm not 100% sure that I understand what the OP is talking about.





Sword of Spirit said:


> I don't know where exactly @innerdude is coming from



To me It seems fairly clear that innerdude is talking about the sort of play that results from systems like Apocalypse World, DitV, Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, etc. Other systems (contemporary and classic) can also generate that sort of play, but the ones that have been talked about in this thread are expressly designed for it.

I say this because these systems, and other systems used in similar ways, are all about (to borrow from the OP) _the actual mechanical interplay of rules . . . promot[ing] the kind of self-reflexivity that is necessary for the kind of deep-rooted emotional resonance found in literature_ so that _a character_ _materially change_ _in ways that are fundamental to their place in the fiction._ 



prabe said:


> Not only will some systems work better for some players (occasinally in surprising combinations), some players will deeply engage with their characters in any system, using whatever handles they can find in whatever system they're playing.



The OP doesn't talk about _engaging with the character_ - what I referred to upthread as authenticity of performance. The OP talks about "character hook" mechanics (which would include Beliefs in Burning Wheel, Aspects in Fate, Bonds in Dungeon World, and of course many other versions in other systems) being contributors to the generation of character arcs that are the result of the actual mechanical processes of play. It's not about _handles used to engage with characters_ but _mechanical elements that inform the framing, the processes and outcomes of action resolution_.

As I've already posted a couple of times, I don't think that those particular sorts of bells-and-whistles are crucial for what the OP is looking for. But there are certain things that are crucial. The most important of these is dropping the conceit of "the adventure" or "the story" - and replacing it with character-centred framing on the GM's part and openness to action declarations and resolution outcomes on everyone's part.



Imaculata said:


> I'm not sure if gameplay mechanics are what you need to get to a character-driven experience.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think it is up to the DM to come up with a plot and npc's that the players can get emotionally invested in. But it is also up to the players to make that connection, and interact with the fiction.



If the GM is establishing the plot, I don't see how it is driven by the character as played by the player. You seem to be referring here to _authentic performances _("making that connection") on the part of the players. Not to _the mechanical interplay of rules producing engaging, dramatic character arcs_.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 10, 2020)

innerdude said:


> The point that I agreed with from @chaochou is that _characterization_---no matter how well done or voice acted---does not inherently lead to a character-driven arc.



Have you ever read Christopher Kubasik's extended essay "Interactive Toolkit"?

It's currently hosted on his "Play Sorcerer" blog but predates Sorcerer by several years - I think it's from the mid-90s.

Here is what he says about character-driven arcs and their relationship to characterisation:


Characters drive the narrative of all stories. However, many people mistake _character_ for _characterization_.

Characterization is the look of a character, the description of his voice, the quirks of habit. Characterization creates the concrete detail of a character through the use of sensory detail and exposition. By “seeing” how a character looks, how he picks up his wine glass, by knowing he has a love of fine tobacco, the character becomes concrete to our imagination, even while remaining nothing more than black ink upon a white page.

But a person thus described is not a character. A character must do.

Character is action. That’s a rule of thumb for plays and movies, and is valid as well for roleplaying games and story entertainments. This means that the best way to reveal your character is not through on an esoteric monologue about pipe and tobacco delivered by your character, but through your character’s actions.​
You might find some stuff in there quite useful, or at least interesting.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 10, 2020)

chaochou said:


> So what was at stake then?



Why does there have to be anything at stake?


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 10, 2020)

Celebrim said:


> Siblings are the best, especially if both retain their inclination to play make believe with all the enthusiasm of children. One of the most fun I've ever had as a DM was watching a brother and sister just run with intraparty RP, basically knocking ten years off their life experience and be kids again.



Reading @Sadras ' quote again, I think it was the characters who were siblings, not the players.



> I often feel that attempts to put a system around this just get in the way, so that counter-intuitively, some of the best RP comes out of systems that don't mechanically support it at all.



Or in a system where it's possible to shove the mechanics out of the way when required; because yes, in these situations mechanics of any kind are more often a hindrance or intrusion than a help.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 10, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Critical Role ...
> 
> I also don't think that D&D is especially relevant in this thread (which is in the General forum). For one thing the OP is not a D&D player, but rather prefers Savage Worlds and is curious about Burning Wheel.




Given that the vast majority of people in the hobby are playing D&D (mostly 5e) and thus - if they're reading this - will be trying to fit what's said into that paradigm, then D&D is always relevant.



> Secondly, D&D - at least in its 5e variant - has many mechanical limitations that get in the way of mechanically-driven character arc play; namely, it has no mechanics for player-imposed finality of resolution outside of combat.



Doesn't make sense - you say it has mechanical limitations and then your example is a situation where is has no mechanics?

'No mechanics' is never a limitation; and in this case 'finality of resolution' doesn't sound like a good idea.  In combat, yes, there's usually a finality - one side or combatant dies, or surrenders, or is made captive, whatever; the combat's done and in most cases it only has to be done once.

But in a character-based or social situation, unless a combat-worthy finality is somehow applied (e.g. one character charms or captures another) the situation is never truly finalized, and thus applying a finality mechanic seems...odd somehow.

For example, take some of the various discussions we've had on here in the past.  None of those threads have to my knowledge been shut down by the mods (analagous to the DM applying a finality mechanic) which means they're all open to rebooting and review in the future - they're not final (despite our best attempts!).

Same is true of a diplomacy attempt - unlike a combat which when it's over it's done, a diplomacy attempt or in-character discussion (or argument!) is never really over as long as all participants remain in control of their own thoughts.  People can have second thoughts, or realize they erred, or come up with alternative arguments, whatever; and applying finality mechanics just doesn't make sense from a pure roleplay point of view.

D&D is guilty of this with its diplomacy family of mechanics over various editions (yes, even all the way back to henches' morale and loyalty rules) - the mechanics insert themselves to try and finalize what would otherwise be ongoing and perhaps repeating roleplay.



> As I've already posted a couple of times, I don't think that those particular sorts of bells-and-whistles are crucial for what the OP is looking for. But there are certain things that are crucial. The most important of these is dropping the conceit of "the adventure" or "the story" - and replacing it with character-centred framing on the GM's part and openness to action declarations and resolution outcomes on everyone's part.



It's not an either-or.

A character-driven arc - be it for an individual character or several interacting - can quite happily weave its way through and around a background or setting-based story and-or a series of adventures *provided the DM is willing to allow the table-time* for the character arc(s) to play out when required.  

And this, I think, is where things fall apart at some tables: the DM (or some players) aren't willing to spend that time.  They're not willing to allow @Sadras ' sibling PCs to spend an hour or so developing their arc, or my PC and a few others time to argue over how we intend to approach our post-adventuring political careers, or the Cavalier PCs time to participate in a jousting tournament (with all the attending social affairs) where results both social and field may affect their reputations.

In the three examples I give here the only place game mechanics need to appear at all would be for the Cavaliers, both to determine their jousting results (a variant on combat mechanics) and perhaps to determine any lasting effects on their reputations afterwards.  Otherwise, it's all roleplay - so let it happen!


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 10, 2020)

To have character arcs, the character must be at risk.

This doesn't mean that the character might die, or be hurt, or lose things, but instead that the fundamental nature of the character must be at risk.  Something the character believes, or feels, or values as a core conceit must be at risk of being shown false, or different, or even validated through hardship.  If you do not risk character, there's nothing that can change that isn't an arbitrary choice by the player or GM.  And arbitrary change is fine, although it doesn't meet the desire of the OP to have games that involve character driven play.

I add my voice to those that say that acting is not necessary for character driven play.  It's a method to feel connected to character, but isn't the only way nor always the best way.  But, it doesn't improve the likelihood of character driven arcs, as you can act out a flat, unchanging character as well as a dynamic one -- the acting out doesn't change this.

I also disagree with @Celebrim that small groups are needed for character focus.  Group size affects spotlight time, but doesn't really affect how well a character arc can be realized in play.  As Colossus tells us, it's two or three moments, not sessions of attention.

Finally, on system, it matters but isn't definitive.  D&D has no mechanics that puts character at risk, for instance, nor any means for a player to force resolution on an issue of character.  That's not to say that D&D cannot do character, but that it moves into the realm of extra-ruleset agreement or fiat by player or GM.  This makes character ad hoc, and thereby more unlikely to feature as an element of play outside of determined effort to just do it by the players.  Other system put character at risk as a fundamental part of play, and provide mechanics that allow for resolution of such issues from both sides of the screen.  This doesn't mean it works, but the system is at least attempting to make character a part of the process of play, and that helps.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 10, 2020)

Jacob Lewis said:


> Yes, but I don't believe he (we) should limit ourselves by thinking that the mechanics of the game should inhibit our ability and imagination. A game like D&D, which is hard coded for combat and tactics, might not be the best system for deep, immersive, character-driven story telling. But that doesn't stop us from playing that way if we so choose. Like them or not, _Critical Role_ has proven that the system is not a barrier.



That is not a proof the system isn't a barrier. It is only proof that it can be done despite the barriers the system places.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 10, 2020)

I think @Ovinomancer'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 his original essay on character-driven play.

John Harper - the designer of BitD - has said somewhere (@Campbell 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.)


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Feb 11, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> That is not a proof the system isn't a barrier. It is only proof that it can be done despite the barriers the system places.



I can accept that amended statement, though it makes no difference to me. If barriers can be overcome, then they are no longer barriers. 

To anyone still reading: This thread has been a steady stream of assumptions and barriers. It confuses and saddens me because people are being told that they are beholden to their own self-imposed limitations while blaming everything else around them. You don't need to be a trained actor or a skilled thespian to roleplay. A system does not require rules and mechanics to sanctify your exposition or provide you with further motives or risks. And you certainly don't need a bunch of random people on the internet telling everyone what other people say, think, or imply without daring to make an opinion on their own.

Critical Role was just an example. One that is accessible and familiar to most here, even if only in name. You could do worse than observe what a group of "professionals" do and how you might do things differently to achieve your goals. I could point to my own games and characters, except I don't have any videos, or a long-time group of trained actor friends, or whatever excuse for a qualification that people seem to think they lack in order to elevate your games.

What you really need is a group of players and a GM you can trust. That is the secret to why Critical Role works, and why my games work. I can run a published adventure and still make every player feel like it was written for their characters. Why? Because I talk with them, figure out what they want from the game, and work with their creation to make sure they have the best possible chance to experience an outcome that will satisfy them. 

In other words, I ask for their trust. Plain and simple. Anyone can do that for any game. If they really wanted it. 

Or just keep making excuses instead of solutions. I'm off to find a more productive, or at least a more fun discussion now.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 11, 2020)

innerdude said:


> 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.
> [...]
> 
> 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?



Some of each.
The GM can lead it, provided the players give a small number of elements about which they _and their character_ care, and they and the GM agree to have that be a functional element in the ongoing story.

The thing is, the players also need to be on board, and no one should have a clear answer to "where is it going?" That answer needs to evolve.



innerdude said:


> 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.
> 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.
> This goes back to @Celebrim'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.
> 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.



Most genres can support a party mentality; a few absolutely demand it in ways even D&D doesn't. (EG: military and paramilitary settings, including Star Trek, Police, Leverage, Alien). This doesn't preclude immersive character drama, even tho' there is a GM mission... 

It just means the missions have to allow for a "B" plot. (Think how DS9 or Babylon 5, or even Xena always had elements of ongoing coupled with "problem of the week."  And that B plot needs to be relevant overall.


innerdude said:


> 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.



Not entirely. He just has to be willing to let characters have meaningful encounters with meaningful choices in them that help define/redefine the character and their beliefs. Part of this can be player established backstory characters, but it works best if they aren't overly detailed, so the GM has wiggle room to add backstory.

There can even be a campaign Macguffin (tvtropes link). Ideally, the Macguffin only gets found when the campaign has had a good run, and people are satisfied that their characters have reached some state...  one last struggle/battle/social-confrontation, and then a narration of their retirement... or funerals... and bragging rights. 

The thing the GM can't be doing is dictating how the character feels, nor boxing them into "one correct choice"...

It also helps if recurrent NPCs have more than one agenda item each - in one Traveller campaign, I kept foreshadowing the helpful SNCO's agenda — getting his family out of the Concordat — and when they finally did get to a habitable world, he stole the ship's boat and the missiles for the missile launcher.... I've never so surprised a group... but they also realized that it had been foreshadowed. It wasn't a "fixed element"; it was a "when this situation happens unless"... the unless being the PC's having realized he wanted out and willingly letting him and his family off... but they hadn't paid attention. That same campaign had an NPC-PC love affair... with a "not unhappy" ending, involving a couple of retirement salaries and a sailboat...  It wasn't something I set out as a GM, but a response to a player deciding to engage with a (previously) minor NPC command grade officer.... the player played it for a romance story with lots of fade to black.

The reasons for this being pointed out is that there was a kind of "timer" on that campaign. The PC's were on a scientific expedition to test, refine, and rebuild a particular tech item (a J2 drive). I set some science breakpoints, and each tweak in the field was potential to each some; after enough, they had to return to build the new revision, and each revision was closer to reliable.. Other than that, there was no set plot.  It was all player driven, and all the players selected character goals, and played them, and we all knew each other's main plot goals... but each player had a second goal, shared only with me. To allow those character driven elements, I merely needed to introduce suitable obstacles relevant to it. Such as how do you prepare for a 6 month deployment with the new GF? (Answer I expected was trading momentos... answer chosen by the player was to see if the GF would like to be transferred aboard. I made a suitable reaction roll, and  she joined the crew...)

The most important element is creating encounters, not outcomes.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 11, 2020)

I think that meaningful character development is very possible in RPGs. I think there are many factors that will either increase or decrease the likelihood of it in any given game. 

The participants. The GM and the players are all a big factor here. The players likely will have to come up with some kind of goal or challenge for their PC. Very likely more than one. The GM then has to recognize these goals and help bring it into play in a meaningful way. Having goals that are somehow in opposition is an easy way to challenge PCs; to gain one, another must be lost. These things need to be meaningful, though. 

I think that mechanics can be huge in this area. Yes, such play can be achieved with a game that has no such mechanics (or even mechanics that run counter to this goal). But for games designed to promote this kind of play, looking at their mechanics can be enlightening. Most fundamentally, how does the game reward the player? Usually some kind of XP system. Is it about GP gained? Monsters killed? Promoting a cause or belief? These things absolutely influence the kind of play a system will deliver by default. How are characters generated? What constraints are placed on that process? What elements constitute a character? All of this meaningfully shapes play. If a game has no mechanic or even a spot on a character sheet to write down “what is most important to this character?” then it doesn’t seem all that important to the game. And yet that kind of thing is far more essential to character driven play than any stat or skill or class. 

Finally, I think the idea of surrender is important. This relates to Ovinomancer’s discussion of risk above. I think that we as players have to be willing to give up some amount of authority on our characters in play in order for their to be meaningful growth. We have to actively move away from the idea of “my character is mine, and all of it is up to me”. We have to leave major decision points up to chance and find them through play. This is where the other elements tie together. 

If I intro an ideal for my PC, and then the GM beings it up in play, and there are mechanics that put that ideal to the test in some way, I don’t necessarily get to decide the outcome.  We need to give up that ownership a bit in order to be able to risk anything that we’ve established about our characters.

Otherwise, there’s no loss or gain for the player, there’s just a decision they make between A or B. I think it has to work that I as a player say my character is A, and then that is challenged through play by the GM (and/or other players), so now it is a question of can my character remain A, and we resolve that with the actual chance that my character could become B.

Players and GMs can do this kind of stuff in any game, but it’s far more common and formalized in some games.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 11, 2020)

Jacob Lewis said:


> I can accept that amended statement, though it makes no difference to me. If barriers can be overcome, then they are no longer barriers.



That's probably the most disingenuous thing I've seen this year. 

Just because a fence can be climbed doesn't mean it's not a barrier. It makes crossing from one side to the other harder whether or not one knows how to climb it or vault it. If it weren't there, no climbing nor vaulting is needed. If it is there, it can be climbed, it can be cut through, but it's still a barrier.


----------



## Weiley31 (Feb 11, 2020)

Always make sure you have key plot beats down at certain moments.

And make sure you have the cutscenes happen at the key points.

Oh snap, that was a lucky headshot on the BBEG, guess that's the end of that Campai-_camera angle sharply goes to the close up of the BBEG who was able to dodge at the last second as the bullet grazes his cheek, then spins around with the momentum to recover. Then he uses magic to make the air dense, causing all physical projectile range attacks to suffer auto disadvantage_


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 11, 2020)

I try to not have cut scenes at all. If any cinematic event needs to occur, it will do so naturally. My campaigns aren't a movie, nor are they a book. I can put all the pieces in place for something memorable, but ultimately it is the players that make those moments happen... or they don't make them happen at all. 

For conveying important plot points, I simply have npc's show up and relay that information to the players. The moments where I do need to describe a big scene, I try to not sideline the players. They can interrupt me at any time, and react to what I'm describing to them.

If I want a final confrontation with a big bad to take place, I don't put him on the stage until I feel the moment is right, and then let it play out. I make no assumptions regarding how the players will solve a particular obstacle, but I try to prepare for the most likely options. And I try to make sure that the plot does not hinge entirely on any one villain.

But when I set up an important moment in the plot, I try to make sure there are some unexpected twists along the way, as well as some red herrings, and a proper set up befor the big reveal. The more the players get used to your style of storytelling however, the harder it can become to still surprise them. They will eventually start second guessing your twists.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Feb 11, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> That's probably the most disingenuous thing I've seen this year.
> 
> Just because a fence can be climbed doesn't mean it's not a barrier. It makes crossing from one side to the other harder whether or not one knows how to climb it or vault it. If it weren't there, no climbing nor vaulting is needed. If it is there, it can be climbed, it can be cut through, but it's still a barrier.



My definition of a barrier is something that prevents your passage. A fence you cannot climb, tear down, or get around is a barrier. Maybe you don't see a way to climb over it or feel you are capable enough to try. But then you see someone else like you climb it. Do you think you can try it then, or is it still an impassable barrier for you? More importantly, does it still look like a barrier once you get over to the other side?

Also, it's only February. Plenty of year left to get offended by people trying to get you over a fence.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 11, 2020)

@Jacob Lewis redefinition fallacy detected.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 11, 2020)

chaochou said:


> So what was at stake then?




I'm not certain if the correct term should be "at stake" as this fallout was already pre-planned by the players upon character generation and although they had laid the bread crumbs for this story arc along the way (now evident), both myself and the other players had missed them. We had noticed the peculiarities but had not picked up that this was going to explode.

So in essence (and I'm not doing their story much justice with this one paragraph) both are followers of Bahamut, one a paladin and another a warlock. Incidents along the way began to create doubt until eventually the truth of their individual relationship to their deity and each other was revealed. The paladin had always thought of her brother as a cleric to Bahamut who shared her love and respect for the deity. Her brother so as not to upset his sister had kept up the charade. In reality he despised Bahamut for having to beg and suffer for his divine blessing which he only did to protect his younger sister who seemed to always and naively place herself in danger for her _foolish_ ideals. With the revelation that her brother's devotion to her beloved god was not genuine and that her supposedly loving god had exercised such an ugly servitude upon her sibling - the paladin began suffering a crisis of faith as her most important bonds in her life were revealed (in her eyes) to be false. All this played out through unscripted dialogue.

Needless to say, the player of the paladin is retiring her character (for now) - while the warlock now free from the burden of the lie, looked to continue on a different path (new class). I run two groups (ToD and SKT) who are now converging due to the main storyline. The player of the paladin is to create a new character to join the others.

Might we revisit these characters down the line, realistically yes since they play an integral roll - but that will require some discussion with the players about their characters, so that we may find an agreeable way to re-introduce them to each other and the story.



> If the characters being themselves isn't the main arc, then you're not describing character-driven play.What you're describing is players adding thespian touches to GM-driven play.




Ah, but that was not my initial contention though. Look again to what I responded to (cited below for ease)



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> There can't be dramatic character arcs if "the story" is already written (by the GM or the module author or whomever) and the GM _already knows what is to come_.
> 
> Doubly so if the GM has already decided what that story will be _independently of the development by the players of their characters._




I feel the above statement is clearly false, given my above example.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 11, 2020)

innerdude said:


> 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:




So just at the outset my above reply to @chaochou might answer some of these concerns but more importantly I reiterated where my disagreement lies. And apologies for breaking up your post, I just find sometimes I can arrange my thoughts better this way.



> 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?




Who is to say what is better. I found the experience rewarding, would I have enjoyed it more if I was in on it? I don't know. We (the players and I) will likely collaborate on their entrance back into the storyline at some point. I do not feel everyone needs to be involved in every character arc all the time.



> 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?




I do not believe I would have run things differently had I known about it. The players would find opportunities to creatively seed their story. They did so while I was following the Storm King's Thunder AP.



> 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.
> 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.
> This goes back to @Celebrim'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.
> 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.




I do not disagree with any of this but this goes back to my point that the system although maybe helpful in for this style of roleplaying, does not matter overall. These kinds of players seeking dramatic character story-arcs can do so in any system, even D&D.



> 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.



100% agree. Despite me running APs and I'm certainly grateful for the player buy-in, I have repeatedly made exit points for the group because I try, as best I can, to have an open game.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Given that the vast majority of people in the hobby are playing D&D (mostly 5e) and thus - if they're reading this - will be trying to fit what's said into that paradigm, then D&D is always relevant.



This board has a stand-alone and very active D&D forum. This, though, is the General forum. The OP is known to anyone who has read his previous posts as a fan of Savage Worlds. He didn't mention D&D in his OP except as a (late) example of a trend to have character-oriented bells & whistles as elements of PC build. He didn't ask for advice about how to play D&D.

And that's no real surprise. Discussing D&D is largely unhelpful to addressing the issues raised in the OP. It may be possible to use D&D as a vehicle for character-driven play - I did so in the second half of the 80s, non-coincidentally using Oriental Adventures (which has resolution mechanics that go beyond combat, traps and dungeon doors) and later a modified skill system for AD&D that I subsequently learned was modelled on Rolemaster. But if someone is having trouble getting character-driven play going, why would we want to talk about D&D except to the extent - fairly well-known - that it poses many obstacles to character-driven play. (In this thread I would say @Ovinomancer has given the best account of them. All I would add/stress is that 5e D&D has no finality of player-initiated action resolution outside of combat.)

In a thread about whether a certain sort of character-driven RPGing is possible, let's talk about systems and associated techniques that actually aim at that and reliably produce it.



Lanefan said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If I want to run a game that will give me the feel of Ben Hur, it's probably a limitation if the system doesn't have any way to resolve chariot races, or interactions with prophets and holy men.

If the OP wants to run a character-driven game, it's a limitation if the system doesn't have the mechanics needed for the player to try (and perhaps fail) to put his/her PC's mark on the gameworld. If that domain of finality of resolution is confined to combat then that is going to be a pretty big bar to character-driven play.



Lanefan said:


> in a character-based or social situation, unless a combat-worthy finality is somehow applied (e.g. one character charms or captures another) the situation is never truly finalized,



If it's always open to the GM to re-open the situation, re-enliven the stakes, treat nothing as resolved, then there can't be character-driven play of the sort referred to in the OP - ie the mechanical resolution of action declarations generating a dramatic arc. There can only be GM decision-making about what story to establish.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 11, 2020)

pemerton said:


> If I want to run a game that will give me the feel of Ben Hur, it's probably a limitation if the system doesn't have any way to resolve chariot races, or interactions with prophets and holy men.
> 
> If the OP wants to run a character-driven game, it's a limitation if the system doesn't have the mechanics needed for the player to try (and perhaps fail) to put his/her PC's mark on the gameworld. If that domain of finality of resolution is confined to combat then that is going to be a pretty big bar to character-driven play.




Do you really need game mechanics for that though?


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 11, 2020)

pemerton said:


> This board has a stand-alone and very active D&D forum. This, though, is the General forum. The OP is known to anyone who has read his previous posts as a fan of Savage Worlds. He didn't mention D&D in his OP except as a (late) example of a trend to have character-oriented bells & whistles as elements of PC build. He didn't ask for advice about how to play D&D.
> 
> And that's no real surprise. Discussing D&D is largely unhelpful to addressing the issues raised in the OP.



And ignoring D&D while addressing those issues is largely unhelpful to the vast majority of readers.



> If I want to run a game that will give me the feel of Ben Hur, it's probably a limitation if the system doesn't have any way to resolve chariot races, or interactions with prophets and holy men.



Resolving chariot races need only draw on whatever that system might use for movement rules or chase/pursuit rules, modified by the GM to suit the situation.

"Resolving" interactions with prophets or holy types rolls right into the point I'm trying to make: those interactions can occur and be roleplayed through but IMO without external pressure (which would almost invariably drift quickly into combat rules and-or GM fiat) they cannot ever be resolved in finality.

You meet the prophet, you hear what the prophet has to say, and the meeting for whatever reason ends.  Even if that meeting can never be repeated (the prophet dies, or is no longer accessible, or whatever) it's still entirely up to each individual character* what to make of that meeting, and whether or not to act on anything the prophet said (or didn't say).

* - perhaps in discussion with others in the party, but this isn't mandatory.



> If the OP wants to run a character-driven game, it's a limitation if the system doesn't have the mechanics needed for the player to try (and perhaps fail) to put his/her PC's mark on the gameworld. If that domain of finality of resolution is confined to combat then that is going to be a pretty big bar to character-driven play.



Here I suppose it hinges on what you mean by "mark on the gameworld".  If you mean something like a PC trying to rise to become Empress of the realm or a party trying to overthrow a barony* then I think we're talking about similar sorts of things.

* - by the party's own choice; though this could just as easily be a GM-guided plot.



> If it's always open to the GM to re-open the situation, re-enliven the stakes, treat nothing as resolved, then there can't be character-driven play of the sort referred to in the OP - ie the mechanical resolution of action declarations generating a dramatic arc. There can only be GM decision-making about what story to establish.



This is just it, though: in any roleplay situation that doesn't have an artificially-forced closure it's also always open to me-as-PC/player to re-open the situation, re-enliven the stakes, and-or treat nothing as resolved as long as a) those involved the first time are still around i.e. not dead or far away, and b) those involved are still in control of their own thoughts and-or opinions i.e. not charmed or otherwise mechanically restricted.  If I don't agree with what the Duke had to say the first time before he shut me down, I can always try to talk to him again - maybe he's changed his mind or had second thoughts.  By the same token, if the Duke doesn't like the answer we-as-party give him when he tries to send us on a mission, he can always try to ask again.  There's no hard closure on these sorts of things, and yes, sometimes it can result in things going in circles - just like real life. 

This no-forced-closure idea holds even more water if the situation mostly involves one or more other PCs rather than any particular elements of the setting and-or its NPCs.

Example: I-as-PC might be trying to talk the party into chipping in funds toward a castle for use as a home base.  Should a game mechanic be allowed to determine whether I succeed or fail?  Of course not!  It's up to me to roleplay the request in character in such a way as to get the response I want, and up to the other players to respond as they would in character to the request.  And if they say 'no', a game mechanic should never prevent me from trying again later or - if I'm less wise - from continuing to badger them about it till hell's half frozen over.  Again, though, I stress that the GM has to allow however much time it takes for this discussion to play out; and not get impatient.

Or, in a different vein take two PCs (or groups of) who have for whatever reason established a non-deadly rivalry of one-upsmanship within the party that drives most of their in-character decision-making.  Regardless what the GM might put in front of them, any decision those characters make is likely to be filtered through how it might affect that rivalry; perhaps even getting to the point where the GM's hooks and stories are ignored in favour of acting in furtherment of one side of the rivalry: "You met the Duke, did ya?  Gave us a mission [GM hook]?  Well it's just going to have to wait, because I've got a date with Prince Vonwe next week and anything he wants us to do will of course take priority." (_I saunter off, and then frantically start pulling every string I can to get this date 'cause I was making that crap up and if I don't deliver I'm screwed! And even if I get the date, if Vonwe doesn't have a mission for us I'll have to dream one up because there's no way in hell that popinjay Fighter's setting our agenda if I can help it!_)

There's no way in the world a social game mechanic should ever be able to step in and say "Sorry, rivalry's over in finality, here's who won".


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 11, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> 1. A attacks B. Resolved through game mechanic?
> 
> 2. Kingdom A attacks Kingdom B. Resolved through game mechanic?
> 
> ...



In order:

1. Yes (combat)
2. Maybe (if the game has suitable mechanics then Yes, otherwise probably comes down to GM fiat)
3. No (roleplay)
4. No if PCs are involved in the negotiations (roleplay); if PCs are not involved then see 2. above.
5. No (resolution determined by setting fiat - if you ain't Arthur, that sword's not going anywhere)
6. Yes and No - see below.

Regarding 6, if A is a PC and is trying to become King there's going to be a gajillion sub-steps along the way, some of which will take mechanics to resolve (e.g. anything involving combat, stealth, etc.) and some of which will - or should! - be roleplayed (e.g. any political discussions, negotiations, deal-bartering, etc.).


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For what? Chariot races? Meetings with prophets and holy men? Domains of activity beyond combat?

@Ovinomancer and @hawkeyefan have both posted upthread about the centrality, to character-driven play, of _risk to the character_.

In the absence of mechanics whereby the player, in attempting to have his/her PC put his/her mark on the gameworld, can _fail_, then we don't have character-driven play of the sort @innerdude referred to in the OP. There is no chance (to borrow hawkeyefan's language) of the player discovering that his/her PC is actually not A at all, but rather is B. All there is is GM fiat combined (perhaps) with table consensus.



Lanefan said:


> And ignoring D&D while addressing those issues is largely unhelpful to the vast majority of readers.



I'm posting in response to the OP. There are plenty of participants in this thread who are doing likewise, and who do not use D&D as the principal or even secondary frame of reference for talking about these things.

_Won't someone think of the D&D players?!_ There's a lot of them around. I'm sure that as a group they don't need me, or even this thread, to help them out!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Resolving chariot races need only draw on whatever that system might use for movement rules or chase/pursuit rules, modified by the GM to suit the situation.



Here are some prominent RPG systems I know of that have no rules for resolving chases/pursuits in a way that would make for a satisfying chariot race:

* AD&D (the dungeon pursuit rules just compare movement rates,; the outdoor evasion rules are not relevant to chariot races);

* B/X D&D (ditto);

* Classic Traveller (the referee would have to make up some rules based around the vehicle skill);

* Rolemaster (there are rules for resolving vehicular manoeuvres, but not in the context of a race - the GM would have to make up a system for opposed checks);

* I think RQ also has the RM problem, but I'm a bit less confident about that as it's been a while.



Lanefan said:


> "Resolving" interactions with prophets or holy types rolls right into the point I'm trying to make: those interactions can occur and be roleplayed through but IMO without external pressure (which would almost invariably drift quickly into combat rules and-or GM fiat) they cannot ever be resolved in finality.



I have no idea what you mean by "resolved in finality". I mean something fairly concrete - an outcome to the present fictional situation is established, by application of the resolution mechanics, and is binding on all participants, most saliently in this context the GM.

Gygax's morale rules in his DMG assume this sort of finality, inherited from wargaming: if a unit breaks than the player controlling it can't just arbitrarily (eg in the absence of some sort of "rally" mechanic) decide that it returns to the fight.

Classic Traveller in its rules for NPC reaction rolls expressly provides for finality. From p 23 of the 1977 version:

Reactions are used by the referee and by players as a guide to the probable actions of individuals. . . . Reactions govern the reliability and quality of hirelings and employees. Generally, they would re-roll reactions in the fact of extremely bad treatment or unusually dangerous tasks​
The GM can't just decide that a NPC changes his/her mind after the reaction is rolled for. Something significant in the fiction, initiated by the players (eg bad treatment, dangerous task) is required. 

If nothing is binding on the GM, then nothing is _character driven via the actual mechanical processes of play_ as described in the OP. There is only the GM deciding what happens.



Lanefan said:


> I suppose it hinges on what you mean by "mark on the gameworld".



It could be anything. In a Rolemaster campaign a PC wanted to end slavery in the Great Kingdom. Another PC in that campaign wanted to ally with Vecna to take over the government of the Great Kingdom, but also helped his sometime companion (the first-mentioned PC) at a key point in his anti-slavery and anti-chauvinist aspirations.

In a different RM campaign a PC met a sorcerer on another plane and helped rescue her. He then set out to woo and marry her. In the end he succeeded in this endeavour, the player having built up the PC's social skills sufficiently to make it possible.

In our Prince Valiant game one of the PCs started play as a squire - the son of a moderately prosperous bourgeois family - and wanted to be knighted. He achieved this by challenging a knight to a joust who was blocking the path and would relent only if defeated in a joust by a fellow knight:




pemerton said:


> The PC asked for a joust, but the proud Sir Lionheart declined to joust with a mere squire. To which the PC responded, "Fine, I'll just continue on my way then!" and tried to pass Sir Lionheart and continue along the road. This called for a Presence vs Presence check, which the PC won - and so Sir Lionheart knighted him so that he could joust and perhaps succeed where the others had failed.



That's a mark made on the gameworld, in virtue of finality of resolution.



Lanefan said:


> I-as-PC might be trying to talk the party into chipping in funds toward a castle for use as a home base.  Should a game mechanic be allowed to determine whether I succeed or fail?



Different systems approach this in different ways:

* In Burning Wheel, this can and normally should be resolved via a Duel of Wits;

* In MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic it can be resolved via the use of the standard resolution mechanics (this happened in our game on Sunday when the dwarf tried to dress down Gandalf but failed, and Gandalf instead mad him feel ashamed of questioning a wizard's judgement);

* In 4e D&D there is no system for player vs player social conflict, which takes this mostly out of the ambit of character-driven arcs;

* In Apocalypse World a player can't force another player to have his/her PC do something, but can make doing something difficult and/or create mechanical incentives (ie XP awards) to do something else.​
In those last two games, the rules are different vs NPCs: 4e D&D has pretty robust mechanics for the players to have their PCs force their will upon NPCs; and Apocalypse World does also. Here's the AW move:

Seduce or Manipulate
When you *try to seduce or manipulate someone*, tell them what you want and roll+hot. For NPCs: on a hit, they ask you to promise something first, and do it if you promise. On a 10+, whether you keep your promise is up to you, later. On a 7–9, they need some concrete assurance right now. For PCs: on a 10+, both. On a 7–9, choose 1:
• if they do it, they mark experience​• if they refuse, it’s acting under fire​What they do then is up to them.​
All these differences affect the play experience.



Lanefan said:


> if they say 'no', a game mechanic should never prevent me from trying again later



Once (and as best I recall only once) in our 4e game, when debate about what to do next had dragged on to a point beyond decency, I called for opposed d20 checks, I think with adds on each side reflecting CHA bonuses.

Twice in our Classic Traveller game I've called for opposed checks to settle a debate between the PCs (being played out at the table) with modifiers reflecting noble status (ie Social Standing B+) and Leadership skill.

I've got no particular aversion to applying finality of resolution in these contexts, though as I've posted above not every system provides for it. (For what it's worth, I think what I did was a much bigger hack of 4e than Traveller, which is probably why it happened once in 100-ish sessions of D&D whereas has happened twice in a dozen-ish sessions of Traveller.)


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 11, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> Do you really need game mechanics for that though?




This is pretty much what it boils down to. Need is a strong word, and implies that you can't do without. And I don't think that's the case. 

Do you need combat mechanics for D&D? Not really. The GM can just decide, given the comparative strength of each side in a conflict, who wins. 

That seems to be how many are advocating for social interaction with D&D. Relying solely on role play. So why not do the same for combat? 

The answer is that D&D places more focus on combat. Which is not a bad thing. Sometimes pointing this out seems to rub people the wrong way....as if what's being said is that D&D is somehow "lesser". But that's not the case. It's simply about different things.

So all value judgement aside, D&D has a lot of combat based rules because it focuses on combat, it's about combat. 

If you wanted to play a RPG that was more about the characters than about where they go and who they fight, then it would probably make sense to play a game that has rules and mechanics that promote that the same way that D&D promotes combat, doesn't it? 

Having such rules may not be necessary, but don't you think it would help? 

A game's mechanics tell us what the game is meant to be about.


----------



## prabe (Feb 11, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> A game's mechanics tell us what the game is meant to be about.




It might be fairer to say that a game's mechanics tell us what the writer/s thought the player/s would need rules for.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 11, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> Do you really need game mechanics for that though?




Here is a quick case study.

Torchbearer is a brutal, dungeon crawl game where the guttering light of a torch/candle/lantern and the PCs' individual and collective "coming-unglued" state are the epicenter of all 3 of (a) the suffocating, unnerving feel of play, (b) the status/change/failure of Player Characters, and (c) the mechanics and GMing ethos that perpetuates the whole.

There are basically multiple, player-facing, ticking clocks that are constantly counting down...constantly counting down...like the dying, flickering flame. 

Players have to manage their resources (time, equipment, effort in terms of load-out and PC staying power) amidst the multiple, player-facing feedback loops that is stressing their wits and their will to continue. Characters are routinely changed forevermore (mechanically and those attendant effects on subsequent fiction...and this isn't something a player can opt-out from...the game's machinery makes it so...but they have a huge say in its manifestation), and rarely for the better.

If you're familiar with the video game "Darkest Dungeon", it was inspired by and cribbed most of its tech from Crane's Torchbearer.



Now take Dungeon World.  It isn't built for this style of play (its built for something else).  However, you can hack it to make it something like "Darkest Dungeon World."  You can put in moves that emulate the guttering light, have resources that work similarly (timescale and effectiveness), deploy a pair of Apocalypse World's (and Blade's) Clocks to give shape to the player-facing turn structure + countdown of light failing and conditions being accrued, you can use Harm/Trauma instead of DW's Hit Points.

You can make a very good hack that hews to Torchbearer's oppressive feel and stressful (but wonderful) experience and the inevitable weight that imposes brutally difficult decision-points upon the characters and ultimately changes them.

But its just not going to be perfect in its approximation.  While awesome, it will feel subtly different.  And that is before you even deal with trying to hack the other phases (Journey, Town, Winter) of the game which are absolutely central to the holistic play experience!

You're going to get some of this stuff wrong...its going to feel wobbly and askew both during play and upon reflection...regardless how many times you iterate.



Now sub out all of that game machinery that has been carefully and beautifully rendered to create (i) feel, (ii) the ever-escalating situation and all its attendant decision-points, (iii) the GM guidance and constraint such that everything is dynamic, coherent, reproducible, (iv) the finality of each conflict and then adventure such that there is no opting-out...no softening the blow...no GM Force/Illusionism to artificially make things better or worse...you get what you deserve and the Sword of Damocles is ever-looming .  Get rid of the player-facing, transparent aspects of play that inform the decision-tree and emotional quality of each moment.

Now sub in "GM decides", overwhelmingly GM-facing machinery that isn't tightly rendered and quality controlled to create an exact play experience (that is left to the GM), and the means for players to just opt-out of both conflicts and their fallout if both of the GM allows for it.



These three things are not the same thing.  They aren't the same in feel or weight from moment-to-moment, they aren't the same in terms of the experience of navigating individual decision-points, they aren't the same in terms of stress/anxiety/crestfallenness/exaltation both during and upon reflection of what transpired.

This is saying nothing about what is better.

Its simply saying "the experience is just fundamentally not the same...and in big, meaningful ways."


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 11, 2020)

@lowkey13

Thanks!

As to your post, it really depends on the participants.

If you put me at that GM's game, I 100 % guarantee I would know what has happening under the hood...and I would not be pleased.  Neither that GM, nor myself (and I know the source material through and through and would put my hard-earned GMing skill-set up against anyone who has ever run a game) can remotely recreate something approximating the Torchbearer experience (neither the lovely agony of the hostile decision-trees that must constantly be navigated nor the overall emotional quality of play) via "GM Decides."

If he thinks he can, two things are happening; (1) he either hasn't wrangled his hubris or had it beaten out of him by exposure/experience and (2) his players' expectations are somewhat muted.

And neither of (1) nor (2) are objectively bad things (certainly not when it comes to market share).  GMs with ample hubris and players with somewhat muted expectations (just looking to be entertained and/or be run through a compelling story and/or have a Power Fantasy fulfilled) are likely what makes up the overwhelming bulk of the tables in our hobby.  And people are still playing and we're experiencing renewed vigor within the hobby.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Interestingly, one of the oldest debates in RPGs (since it arose out of D&D) was the debate over whether rules *enabled* play, or rules *discouraged *play.
> 
> In other words, did additional rules in an area lead to better play by delineation, or did it cause players to be forced to work within the rules and thereby stultify creative play?




The answer to the question "Does it lead to better play or stultify play?" is, of course, the ambiguous, "Yes."



> Heck, the push-pull of rules and systematizing play is as old as Gygax and Arneson.




What we forget is that... different people work differently.

Some poets are their most creative when working in free verse.  Others when working in sonnets.  Some are best unrestrained, others best with a framework.


----------



## prabe (Feb 11, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Interestingly, one of the oldest debates in RPGs (since it arose out of D&D) was the debate over whether rules *enabled* play, or rules *discouraged *play.
> 
> In other words, did additional rules in an area lead to better play by delineation, or did it cause players to be forced to work within the rules and thereby stultify creative play?
> 
> Heck, the push-pull of rules and systematizing play is as old as Gygax and Arneson.




I have not studied TRPGs or the history thereof in enough detail to be sure I remember seeing this discussion going back that far, but I am pretty sure that I've seen more modern echoes of it. I like to think that I'm reasonably intelligent, and that I've thought about TRPGs in ways that go beyond "what am I going to run this Saturday?" but I have to admit there are times when the discussion seems to be happening on a different (more theoretical) level than I'm used to thinking about.

As @Umbran says above, the answer to this push-pull (and I suspect to most similar questions) is ambiguous. People have tastes and preferences, and some things might work more intuitively for more people, but that seems to be about as far as can be said with certainty.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2020)

prabe said:


> ... but I have to admit there are times when the discussion seems to be happening on a different (more theoretical) level than I'm used to thinking about.




It is often happening on so theoretical a level as to be difficult to link it back to actual practice.  :/



> As @Umbran says above, the answer to this push-pull (and I suspect to most similar questions) is ambiguous. People have tastes and preferences, and some things might work more intuitively for more people, but that seems to be about as far as can be said with certainty.




It isn't necessarily even around what works more intuitively.  It is often about how the brain generates ideas and chooses concepts, or how one can suffer from option paralysis.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 11, 2020)

Yeah, a game like Torchbearer is amazingly designed...utterly brilliant.

But there is no way a game like Torchbearer could ever, ever, ever hope to supplant a "GM decides" game like 5e D&D because its too "refined" (and I don't mean that in a snobby way...I mean that in a "one man's trash is another man's treasure" sort of way), focused, niche, and just requires far too much from all table participants (and a healthy dose of players want a much more passive experience).

But...if someone (like the OP) is looking for a pretty specific experience, I'm going to talk about games and techniques (and not "GM decides") that may provide that.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Feb 11, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Sorry! I was thinking about, inter alia, the introduction of the thief class. Whenever rules are introduced to a part of any RPG that were not previously there, people complain that it prevents them from doing what they did before.
> 
> 
> > No worries. I appreciate that people have studied (or remember) the history. While I played a fair amount of 1E, I wasn't paying any attention to what was going on outside the game/s I was playing in. I only really started paying attention about the time of 3E, and I only started thinking about the design of TRPGs in the past decade and change (when, oddly, I was kinda burnt-out on TRPGs in general, except as a social thing with friends). I've been playing and running 5E for just coming up on 2 years, now, and while I love the system (because it mostly works the way I expect it to) I know enough about people and design to know it's not going to be right for everyone.
> ...


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 11, 2020)

prabe said:


> It might be fairer to say that a game's mechanics tell us what the writer/s thought the player/s would need rules for.




I get the distinction your making, but I don't know if it's meaningful enough to matter. I mean, the things you need rules for are largely the things that must come up in play, right? Sure, some things that lack rules may come up, but I don't know if this is a case of such things not needing rules so much as being less of a focal point for the game. More that they weren't expected to come up often enough to devote more rules to them.

The minimal social mechanics that did exist in early D&D were still tied to combat and delving.....morale, henchmen, followers, etc. In a pinch, if Robillard needed to impress some NPC, perhaps a Charisma check of some sort could be made. Each edition has had varying degrees of guidance of this kind in the books. But they usually take the form of suggestions, where as the more focal areas read as more codified.



lowkey13 said:


> Interestingly, one of the oldest debates in RPGs (since it arose out of D&D) was the debate over whether rules *enabled* play, or rules *discouraged *play.
> 
> In other words, did additional rules in an area lead to better play by delineation, or did it cause players to be forced to work within the rules and thereby stultify creative play?




I think this likely speaks more about the quality of the rules and how they fit the gameplay more than merely their presence. Yes, certain rules can be an obstacle for any number of reasons. But is it _a_ rule that's the problem, or is it _that_ rule?

My group tends to view Encumbrance this way....that it's too fiddly and annoying, and doesn't add to the enjoyment of play, and so we hand wave it. It slows the actual game down and does it for a result that doesn't feel all that meaningful.

Same group of players find the Gear/Load system in Blades in the Dark to be easy to implement, and enjoyable in play. It leads to potentially meaningful choices that they need to consider, but doesn't come with the annoying bookkeeping. In that sense, it enables play.

That's just a simple comparison and anecdotal as all hell, so take it for what it's worth.


----------



## prabe (Feb 11, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I get the distinction your making, but I don't know if it's meaningful enough to matter. I mean, the things you need rules for are largely the things that must come up in play, right? Sure, some things that lack rules may come up, but I don't know if this is a case of such things not needing rules so much as being less of a focal point for the game. More that they weren't expected to come up often enough to devote more rules to them.




There's no doubt a lot of that, but it could also be an expectation on the part of the writer/s that, say, interacting with NPCs would be a matter of playing out the interactions, rather than rolling dice (or using any other mechanic).

I'm not really arguing hard, here, just saying that "you need rules for this" isn't necessarily the same as "the heart of the game" (which may not be your exact words). Obviously it's a reasonable presumption that if the PCs are expected to behave in a certain way, there will be mechanics for that.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 11, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> 'No mechanics' is never a limitation; and in this case 'finality of resolution' doesn't sound like a good idea.  In combat, yes, there's usually a finality - one side or combatant dies, or surrenders, or is made captive, whatever; the combat's done and in most cases it only has to be done once.




I would make two points in response to this:

1)  I think that has more to do with D&D discouraging the players from breaking off combat through its combat mechanical oddities. Even in some of the earlier rules, there were popular "parting shot" or "free swing" variants for disengaging. And that's not to mention opportunity loss of XP/treasure. That is, adventuring parties don't generally retreat from combats.  Rarely, if ever, do you see one side "drive off" the other without inflicted devastating casualties. In part, I blame this on the HP system, without a "death spiral" combat really is a winner-take-all affair. The loss of "resources" is so trivial that we constantly see DMs appearing with 5MWD problems. Combat carrying only a singular "finality" leads to all sorts of narrative oddities.

2) 'No mechanics' actually is something of a limitation. Players (including the GM) are playing a game, they look to the rules to explain/describe how. I've noted that players are often loathe to engage in things that the rules don't cover. Why risk something that _may_ work, when you can rely on your trusty sword for little risk. You can't "game" non-mechanics like you can all the mechanical fiddly bits of a combat system. And when you only have a hammer, everything is a nail.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 11, 2020)

prabe said:


> There's no doubt a lot of that, but it could also be an expectation on the part of the writer/s that, say, interacting with NPCs would be a matter of playing out the interactions, rather than rolling dice (or using any other mechanic).
> 
> I'm not really arguing hard, here, just saying that "you need rules for this" isn't necessarily the same as "the heart of the game" (which may not be your exact words). Obviously it's a reasonable presumption that if the PCs are expected to behave in a certain way, there will be mechanics for that.




I get you....no worries, I'm not trying to argue either! 

I think that you're right, that they felt that the DM would help abdicate anything not specifically addressed by the rules, and that the game mechanics gave them enough to do so. Just the nature of the role of the DM kind of expects that these things are his responsibility. And I think that largely would work for the kind of game they were playing.

I think in the earlier days of RPGs, there were more blindspots, for lack of a better term. The people making the game had a pretty specific way they played it, and so all the rules were designed to deliver that experience, or something close to it. It was pretty narrow, in that sense. Then it changed and morphed once it got out into the wild, and other people put their own spin on things. 

In more modern game design, there are less blindspots. We're more aware of the broad selection of playstyles and modes of play and reasons to play....all of that. I feel now, when a game designer makes a decision to include mechanics for X but not for Y, it's a pretty clear indicator that the game is about X more than Y. And just like in the early days, people can take that X game and make it more Y, and it can all work out great. 

But for those seeking Y, there may be other games more suited.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Feb 11, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I feel like I've heard that recently ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It combines well with "In a pinch, any tool can become a hammer."


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Feb 11, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> In a pinch, every problem becomes a nail?




In the sense that you can solve the problem by hitting it, sure.

Don't force it. Get a bigger hammer.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Feb 11, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Can God create a problem so big she cannot lift a hammer big enough to hit it?




Depends on the edition. Probably not in 3.x where increased size came with an AC penalty. ;-)


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 11, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Well, no. I mean, yes.
> 
> Yes and no!
> 
> ...




I agree with you mostly. I don't think that the introduction of ANY RULE means that the players will employ that rule. They may employ it, they may adjust it, they may discard it. So the intro of ANY RULE means that it needs to be addressed in some way. Such as my table deciding that Encumbrance can go take a poo.

I think it's about how that rule may fit into the system. To go back to the Gear/Load system in Blades in the Dark....although it's a great mechanic, it can't simply be bolted onto D&D in favor of encumbrance. It requires some of the elements of Blades to work....most specifically, phases of play divided to "Downtime" and "The Score". So unless you also want to make a similar distinction in D&D....like maybe "In Town" and "Delving" or similar, then it simply wouldn't work as intended. 

And yes, I agree with you that having rules can constrain choice. I don't know that it always must do so, but I agree that it certainly can. That's where the elegance comes in. Is the rule worth it? Does it enhance play? Or does it get in the way of or restrict play? Chances are it may do a bit of both. Are any drawbacks sufficiently offset by what's gained? Or is what's gained worth dealing with the drawback?

To bring this back to the OP.....I think that any system that lacks mechanics that support the character driven style of play would be a "con" so to speak. It's a weakness of that game as it relates to this goal. 

So if someone said "I'd like to play a RPG that is more character focused than adventure focused", which response would be better: 

"Here's a game that has tools that will help you create character focused play." 

OR

"Here's a game that has no such tools. But it doesn't really have any obstacles if you want to kind of do it on your own while you play."

Obviously, based on the differing stances in this thread, there's no right answer.


----------



## prabe (Feb 11, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> So if someone said "I'd like to play a RPG that is more character focused than adventure focused", which response would be better:
> 
> "Here's a game that has tools that will help you create character focused play."
> 
> ...




While there's no right answer, a question might narrow down what'd work for the querent: "What do you find to be more of a stumbling-block, rules or the absence or rules?" The question might need re-phrasing, depending.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 11, 2020)

prabe said:


> While there's no right answer, a question might narrow down what'd work for the querent: "What do you find to be more of a stumbling-block, rules or the absence or rules?" The question might need re-phrasing, depending.




I've mentioned something a lot as of late (when I've actually posted over the last few years...which is in spurts...and not much overall...so I guess you would have to tie the thread together over that incoherent long haul) that I think has a lot of explanatory power as to why these discussions can be difficult.

This question you've posed above seems to presuppose something about TTRPGs:

_*Game systems are discrete tool-kits meant to be deeply curated, to taste, mixed/matched in a modular fashion by x (typically the GM, but sometimes the group).*_

This zeitgeist seems to be so deeply embedded in the D&D cultural fabric that people just take it for granted that "this is the way, the one truth."

Game systems that are focused or somewhat resistant to hacking become anathema.  

There is an alternative:

_*Game systems are a synthesis of rules, procedures, and principles, the collective of which is holistically bound to an ethos/premise of play.*_

Your question becomes less/more relevant/fundamentally different with respect to each starting position.

At its core, these two ideas are the yin and yang of the "sum of its parts" concept.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Feb 11, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> I've mentioned something a lot as of late (when I've actually posted over the last few years...which is in spurts...and not much overall...so I guess you would have to tie the thread together over that incoherent long haul) that I think has a lot of explanatory power as to why these discussions can be difficult.
> 
> This question you've posed above seems to presuppose something about TTRPGs:
> 
> ...




I can see that. As I mentioned earlier (I think) I'm new here, so I probably wouldn't have been able to assemble anything like this from your posts, anywhere near as coherently-put.

I have to say, though, that I don't see this as a strict dichotomy. One might curate or hack a set of rules because of a specific ethos or premise. Or one might run something off-the-shelf, without ... I guess I want to say introspection, or maybe contemplation, about the premises of the game. Doesn't mean what you've described aren't the ends of a spectrum, or that it isn't useful to elucidate them--it is! Thank you!

One could also describe the DIY approach more-inherent in pre-3E D&D as something like an ethos, if not necessarily a premise (I think) and while the ethos of the players--especially the Very Online Players--does seem to have moved to playing-by-RAW, I think the 5E game itself supports hacking and modifying and as much DIY as the DM has time for. There are also games that seem to me to have some very different ideas about how TRPGs work, that still encourage *a lot* of DIY/hacking.


----------



## innerdude (Feb 11, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> @innerdude
> 
> So I'm curious- what exactly are you looking for with your post?
> 
> ...




Very good questions. _[Edit]_ Most of the above, in a sense (other than adding more GM force, which I really have no interest in). _[/Edit]_

I'm fairly aware of systems out there that shift the focus from "procedural" resolution to "scene-based" resolution (Burning Wheel, Cortex+, Fate, PbtA/BitD, etc.). And I've actually tried Fate Accelerated and Dungeon World, and personally enjoyed what they were doing . . . . but my group was less enthusiastic.

I own Burning Wheel Gold, and in a certain way think that it's probably the closest expression of what I would be trying to get at toward true character-driven/chracter arc-based play . . . but I also know there's almost no chance I'd ever be able to convince the group to try it. One in particular (the GURPS-loving powergamer) would be a hard "no."

I was definitely looking for perspectives and insights into what _drives_ character-arc play, what kinds of expectations people have when they're looking for character-arc-driven play, whether the presence/absence of rules that promote character-arc-driven play is a help or hindrance, etc.

This observation from @Ovinomancer was particularly striking for me, as I've heard this before in writing workshops for speculative fiction:



Ovinomancer said:


> To have character arcs, the character must be at risk.
> 
> This doesn't mean that the character might die, or be hurt, or lose things, but instead that the fundamental nature of the character must be at risk.  Something the character believes, or feels, or values as a core conceit must be at risk of being shown false, or different, or even validated through hardship.  If you do not risk character, there's nothing that can change that isn't an arbitrary choice by the player or GM.  And arbitrary change is fine, although it doesn't meet the desire of the OP to have games that involve character driven play.




The goal for me is to find more tools, techniques, and opportunities to both _generate _and _sustain _character-arc-driven play instilled with the kinds of things @Ovinomancer alludes to.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> 2. The reason I'm not sure I agree with your first construction is two-fold; while I think that there was a big DIY component in D&D, I also think that, especially from 3e on there has been an increasing RAW emphasis in D&D. So I don't think that is fully accurate.




I think, over time, there's been a growth in the number of systems available, and an improvement in the design of systems, in general, that helps to support the increased emphasis as RAW/RAE, and a bit of a decline in retooling systems.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Feb 11, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I think that's part of it.
> 
> I also think that there's a decline in the "DIY" or "punk" aesthetic to the game. It's less of a purely creative and participatory hobby, in some ways, and more something to be consumed.
> 
> The two are probably interrelated; increasing professionalism on the production side tends to lead to less production on the consumer's (hobbyist's) side.




I wonder if some portion of it isn't the aging of what seems as though it at least has to be a large chunk of the market for TRPGs. It's harder to be DIY if you don't have the time, and it's easier to pay for professionalism if you have the money. I'm not sure the people getting into the hobby now have anything like role models for the DIY stuff that won't feel old and grognardy to them.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 11, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 11, 2020)

Not going to be able to get to all the responses just yet, but just wanted to clarify one thing:

The distinction I'm drawing can also be summed up as:

*"To hack...or not to hack...that is the question!"*

So any hacking (at all) falls into the first and no hacking (at all) falls into the second.

You could certainly break down the first into a continuum of hacking, and then ponder _"at what point does hacking game x lead to ethos/premise revision?"  _But that isn't what I'm setting out to do here (and I'm not sure its particularly apposite with respect to this thread).  It would probably need a new thread to discuss the nuance of that question_._


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I also think that there's a decline in the "DIY" or "punk" aesthetic to the game. It's less of a purely creative and participatory hobby, in some ways, and more something to be consumed.




Traditionally, only the GM is in this "punk", and "purely creative and participatory" element of the hobby.  Which doesn't sound all that participatory, does it?

Also... there's a very strong argument that this doesn't make it _less_ creative or participatory- it merely shifts where the creation and participation is taking place.  I don't have to hack up rules... so I can spend my time in campaign and adventure design, for example.

As for it being punk... with respect, punk is about liking what you like, and _making absolutely sure everyone knows_ that you don't care what they think. There's a public performance aspect to punk which is largely missing in RPGs. When I hack up rules systems, it is for use with my friends - I care so little about what everyone else thinks that don't tell anyone I've done it.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2020)

Umbran said:


> It is often happening on so theoretical a level as to be difficult to link it back to actual practice.



There have been many posts in this thread that refer to actual play experience with actual RPG systems.

Who are you suggesting is not drawing on actual experience?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2020)

innerdude said:


> One in particular (the GURPS-loving powergamer) would be a hard "no."



I think Burning Wheel can be very enjoyable to power-gamers who like intricate mechanics. This may cause some deviation from the expected/intended play approach (eg a bit less in-character immersion, a bit more meta-gamey "Belief-mongering") but is still a pretty interesting RPG experience.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Feb 12, 2020)

Players drive my campaign with their paranoid speculation, and their choice of characteristics.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 12, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> That seems to be how many are advocating for social interaction with D&D. Relying solely on role play. So why not do the same for combat?



Because when sitting around the table with the other players and GM _we can live-action-roleplay the social interactions_.

We - or I'd hazard a guess well over 99% of us - can't or aren't in position to live-action-roleplay medieval-style combat in character.  Nor are we able to or in position to live-action-roleplay a lot of things that fall under exploration.  Thus we need game mechanics to simulate those things for us, in whatever means and manner that system provides.

But we _don't_ need game mechanics to simulate that which we can in fact do ourselves: the talky bits.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 12, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Here are some prominent RPG systems I know of that have no rules for resolving chases/pursuits in a way that would make for a satisfying chariot race:
> 
> * AD&D (the dungeon pursuit rules just compare movement rates,; the outdoor evasion rules are not relevant to chariot races);
> 
> ...



In all of these cases it'd almost certainly come down to a series of dice rolls, maybe modified by various factors e.g. track position, skill, willingness to cheat in the race, etc.



> I have no idea what you mean by "resolved in finality". I mean something fairly concrete - an outcome to the present fictional situation is established, by application of the resolution mechanics, and is binding on all participants, most saliently in this context the GM.
> 
> Gygax's morale rules in his DMG assume this sort of finality, inherited from wargaming: if a unit breaks than the player controlling it can't just arbitrarily (eg in the absence of some sort of "rally" mechanic) decide that it returns to the fight.



Yeah, this is part of why I'm not a huge fan of those rules and rarely use them.

I also don't use the RAW for how a hench reacts to the treatment given by the employer, instead reacting as that particular character would as a free-willed individual.



> Classic Traveller in its rules for NPC reaction rolls expressly provides for finality. From p 23 of the 1977 version:
> 
> Reactions are used by the referee and by players as a guide to the probable actions of individuals. . . . Reactions govern the reliability and quality of hirelings and employees. Generally, they would re-roll reactions in the fact of extremely bad treatment or unusually dangerous tasks​
> The GM can't just decide that a NPC changes his/her mind after the reaction is rolled for. Something significant in the fiction, initiated by the players (eg bad treatment, dangerous task) is required.
> ...



If a PC can change its mind (and I'm pretty hard line that, absent controlling mechanics, it can) then an NPC can also change its mind; which is why binding rolls are IMO a very bad idea.



> In a different RM campaign a PC met a sorcerer on another plane and helped rescue her. He then set out to woo and marry her. In the end he succeeded in this endeavour, the player having built up the PC's social skills sufficiently to make it possible.



Had the sorcerer been another PC would this have been handled any differently?  If yes, there's a problem.



> In our Prince Valiant game one of the PCs started play as a squire - the son of a moderately prosperous bourgeois family - and wanted to be knighted. He achieved this by challenging a knight to a joust who was blocking the path and would relent only if defeated in a joust by a fellow knight:
> 
> ​​
> That's a mark made on the gameworld, in virtue of finality of resolution.



It is, but why did it need any rolling?  Sir Lionheart was an NPC, right?  If he - in your judgment as SL's player - is impressed enough with this squire (via how the squire's been roleplayed) to knight him on the spot then just do it.  If not, don't do it; or have SL say something encouraging to the squire as he passes: "You're brave, squire, I'll give you that.  When next we meet I fully expect we will joust."



> Different systems approach this in different ways:
> 
> * In Burning Wheel, this can and normally should be resolved via a Duel of Wits;​​* In MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic it can be resolved via the use of the standard resolution mechanics (this happened in our game on Sunday when the dwarf tried to dress down Gandalf but failed, and Gandalf instead mad him feel ashamed of questioning a wizard's judgement);​​* In 4e D&D there is no system for player vs player social conflict, which takes this mostly out of the ambit of character-driven arcs;​​* In Apocalypse World a player can't force another player to have his/her PC do something, but can make doing something difficult and/or create mechanical incentives (ie XP awards) to do something else.​



And all of these violate the freedom of players to roleplay their characters, which makes them all  - simply put - bad.​


> In those last two games, the rules are different vs NPCs: 4e D&D has pretty robust mechanics for the players to have their PCs force their will upon NPCs; and Apocalypse World does also. Here's the AW move:
> 
> Seduce or Manipulate​When you *try to seduce or manipulate someone*, tell them what you want and roll+hot. For NPCs: on a hit, they ask you to promise something first, and do it if you promise. On a 10+, whether you keep your promise is up to you, later. On a 7–9, they need some concrete assurance right now. For PCs: on a 10+, both. On a 7–9, choose 1:​• if they do it, they mark experience​• if they refuse, it’s acting under fire​
> What they do then is up to them.​
> All these differences affect the play experience.



And not for the better.  Just as a GM can't* take the right to play a character away from a player, the game shouldn't be allowed to either.  If I try to manipulate or persuade another PC to do something (e.g. chip in toward a castle) it's on the player of that PC to respond in character.

* - again, absent control mechanics etc.



> Once (and as best I recall only once) in our 4e game, when debate about what to do next had dragged on to a point beyond decency, I called for opposed d20 checks, I think with adds on each side reflecting CHA bonuses.
> 
> Twice in our Classic Traveller game I've called for opposed checks to settle a debate between the PCs (being played out at the table) with modifiers reflecting noble status (ie Social Standing B+) and Leadership skill.



And here's exactly what I'm talking about: _the GM has to allow however long it takes for these debates to play out_.  They're still arguing three sessions later?  Fine.  Put yer feet up and let 'em have at it.

Sooner or later the debate will resolve itself in character, and yes this might mean the party splits in two if they truly can't agree what to do next or in what sequence.  Been there, done that, it's part of the game.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 12, 2020)

Ratskinner said:


> I would make two points in response to this:
> 
> 1)  I think that has more to do with D&D discouraging the players from breaking off combat through its combat mechanical oddities. Even in some of the earlier rules, there were popular "parting shot" or "free swing" variants for disengaging. And that's not to mention opportunity loss of XP/treasure. That is, adventuring parties don't generally retreat from combats.  Rarely, if ever, do you see one side "drive off" the other without inflicted devastating casualties. In part, I blame this on the HP system, without a "death spiral" combat really is a winner-take-all affair. The loss of "resources" is so trivial that we constantly see DMs appearing with 5MWD problems. Combat carrying only a singular "finality" leads to all sorts of narrative oddities.



Agreed, particularly when the opponents are intelligent.

And parties not breaking away when they should is typical adventuring fare, reinforced more recently with most encounters being more tailored to the party's capabilities (vs. a true sandbox where you never really know what you're gonna meet).



> 2) 'No mechanics' actually is something of a limitation. Players (including the GM) are playing a game, they look to the rules to explain/describe how. I've noted that players are often loathe to engage in things that the rules don't cover. Why risk something that _may_ work, when you can rely on your trusty sword for little risk. You can't "game" non-mechanics like you can all the mechanical fiddly bits of a combat system. And when you only have a hammer, everything is a nail.



I think this depends on the specific players.

With some, you give 'em a rule and their first thought is how to get around it.  With others, you give 'em a rule and they'll run with it because now they know the limits.

Not being able to "game" non-mechanics is a strong argument in their favour; and I do my best to close loopholes in the rules as I find them to prevent "gaming" the hard-rules bits too.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 12, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 12, 2020)

innerdude said:


> I've been thinking a lot lately about how despite having a tremendous amount of fun with RPGs over the years, I continue have a sense of lack, or dissatisfaction with one particular aspect of my play experiences---namely, I have found it to be nigh impossible to drift into what I would consider a true "character-driven" style of play.
> 
> Let me explain what I mean by that.
> 
> ...



I'm going to disagree with you about that part of the game, but suggest you've been looking at the wrong games. A fundamental rule of ... quite a lot of things is "Measure what you value or you end up valuing what you measure".

And this is where D&D and a lot of other games fall down. In D&D the numbers basically only go up, and they don't relate at all to the character's place in the gameworld. 5e has the background which helps flesh your character out, but mechanically it's immutable once chosen - it's your background. So the rules in D&D don't do a thing to help create this sort of change other than by getting more powerful. And because rules provide focus this easily gets seen as unimportant. (Dungeon World is not substantially different from D&D this way).

Meanwhile better are games where you can develop sideways. @pemerton has already used as an example the Marvel Heroic Roleplaying system which encourages you to make decisions (including romantic ones) - and taking another good example Fate Core has advancements that include re-writing an aspect - in other words fundamentally changing your place in the world.

But the game that has provided the best character arcs to me is _Apocalypse World. _This is for two reasons:

Your playbook (character class) is literally your place in the world. Which puts a lot of weight on your place in the world.​
There are ways to change it. In specific with XP once you've reached a certain point in the game, and it's one way to come back after you run out of hit points (you can only do this once).​
The setting is post-apocalyptic and playbooks are things like the Hardholder (the  town boss), the Gunlugger (the combat monster - one optional move is literally called "NOT TO BE naughty word WITH" in all caps), the Angel (the post-apocalyptic medic), the Hocus (the cult leader), the Brainer (the creepy psychic), and the Maestro D' (who runs the local entertainment establishment). A lot of those are really tied to the character's place in the world - and as mentioned they can be changed in play under _very _limited circumstances.

So how does this work in practice? I ran a game for two complete newbies and someone who'd never played Apocalypse World before in late 2018 for six sessions. At the start we had three characters - a creepy psychic who always wore a Hazmat Suit, a confident leader of a disparate group that he called his family, and the hermit who lives in the woods. By the time we were done the brainer had mind controlled the cult leader into leaving his "family" behind and the cult leader (also thanks to an unfortunate snake eyes trying to heal one of his family) felt he'd failed them and was working for someone in the rival town, the near-pacifist cult leader had poisoned then shot the mind controlling psychic, leaving him for dead - and his essence bled out into his mask. An NPC had found the mask, torn parts away, and put it on - at which point he'd been possessed by the essence of the psychic which was whispering dark thoughts into his mind (there's a literal playbook to do this called the Faceless), and the loner in the woods had started looking after the cult because it was quite obvious they couldn't fend for themselves so someone had to look after them. All a consequence of the story progression and the rules as written encouraging character arcs.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 12, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Because when sitting around the table with the other players and GM _we can live-action-roleplay the social interactions_.
> 
> We - or I'd hazard a guess well over 99% of us - can't or aren't in position to live-action-roleplay medieval-style combat in character.  Nor are we able to or in position to live-action-roleplay a lot of things that fall under exploration.  Thus we need game mechanics to simulate those things for us, in whatever means and manner that system provides.
> 
> But we _don't_ need game mechanics to simulate that which we can in fact do ourselves: the talky bits.




But you’re still pretending. Are all your players professional orators? For your players to replicate skilled court intrigue, all they need to be able to do is speak? 

I can narrate my attack on the giant just as easily as I can narrate my attempt to persuade the guard to let me by. Both of these things could fail....why does one have rules to determine success or failure and the other does not?  

I think that not having any social based mechanics at all leaves everything up to choice. The player decides how their character feels about everything. The GM decides how the NPCs react to the PCs. 

But what about when someone feels something without choosing to? 

We’ve all found ourselves provoked to anger. Or overcome by desire. Or stricken with fear. 

Sometimes these things are not choices. Having a game mechanic that may help replicate that lack of total control over ourselves seems like a potentially powerful tool for a game.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 12, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> But you’re still pretending. Are all your players professional orators? For your players to replicate skilled court intrigue, all they need to be able to do is speak?
> 
> I can narrate my attack on the giant just as easily as I can narrate my attempt to persuade the guard to let me by. Both of these things could fail....why does one have rules to determine success or failure and the other does not?



It's rare, however, that a social interaction is going to have as direct and immediate influence on the health and-or functionality of your character as is combat.



> I think that not having any social based mechanics at all leaves everything up to choice. The player decides how their character feels about everything. The GM decides how the NPCs react to the PCs.



Exactly.  Stop here and we're all good. 



> But what about when someone feels something without choosing to?
> 
> We’ve all found ourselves provoked to anger. Or overcome by desire. Or stricken with fear.



And for the first two, it's very possible to put ourselves in such frames of mind while in character.  The character is overcome by desire, and his rationality goes out the window.  The character is provoked to anger and so she says things she shouldn't, and is likely to regret (or be made to regret) later.

For the third, 'fear' is in many systems a mechanical condition externally imposed by any number of possible sources.



> Sometimes these things are not choices. Having a game mechanic that may help replicate that lack of total control over ourselves seems like a potentially powerful tool for a game.



There's already loads of mechanics that potentially take away control.  Fear is one.  Charm and all its associated offspring are others.  Emotion-affecting spells and magic are yet others.  Possession is another, and-or curse.

A game mechanic that allows Joe's character Halfdan to provoke my character to anger (or some other strong emotion), overriding any other in-character response I might have had to whatever Halfdan is doing or saying, is for many reasons probably a bad idea particularly for those who don't like PvP in their games. (hell, PCs charming other PCs is already bad enough!) 

But here's the rub: if PC-PC relations are determined by their players then in the interest of consistency PC-NPC relations must as far as possible also work this way, and RAW be damned.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 12, 2020)

There's been some discussion about _rules_. I've been talking about _mechanics_. I don't think it's the case that the D&D Thief class substituted _mechanics_ for _no mechanics_. Classic D&D had a system, though it probably wasn't fully spelled out until Moldvay did it in his GM advice towards the back of his version of Basic D&D. (Moldvay - the great codifier and explainer!)

If something is otherwise not covered by the rules, the system directs the GM to set a required roll. The existing rules - for finding secret doors, making saving throws, etc - provide examples and set parameters for this, though I think obviously rather indeterminate and flexible ones. Moldvay gives two approaches - an ability check, and a % chance - without much advice as to how to choose between them. I can't find the links anymore to Luke Crane's Moldvay Basic actual play reports, but he describes making an adjudication of a fighter's attempt to sneak which, in retrospect, he feels probably didn't pay sufficient regard to the Thief class abilities. But to echo @hawkeyefan, this doesn't show the Thief class abilities cased problems because they were mechanics. Rather, it suggests they were bad mechanics because interacting poorly with other elements (express and implied) of the system - eg surely a "fighting man" who is very strong (say STR 16+) and agile (say DEX 15+) has a reasonably good prospect of climbing a wall, cliff etc.

Classic Traveller - which predates Moldvay Basic - has similar advice for the referee, although stated a bit more sparsely. Here is some text from Book 1 (p 20), and there is similar stuff found in the coda to Book 3:

It is impossible for any table of information to cover all aspects of every potential situation, and the above listing is by no means complete in its coverage of the effects of skills. This is where the referee becomes an important part of the game process. The above listing of skills and game effects must necessarily be taken as a guide, and followed, altered, or ignored as the actual situation dictates. . . .

[T]he referee may feel it necessary to create his own throws and DMs [= die modifiers] to govern action, and may or may not make such information generally available to the players. . . .

In order to be consistent (and a consistent universe makes the game both fun and interesting), the referee has a responsibility to record the throws and DMs he creates, and to note (perhaps by penciling in) any throws he alters from those given in these books.​
Despite this relative sparseness I think it's actually easier in Traveller because there are fewer important and complexly-interacting variables (classic D&D has ability scores which are not level-dependent, hp and saving throws which are, plus class special abilities including spells).

Relating this to @innerdude's concerns in the OP: for me, at least, the biggest reason that classic D&D and (in my experience) Classic Traveller aren't too-well suited for character-driven play is because the mechanics that the players have access to - whether codified rules or GM interpolation and extrapolation - are not sufficiently connected to _the character_. They don't express, or depend upon, the sorts of features of the character that are central to the sort of play the OP describes. They're too "external" and generic.

One way of "internalising" and degenericising mechanics is by eg allowing the PC's particular passions, foibles etc to inform the check. In a system like Fate this is further codified via Aspects; in Prince Valiant this is simply treated as a modifier to the roll (eg plus 1 die when a knight is jousting for the glory of his lady) - comparing the latter to classic D&D or Traveller the issue isn't degree of precisificaiton but rather than those two systems simply don't have much room for that particular sort of modification to a check. It would be a significant departure from their ethos as presented.

Another way of internalising and degenericising is to make _character (and player) intent _a central component of resolution. Burning Wheel takes this approach. So (albeit with difference in detail) does Apocalypse World. Whereas in classic D&D and Classic Traveller consequences of checks tend to be established by reference to the external situation rather than by reference to the nuances of a particular character's intent.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 12, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Because when sitting around the table with the other players and GM _we can live-action-roleplay the social interactions_.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But we _don't_ need game mechanics to simulate that which we can in fact do ourselves: the talky bits.





hawkeyefan said:


> But you’re still pretending. Are all your players professional orators? For your players to replicate skilled court intrigue, all they need to be able to do is speak?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I want to build on hawkeyefan's points.

*First*, a "negative" or contradicting point: _pretending to be someone_ isn't the same as, nor is it a simulation of, _being someone_. This is true in general, and it is especially true in a RPG, where most of the time most of the players are not using the sorts of techniques that some actors use some of the time to help increase the authenticity of their pretence of being someone who is not them.

An argument that is staged or "roleplayed" between a player and a GM doesn't in any real sense simulate an actual argument between actual people.

I take this point to be consistent with hawkeyefan's remarks about _chosen _and _non-chosen_ social responses, though I think it goes further: even where response are chosen (eg I might choose or decline an invitation to go to dinner), I don't think that "roleplaying" that decision-making at the table (eg the GM deciding whether or not a NPC accepts a PC's invitation to dinner) is any sort of simulation of how such an interaction would actually unfold. It's authorship through-and-through.

*Second*, a "positive" point: essentially unconstrained authorship is not the only way, in the context of a RPG, to produce the fiction of authentic and  compelling social interactions. In real life, for instance, some social interactions resolve because one party simply wears the other down. It may be desirable to have this occur from time-to-time in our gameworlds. But it strikes me as obviously undesirable, in the context of a social activity like RPGing, to have participants _actually wear one another down_. So if we want to produce that sort of fiction, we are going to need other methods.

One way is to rely on one participant (player or GM) to decide that a character s/he is controlling is worn down. In a lot of circumstances, it seems to me given me experiences of how RPGing happens, that will be essentially arbitrary.

Another way is to use a mechanical resolution method. Depending on what that method is it may also be arbitrary (eg if its a coin toss) though perhaps less exhausting than the first way. But a mechanical resolution method may also be non-arbitrary in the context of the fiction - eg in my Traveller game the method of resolving potentially interminable arguments by way of opposed checks modified by noble status and Leadership skill does not produce outcomes that are arbitrary given the fiction. It produces outcomes that we can easily locate within the fiction - eg that the Leader (Sir Glaxon) got his way, or that on this occasion Baron von Hallucida's attempt to assert the authority of his rank failed.

I think my second point can be generalised across quite a wide range of ingame circumstances, especially but not only social ones, but I'll leave that for the moment.

I don't think what I've described from my actual play of Traveller itself illustrates _character-driven arcs where mechanics are producing changes to the place of the character in the fiction_ of the sort @innerdude refers to in the OP. It's a bit thin and transitory for that. But I do think it shows how you might start building a mechanical framework to produce what innerdude is looking for.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 12, 2020)

innerdude said:


> I've been thinking a lot lately about how despite having a tremendous amount of fun with RPGs over the years, I continue have a sense of lack, or dissatisfaction with one particular aspect of my play experiences---namely, I have found it to be nigh impossible to drift into what I would consider a true "character-driven" style of play.
> 
> Let me explain what I mean by that.
> 
> ...




I think the question of whether games can be character driven, and whether games can achieve the same thing as literature (like character arcs and the emotional resonance you mention) are separate issues. RPGs are a different medium, so if you are going to capture elements of literature, things might have to be done differently. I don't play enough games that attempt to capture that enough to weigh in (but I will say I have met enough people who are satisfied with games that do, to think there is something there). But in terms of character driven games, I think even if you don't have mechanics specifically toward that end, a typical RPG campaign can easily be character driven. You don't need an arc for that. You just need the direction of the campaign to be shaped by the characters, and not by story, events, etc. That isn't necessarily going to feel like a book (or at least it won't consistently produce the structures found in books) but it will be a campaign where the characters are what drive things.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 12, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> And for the first two, it's very possible to put ourselves in such frames of mind while in character.  The character is overcome by desire, and his rationality goes out the window.  The character is provoked to anger and so she says things she shouldn't, and is likely to regret (or be made to regret) later.




Lanefan, the problem here is that you are not going to sell me, or @hawkeyefan , or certain others that this is true.

You might _think _that you can intimately inhabit the hugely complex system of your PC...but that is where it ends.

With respect, you're deluding yourself.  You are doing exactly what @hawkeyefan has said you're doing...you're merely deciding, or the GM is deciding, to have thing x happen over things y and z (and any innumerable other possibilities) when it comes to social conflict.

Professional actors can do a great job of characterizing a suite of traits and then spitting out a portrait by way of preconceived lines.  But they're just deluding themselves too if they think that they're actually, authentically modeling the extraordinarily complex interactions of endocrine and neurological systems of a social animal relating to other complex exogenous systems.

* You can't simulate and you can't incorporate the system-overwhelming response of extreme anxiety borne from trauma from horrific betrayals, brutal hardship/abuse during formative years, life-philosophy-upending instances in the past, the experience of knowing you're lower on the dominance hierarchy than someone and having that someone crush your social perception of yourself through callous bullying in front of others (either intellectually or physically), the pressure of having someone lean on you for hours and hours and hours (or years) and the burden of that collective weight.  And dozens and dozens of other instances.

Humans do not have NEARLY the agency that their (mis)perceptions tell them they do.  And also, neurological diversity (both hardware and software) is probably the most profound type of diversity in the social animal kingdom.  We're just starting to peel back these distinctions.

You may think you have the ability to soundly model how _behavioral suite a_ deals with _endocrine response b _while being unconsciously beholden to _prefrontal cortex disposition c (_and a myriad of other inputs)...but you cannot.  You flatly...cannot.

You are deciding...you aren't experiencing and then channeling this complex system through the inputs of a TTRPG conversation to model a complex creature.  You are deciding.

And I don't see how your decision (especially with all of this extreme agency in social animals that just doesn't exist in the wild) is more robust and better simulates social conflict, than conflict resolution mechanics that actually wrests some agency from us, imposes dispositions on us that we wish weren't present, and induces finality of resolution (as happens all_the_time in social conflict with other social animals).


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 12, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> It's rare, however, that a social interaction is going to have as direct and immediate influence on the health and-or functionality of your character as is combat.




So mechanics are only needed when health or functionality of character are at stake? 

Are there never other stakes that come up in a game? Stakes where the difference between success and failure is as meaningful as those of combat? 

I don't think this explanation you've offered does a lot to justify mechanics for combat but none for social interaction. 

I mean, "if there's a risk of failure, roll the dice" is a pretty fundamental approach to RPGs.



Lanefan said:


> Exactly.  Stop here and we're all good.




Well, except in an instance where someone is actively asking for ways to go further with this, such as the OP and his follow up comments.



Lanefan said:


> And for the first two, it's very possible to put ourselves in such frames of mind while in character.  The character is overcome by desire, and his rationality goes out the window.  The character is provoked to anger and so she says things she shouldn't, and is likely to regret (or be made to regret) later.




It is very possible. It's also fully at the players whim to do so. That doesn't seem all that meaningful, since the player could just as easily decide for his character not to get angry. And no one can question or chalenge that because "It's my character so I decide!!!!"

If there was some character trait that could com into play and be a potential trigger that could result in an undesirable action.....that by definition is more character driven play.



Lanefan said:


> For the third, 'fear' is in many systems a mechanical condition externally imposed by any number of possible sources.
> 
> There's already loads of mechanics that potentially take away control.  Fear is one.  Charm and all its associated offspring are others.  Emotion-affecting spells and magic are yet others.  Possession is another, and-or curse.




Those are all widely accepted because magic. What about when a person charms someone in a totally mundane way? People can do that in real life.....it happens all the time. 

Real people are not as in control of themselves as a Player is of his PC. 



Lanefan said:


> A game mechanic that allows Joe's character Halfdan to provoke my character to anger (or some other strong emotion), overriding any other in-character response I might have had to whatever Halfdan is doing or saying, is for many reasons probably a bad idea particularly for those who don't like PvP in their games. (hell, PCs charming other PCs is already bad enough!)
> 
> But here's the rub: if PC-PC relations are determined by their players then in the interest of consistency PC-NPC relations must as far as possible also work this way, and RAW be damned.




So if the players decided to, by fiat, have this kind of altercation break out, that's fine, but if a game had mechanics that allowed for this to happen, that's not fine? That's odd.

And I know that you ascribe to the idea that "no character is special" and I think the parity you're promoting here among PCs and NPCs relates to that, so I can understand your reasoning here.

However, don't you think that "character-driven" play as described in the OP and throughout the thread must by definition place an importance on character? If this is "Jack's Story" then how is Jack not more important than most of the characters that appear in the story? 

I don't think that you can claim to promote character driven play while simultaneously dismissing the importance of character.


----------



## prabe (Feb 12, 2020)

So, I'm not trying to speak for @Lanefan here, just responding inline. I'm also going to be snipping for convenience and readability; I'll try not to change the meaning by changing the context.



hawkeyefan said:


> So mechanics are only needed when health or functionality of character are at stake?
> 
> Are there never other stakes that come up in a game? Stakes where the difference between success and failure is as meaningful as those of combat?




Sure. Mechanics are necessary whenever anything important is at stake. While I understand the reasoning behind "roleplay all the interactions" I prefer for there to be mechanics, because there may be disparities between player competencies and character competencies.



hawkeyefan said:


> It is very possible. It's also fully at the players whim to do so. That doesn't seem all that meaningful, since the player could just as easily decide for his character not to get angry. And no one can question or chalenge that because "It's my character so I decide!!!!"
> 
> If there was some character trait that could com into play and be a potential trigger that could result in an undesirable action.....that by definition is more character driven play.




I think some people don't see that a mechanic that (more or less) forces a character to behave a certain way is more character-driven than player choice is.



hawkeyefan said:


> Real people are not as in control of themselves as a Player is of his PC.




I think this is exactly why some people react so strongly to mechanics that (more or less) force their character to behave in ways the player doesn't choose.



hawkeyefan said:


> And I know that you ascribe to the idea that "no character is special" and I think the parity you're promoting here among PCs and NPCs relates to that, so I can understand your reasoning here.
> 
> However, don't you think that "character-driven" play as described in the OP and throughout the thread must by definition place an importance on character? If this is "Jack's Story" then how is Jack not more important than most of the characters that appear in the story?
> 
> I don't think that you can claim to promote character driven play while simultaneously dismissing the importance of character.




Jack might be very important to Jack's story, but neither Jack nor Jack's story is necessarily very important to the world.

I am not sure that rejecting mechanics that (more or less) remove control of characters from the players is the same thing as rejecting the importance of character.

A serious question: If the story of the game is something that emerges from play, how is player choice any different from authorial choice? If you say that a player cannot choose for his character, it seems as though you're saying an author cannot choose, either. Please try not to be too abstruse in answering; I managed to drop out of both high school and college.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 12, 2020)

@prabe

Which is all fine.  People can dislike control being wrested from their characters.  I hate it when control is wrested from me in all phases of my actual life!

But the problem lies when someone makes the following claim:

(a) Social conflict mechanics are unnatural because they wrest a measure of control from players that (b) doesn't exist in real world exchanges between social animals and (c) the alternative doesn't manifest in play as "participant x (player in this case) decides."

If that is the working premise, then the disagreement is on all 3 of those claims (myself, and others, claiming that none of a - c are correct).


----------



## prabe (Feb 12, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> @prabe
> 
> Which is all fine.  People can dislike control being wrested from their characters.  I hate it when control is wrested from me in all phases of my actual life!
> 
> ...




I don't entirely disagree with the premise, but I don't think "unnatural" is "wrongbadfun." I think the arguement is that they're *unnecessary*. Games *aren't* real life or natural, and I don't think there's necessarily a problem with "the player decides."


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 12, 2020)

prabe said:


> I don't entirely disagree with the premise, but I don't think "unnatural" is "wrongbadfun." I think the arguement is that they're *unnecessary*. Games *aren't* real life or natural, and I don't think there's necessarily a problem with "the player decides."




To be clear, “x is not natural so it’s not good” is not my claim.

What you’ve done about is accidentally inverted who is making that claim. I’m disputing the claim, not making it.

This is not a new claim to this thread. It predates it by many many years and includes the claim of “martial control of melee engagements is mind control and therefore unnatural nonsense” as well as this conversation of social conflict mechanics. I’ve been on this side of both of those conversations (disputing the claim that (a) the other side gets to claim “the natural” and (b) one approach is therefore bad based on “the natural.”)


----------



## prabe (Feb 12, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> To be clear, “x is not natural so it’s not good” is not on my claim.
> 
> What you’ve done about is accidentally inverted who is making that claim. I’m disputing the claim,  it making it.
> 
> This is not a new claim to this thread. It predates it by many many years and includes the claim of “martial control of melee engagements is mind control and therefore unnatural nonsense” as well as this conversation of social conflict mechanics. I’ve been on this side of both of those conversations (disputing the claim that (a) the other side gets to claim “the natural” and (b) one approach is therefore bad based on “the natural.”)




Apologies. I didn't mean to imply that you were saying "unnatural equals bad" by saying that "unnatural doesn't equal bad." Nor did I mean to ascribe to you the claim you were in fact disputing. Oops. I think I have to mostly agree with your position, on the facts, but I don't think anyone is necessarily doing it wrong. My own preference in games is mechanics to support inter-character interaction (deception, diplomacy, and the like) but nothing that forces a character to behave a certain way outside the player's control (or as close as possible to the last).


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 12, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 12, 2020)

prabe said:


> Apologies. I didn't mean to imply that you were saying "unnatural equals bad" by saying that "unnatural doesn't equal bad." Nor did I mean to ascribe to you the claim you were in fact disputing. Oops. I think I have to mostly agree with your position, on the facts, but I don't think anyone is necessarily doing it wrong. My own preference in games is mechanics to support inter-character interaction (deception, diplomacy, and the like) but nothing that forces a character to behave a certain way outside the player's control (or as close as possible to the last).




Thank you for the apology.

However, neither offense nor the apology are warranted and I'm not going to take the liberty of contriving unwarranted offense.

Simple mistake.  Its easy to lose track of things in the course of these long conversations and its easy to misinterpret my obnoxious prose, doubly so when I'm posting from my phone and its trolling me/us by auto-correcting things in a nonsensical way.

I just wanted to clarify things.  All good.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 12, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> But here's the rub: if PC-PC relations are determined by their players then in the interest of consistency PC-NPC relations must as far as possible also work this way, and RAW be damned.




And this cuts to the root of a fundamental disagreement in game design philosophy. Are the rules intended as a physics model, where the world follows the logic of the rules - and almost you start with the rules to get the world? Or are the rules intended as a user interface where what is happening in the world is largely approximated by the rules.

If the rules are intended to be a user interface then the consistency doesn't have to hold water. If they are a physics model you get weird results.



hawkeyefan said:


> I think that not having any social based mechanics at all leaves everything up to choice. The player decides how their character feels about everything. The GM decides how the NPCs react to the PCs.
> 
> But what about when someone feels something without choosing to?
> 
> ...




It is potentially incredibly powerful for game design. On the other hand doing it badly can have very bad consequences and it's very hard to do well.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 12, 2020)

prabe said:


> So, I'm not trying to speak for @Lanefan here, just responding inline. I'm also going to be snipping for convenience and readability; I'll try not to change the meaning by changing the context.
> 
> Sure. Mechanics are necessary whenever anything important is at stake. While I understand the reasoning behind "roleplay all the interactions" I prefer for there to be mechanics, because there may be disparities between player competencies and character competencies.




Yeah, that's part of it. A highly competent trial lawyer is likely going to be far more skilled at verbal persuasion and argument than the average person. 

But beyond that is the idea that things that we _know _about our characters can change without our permission. They don't happen because I've decided that my character is now angsty because his family was killed, or any similar characterization element. Instead, they happen as the result of play. 

When there are mechanics that involve aspects of the character such as their beliefs or goals or flaws, then those mechanics are kind of by default character driven game elements. 




prabe said:


> I think some people don't see that a mechanic that (more or less) forces a character to behave a certain way is more character-driven than player choice is.




I'm going to go with a loose example that doesn't use any specific system, just for the sake of discussion.

If I give my character a flaw that he struggles with deep and unfathomable anger, then having mechanics that pull that forth as a focus of play....._will he give in to his anger or can he overcome it_.....means that the actual gameplay is determining the outcome. The gameplay is about whether my character succeeds or fails to control his anger.

This, to me, seems like the kind of play that is character driven, more so than a player simply deciding on characterization of his character based on the fictional elements of the game.



prabe said:


> I think this is exactly why some people react so strongly to mechanics that (more or less) force their character to behave in ways the player doesn't choose.




Yes, for sure! I think there's strong resistance to this stuff because for a long time, many games have conditioned people to think that their character is their domain, and any decision for the character is to be made by the player. 

And there is nothing wrong with that kind of play. I don't think people should play games where they don't enjoy the mechanics, and I don't think that all games need to have such mechanics.



prabe said:


> Jack might be very important to Jack's story, but neither Jack nor Jack's story is necessarily very important to the world.
> 
> I am not sure that rejecting mechanics that (more or less) remove control of characters from the players is the same thing as rejecting the importance of character.




For the first, what world do you mean? The fictional world within the game? I get the idea of this, but really, nothing matters to the fictional world. It's fiction. I think what matters has to be more about the players. Their characters are the way they've chosen to interact with the fiction....so it's everything, in that sense. Sure, they may be disposable or easily replaced, but it's still the vital connection to the fiction. 

For the second, I don't think it's a pure one or the other kind of situation. But I think that it's hard to not place importance on who the characters are specifically if you want character driven play. If the characters in the story can be easily swapped out for another, and little is changed about the course of play, then I don't think that it's strongly character driven play. I don't think that means that it is entirely absent of character driven elements, just that they are less central to play.



prabe said:


> A serious question: If the story of the game is something that emerges from play, how is player choice any different from authorial choice? If you say that a player cannot choose for his character, it seems as though you're saying an author cannot choose, either. Please try not to be too abstruse in answering; I managed to drop out of both high school and college.




I think that in most cases there is definitely player choice. Usually in the form of some goal or belief or something that they've selected at character generation. To go back to my example, I create a character in the game and I give him a flaw of "struggling with deep and unfathomable anger" that means that I, as a player, am choosing for that to be a focus of play. I'm basically saying to the GM "here's one of the things I want to explore in this game". That flaw can be tested through play, and ultimately, it's the play that will determine success or failure for the character. 

If the system instead allows me at any time to decide how my character behaves, then it may be a flaw that never comes up in play, or will only come up when I as a player decide it's convenient. The character's "struggle with deep and unfathomable anger" is anything but.

Now, there are players that maybe play with a strong sense of character, and who will allow such a flaw to meaningfully complicate play for them. There's nothing that really prevents this kind of play. 

It's just that a game that has character traits and mechanics that promote this tend to do it more readily.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 12, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Feb 12, 2020)

@hawkeyefan Thanks for the serious answer. I think that where we are disagreeing, we are disagreeing around the edges, and probably around issues of personal taste/preference. While it's ... clarifying, I guess, to discuss things as though they are dichotomies, frequently they aren't. Seems to me as though we both realize that.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 12, 2020)

prabe said:


> A serious question: If the story of the game is something that emerges from play, how is player choice any different from authorial choice? If you say that a player cannot choose for his character, it seems as though you're saying an author cannot choose, either.




This is a great question and a great way to focus conversation.  Thanks for asking it.

Here is what I would say as it relates to systemization of the type we're discussing in this thread.

There are 3 types of possible agency here:

*Type 1 - The GM has their say*

Obstacle/adversity/threat interposes itself between player and goal.

*Type 2 - Player has their say*

My character thinks/feels/does x.  This requires no mediation by GM or by rules.  It is now true in the fiction. This can be either (a) GM says "yes" or (b) outright fiat (the player has a move/feature that binds the GM to oblige new relevant fiction based upon it; _When you enter an important location (your call) you can ask the GM for one fact from the history of that location._).

However, there is another kind. (c) The GM presents the player with a difficult but interesting choice between _outcome a_ or _outcome b_ (both which have clear attendant fiction which changes the situation).  Once the player chooses, the fiction emerges accordingly. 

*Type 3 - The system has its say*

Sally the Druid has the move Elemental Mastery.  She rolls 2d6 + Wis (2) to find out what happens when she _calls on the primal spirits of fire, water, earth or air to perform a task for her_.  She outright fails with a 6 or less (and marks xp).

The GM now must make a hard move against the player bound by the rules/principles/play agenda (something that has an immediate cost, changes the situation dynamically for the worse, fills their lives with adventure, and follows from the preceding fiction).  The move says _on a miss, some catastrophe occurs as a result of your calling.  _That further constrains/binds the GM's new post-player-move fiction.  There is no opting out by the player or GM and no massaging the situation for better or worse.  There are specific constraints/parameters.



In the entirety of this context, lets sub "player" for "participant", including both GM and those running PCs.

How do you think "authorial choice" and "participant choice" relate to one another when you've got competing interests and rules/role constraints that bind or deny authorship rights?

Put another way, the GM can't do _x_ because system or built-in constraint (a players move/feature says thing n happens; GM doesn't get to ignore it or erect a block that negates it) says so.  The player can't do _y_ because system or built-in constraint (the GM has erected an obstacle that requires overcoming a certain fictional positioning - say reach advantage by the obstacle - before the player can close to melee...the player doesn't just get to ignore that and close to melee).

I would say "participant choice" is different than "authorial choice" because when you're writing a book, you don't have competing interests and system architecture that both constrains possible fiction and mediates outcomes.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 12, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I'm going to go with a loose example that doesn't use any specific system, just for the sake of discussion.
> 
> If I give my character a flaw that he struggles with deep and unfathomable anger, then having mechanics that pull that forth as a focus of play....._will he give in to his anger or can he overcome it_.....means that the actual gameplay is determining the outcome. The gameplay is about whether my character succeeds or fails to control his anger.
> 
> This, to me, seems like the kind of play that is character driven, more so than a player simply deciding on characterization of his character based on the fictional elements of the game.




There are also three ways of handling this I'm aware of; the D&D way, the GURPS way, and the Fate way. That's the order they appeared in the gaming community in and the games I believe represent the styles. It's also IMO worst to best.

In *D&D* if I have a character who struggles with unfathomable anger that's entirely a player choice. And if I do something with this flaw it's because I the player have decided to, and have decided to do something that's inimical to the interests of the wider group. By roleplaying this I am being anti-social and sabotaging the rest of the group while showboating. (@Manbearcat would call this the player having their say, above)

In *GURPS* if I struggle with unfathomable anger I got points for taking that as a disadvantage. When it occurs it's because the dice told me it did - I'm not in control of my character while this happens (so I'm genuinely struggling) and it's the fault of the dice rather than something I've decided to do despite its impacts on group cohesion. So I'm not being anti-social out of character playing it. But it's not something I struggle with so much as am subject to. (@Manbearcat above called this the system having its say)

In *Fate *if I struggle with unfathomable anger this means I am tempted by it. I wrote that on my character sheet, probably as my Trouble aspect. And when it comes up the GM _offers_ me a Fate Point. Which I may accept to get unfathomably angry, or I may spend a Fate Point of my own to turn it down by actually keeping my head, but I've used my willpower to struggle to do it (represented by the Fate point). Neither choice is anti-social by me as a player - either I have more Fate Points to spend when the rubber meets the road or I keep my head and don't cause trouble. I'm tempted - but can struggle to resist. The GM had their say by offering me the Fate Point, the system and setting tell me what it's worth (one Fate Point), but ultimately the decision is mine - and there is a cost and a benefit either way both for me and for the group as a whole. (This is probably the clearest example of @Manbearcat 's "Player has their say, option b" and I'd break it out into a category of its own like "Everyone has their say" - player, GM, and system alike feeding in but it's the player's decision)


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 12, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Feb 12, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> This is a great question and a great way to focus conversation.  Thanks for asking it.




Thanks for answering it seriously.

I have no issues with your descriptions of agency types, so I'll move on ...



Manbearcat said:


> How do you think "authorial choice" and "participant choice" relate to one another when you've got competing interests and rules/role constraints that bind or deny authorship rights?
> 
> Put another way, the GM can't do _x_ because system or built-in constraint (a players move/feature says thing n happens; GM doesn't get to ignore it or erect a block that negates it) says so.  The player can't do _y_ because system or built-in constraint (the GM has erected an obstacle that requires overcoming a certain fictional positioning - say reach advantage by the obstacle - before the player can close to melee...the player doesn't just get to ignore that and close to melee).
> 
> I would say "participant choice" is different than "authorial choice" because when you're writing a book, you don't have competing interests and system architecture that both constrains possible fiction and mediates outcomes.




That's reasonable. I guess I was thinking about corroborative/cooperative authorship, or possibly playing in a band (I've done both). The player is the author of his character, using the game system at the table (I mean, it's no use to bring a FATE character to a D&D game, or vice versa, right?).  The entire table is generating a story (or a story is emerging from the entire table playing a game), and the player is directly responsible for a portion of it, centered on one character. I'm thinking this through more or less right now, but I guess I'm at a point where Player's authorship of Character is absolute, within the rules of the game, until/unless it interferes with another Player's authorship. The GM has (mostly) authorship of the world/setting, and I'm not entirely sure where the boundaries are between that and Player authorship (or, I'm not sure I can elucidate them; I think I have a decent nonverbal feel for them, though).

I'm not sure I've answered your question about constraints and bindings on authorship rights.


----------



## prabe (Feb 12, 2020)

Neonchameleon said:


> There are also three ways of handling this I'm aware of; the D&D way, the GURPS way, and the Fate way. That's the order they appeared in the gaming community in and the games I believe represent the styles. It's also IMO worst to best.




Snipping your descriptions for space, not as dismissal.

I don't think that a D&D character written up as "struggling with unfathomable anger" needs to be played in a way that disrupts the group, or persistently interferes with their goals. I've played such a character (in a game that was about on this level, on this axis), and it was neither anti-social nor showboating. Obviously different tables are different.

I've also played games that had disadvantages in character creation. As I think about it, I realize those don't bother me much, probably because they're pretty concrete. You have [chance] for [bad thing] if [condition]. You've received build points in exchange for taking that disadvantage (or however the mechanic works). Presumably you've had a talk with the GM before starting the game about what that disadvantage means and how it works, and it won't really interrupt the flow of the game if/when it comes up.

I've played FATE. I think I like it least, because it's ... not concrete. Your aspect is probably plain-language, so it's probably imprecise, at least around the edges, and your GM is kinda obligated to try to find ways to bring that to bear against your character in some way or other. The mechanics for that feel to me very much like a combination of bribery and extortion, and because the GM is going to be using the limited number of aspects, it seems to me as though there are a limited number of stories where the GM can pass Fate points to you, so you're going to get a lot of stories (in this case) about your unfathomable anger, probably until you have unfathomable anger coming out of your ears.

This isn't to say I disagree with your descriptions, especially not with your correlations to the categories @Manbearcat listed. I think they did a reasonably fair job of capturing the styles.

EDIT: Apologies for the tone in part of this. There were, as @Umbran has said elsewhere, unpleasant things going on my head about the time FATE and I parted ways, and they echo, and I should either avoid the topic or moderate myself better. I'm leaving what I said up, solely so things below make sense.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 12, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Feb 12, 2020)

Plus ca la meme chose.

Without diacriticals because who has time for that?

Yeah. I think in the end it comes down to GMs and players all operating in good faith. Other than that it's horses for courses.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 12, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> It's a whole thing about constraining the DM/GM. Whether it functions as actual constraint or illusory constraint, whether it works best for good DMs (who wouldn't need it) or bad DMs (who could ignore it), whether it provides great training wheels for inexperienced DMs (in terms of systems cues and constraints) or is even more baffling for them ... it's all a question of preferences.
> 
> It seems to go round and round. Some people would say that the "DM Constraint" model was a backlash against the excesses of certain ... darker ... Wolfier.... DM-driven games.
> 
> ...




Good post, but let me offer a subtle counter.

When GM-constraint is brought up, its often said (I've seen Tony and others speak on this as well) that "good GMs don't need constraint."

Let me just say that I disagree with this.  By my sense of things, "good GMs may need constraint THE MOST because (a) they know so much more, (b) have so much more experience (and success), and (c) _*therefore are likely the most apt to fall prey to reckless hubris and lack of self-awareness of their cognitive blind spots*_."

I mean, let me just testify.  (a), (b), and (c) DEFINITELY apply to me, even though I'm borderline pathological in my introspection.  I'm VERY GLAD to have codified system constraints and diffuse authority to protect me and the tables I play with from my "conceptual worse self."


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 12, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Feb 12, 2020)

prabe said:


> I've played FATE. I think I like it least, because it's ... not concrete. Your aspect is probably plain-language, so it's probably imprecise, at least around the edges, and your GM is kinda obligated to try to find ways to bring that to bear against your character in some way or other. The mechanics for that feel to me very much like a combination of bribery and extortion




Bribery?  Might as well say the GM in D&D is bribing the players with gold, magic items, and XP!  Is the GM in D&D bribing you when you get Inspiration for playing to your Ideals, Bonds, of Flaws?

Extortion?  The problem with extortion is that it isn't consensual.

In Fate... _you_ make up the Aspects.  You're setting allowed places where the GM has a hook to play with.  And, you can negotiate about using that hook each time!



> ...and because the GM is going to be using the limited number of aspects




In Spirit of the Century, you have 10 Aspects - not a very limited number.  In Fate Core, you have 5.

In either case, the Aspects are pretty central to _who the character is_.  You think who your character is shouldn't come up very often?



> ...it seems to me as though there are a limited number of stories where the GM can pass Fate points to you, so you're going to get a lot of stories (in this case) about your unfathomable anger, probably until you have unfathomable anger coming out of your ears.




Your Barbarian rages at least once every game in which there's a combat, right?

I think there's huge misconception about Aspects, too.  YOu guys focus all on how, "OMG, the GM can make yoru life difficult for you using an Aspect!!!1!"

First off, realize - in D&D, the GM can make life difficult for you any time they want - "Whoops!  A whole bunch of kobolds!  Oh no!".  At least in Fate, you get something for it, and it'll be thematically appropriate for the character.

Second of all - each and every Aspect is also _useful for you_.  Folks continually seem to forget this.

I was in a Spirit of the Century game, playing a private investigator type.  The GM had asked that we not make up any characters that were really gun happy - he didn't want to run a game where the basic solution to problems was a spray of bullets from a tommy gun mowing down bad guys.  But, I was playing a noir-ish P.I.  Of course his basic weapon was a revolver. 

So, I took the Trick Shot stunt (giving a +2 on Guns skill rolls against inanimate objects), and took an Aspect, "I set 'em up, you knock 'em down".  With that stunt and Aspect, I could be _insanely good_ at gunplay that created scene aspects that other players could invoke. But, if I wanted to just shoot someone in the face, the GM could give me a Fate point, and have things not work out quite as I intended. And, if I found myself short of Fate Points when going into a big conflict... all I had to do was try to shoot the BBEG, and either it worked, or I got a Fate Point that I could use!

I got to have bullets flying everywhere, being effective as a support character by using a gun, and the GM gets his game not to be a bloodbath.  Everyone wins!  Way more fun than just having a character who was good at killing people with bullets.


----------



## prabe (Feb 12, 2020)

@Umbran 

I've played FATE, and I've run FATE (specifically Spirit of the Century, in a homebrew collaborative setting) for about a year. I'm not speaking about it from ignorance, and I'm not going to elaborate on my feelings about FATE here, other than to say I probably won't GM it again, but I'm a better DM for having run it.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 12, 2020)

prabe said:


> @Umbran
> 
> I've played FATE, and I've run FATE (specifically Spirit of the Century, in a homebrew collaborative setting) for about a year. I'm not speaking about it from ignorance, and I'm not going to elaborate on my feelings about FATE here, other than to say I probably won't GM it again, but I'm a better DM for having run it.




That's fine.  I don't mean to compel you to justify your position.

My point stands, however, that the elements I raised about how Aspects are used are pretty consistently passed over, leaving what I feel is a pretty skewed depiction of how the system operates.  This doesn't require your response - my point is there for folks to read and take in.


----------



## prabe (Feb 12, 2020)

Umbran said:


> That's fine.  I don't mean to compel you to justify your position.
> 
> My point stands, however, that the elements I raised about how Aspects are used are pretty consistently passed over, leaving what I feel is a pretty skewed depiction of how the system operates.  This doesn't require your response - my point is there for folks to read and take in.




No worries. I didn't mean to be attacking anyone's preference for FATE. It probably came across that way, and I apologize if so. It just gets my back up a little when people who prefer FATE act as though someone who doesn't, doesn't know the game.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 12, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Feb 12, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> But sometimes running across a true FATE devotee makes me wish I was stuck in an elevator with a Rush fan who needs to really, truly explain to me the genius of the late drummer Neil Peart with both words and by banging on the walls.




All the walls, while sitting in a chair that spins.

I've noticed that about FATE, here. If I'm feeling at my most fair, I can admit that my reasons for disliking FATE are not entirely about the game, but sometimes life gets in the way of things.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 12, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> IME, people that like FATE really, really like FATE.




To be clear.  I like the system, but I know that it is for a particular style of game, and that's not a style I want all the time, much less expect everyone to want.



> And people that don't can appreciate it, but don't care for it.




Just a couple weeks ago, we were told, here on these boards that it was a system, "best enjoyed by ruthless power gamers."  That sounds less like appreciation, and more like desire to cast aspersions on people.  Ymmv.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 12, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Feb 12, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Just a couple weeks ago, we were told, here on these boards that it was a system, "best enjoyed by ruthless power gamers."  That sounds less like appreciation, and more like desire to cast aspersions on people.  Ymmv.




I remember that thread. I'm endeavoring not to bring all that into this thread.

I agree with @lowkey13 that "being for powergamers" isn't one of FATE's aspects.


----------



## mwittig (Feb 12, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> There was an issue re: the ongoing litigation and settlement between Arneson and Gygax. Basic D&D had a different royalty rate than AD&D (which had a core books royalty rate).



While they had different royalty rates, I believe the reason was because Gygax convinced Arneson that 5% rate they were entitled to on D&D per their original 1975 agreement was excessive.  Arneson appears to have agreed to a 2.5% rate as part of their March 6, 1981 settlement agreement.


----------



## uzirath (Feb 12, 2020)

Neonchameleon said:


> In *GURPS* if I struggle with unfathomable anger I got points for taking that as a disadvantage. When it occurs it's because the dice told me it did - I'm not in control of my character while this happens (so I'm genuinely struggling) and it's the fault of the dice rather than something I've decided to do despite its impacts on group cohesion. So I'm not being anti-social out of character playing it. But it's not something I struggle with so much as am subject to.




Note that for most GURPS disadvantages that affect your personality (like Bad Temper or Overconfidence), you are encouraged to roleplay the flaw unless circumstances are dire:

"You never _have_ to try a self-control roll—you can always give in willingly, and it is good roleplaying to do so. However, there will be times when you really need to resist your urges, and that is what the roll is for." — GURPS 4e _Basic Set: Characters_, p. 121.

Interestingly in terms of the comparison with FATE, further down on the same page, GURPS provides an option where you can effectively spend XP to automatically avoid succumbing to your disadvantage: "Optionally, the GM may permit you to use one unspent character point to 'buy' an automatic success on a self-control roll." It's a common rule among groups that I've observed or gamed with.



prabe said:


> I've also played games that had disadvantages in character creation. As I think about it, I realize those don't bother me much, probably because they're pretty concrete. You have [chance] for [bad thing] if [condition]. You've received build points in exchange for taking that disadvantage (or however the mechanic works). Presumably you've had a talk with the GM before starting the game about what that disadvantage means and how it works, and it won't really interrupt the flow of the game if/when it comes up.




I agree with this. In most instances, players who succumb to their disadvantages (even voluntarily) aren't "showboating" or being "anti-social." Sure, I've seen a handful of dud players abuse the system and say "that's what my character would do," but that's true in any system. At most tables that I've played at (and I've played or observed GURPS games with hundreds of people over the years), character disadvantages become part of the texture of the group—a regular source of roleplaying banter. When the stakes are high enough that a player chooses to roll the dice, it's often one of the highlights of the session because it can send the fiction veering in new directions. For me, it's satisfying if the dice helped dictate that the barbarian lost his temper and yelled at the duke. If it was just a player making a dramatic choice, it's potentially more obnoxious.


----------



## prabe (Feb 12, 2020)

uzirath said:


> I agree with this. In most instances, players who succumb to their disadvantages (even voluntarily) aren't "showboating" or being "anti-social." Sure, I've seen a handful of dud players abuse the system and say "that's what my character would do," but that's true in any system. At most tables that I've played at (and I've played or observed GURPS games with hundreds of people over the years), character disadvantages become part of the texture of the group—a regular source of roleplaying banter. When the stakes are high enough that a player chooses to roll the dice, it's often one of the highlights of the session because it can send the fiction veering in new directions. For me, it's satisfying if the dice helped dictate that the barbarian lost his temper and yelled at the duke. If it was just a player making a dramatic choice, it's potentially more obnoxious.




While I wasn't specifically thinking of GURPS (in fact, I haven't played it for the simple reason that none of my gaming groups played it), I concur about disadvantages overall, in systems that have them.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 12, 2020)

prabe said:


> I've noticed that about FATE, here. If I'm feeling at my most fair, I can admit that my reasons for disliking FATE are not entirely about the game, but sometimes life gets in the way of things.




Yeah.  Life... sometimes isn't our friend.  This may lead into something.  Hang in there...



lowkey13 said:


> IME, people that like FATE really, really like FATE.
> 
> And people that don't can appreciate it, but don't care for it.




So, this is a bit about the internet that we supposedly know, but always seem to forget.  It is a communication issue that I tend to think of as "Words mean things."

Now, @prabe seems to be pretty thoughtful and philosophical about it all.  And you say folks, "appreciate but don't care for it."

But still, here I was having to react to the mechanics being described with worlds like "bribery" and "extortion" - things that are considered unethical and illegal. The connotations of those words are not "appreciative", unless you're a crook, which I don't think prabe is.  

maybe folks will agree, there are two basic options:

1) Those were actually the feelings - in which case I submit that something not according to the rules, or otherwise pretty unfortunate or toxic was going on.  Then yes, some not-good was happening in play, and unpacking what was going on may be a useful exercise.  Prabe's comment about life kind of fits in here... no need to elaborate, as that could be pretty personal.

2) It was hyperbole for effect.  I think getting on the case of fans for going over the top is misplaced when detractors get a pass for over-doing it themselves, hm?

Thus - words mean things.  People will react to what you put on the page.  If you don't want that... don't put it on the page, you know what I mean?


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 13, 2020)

Well, this sure went a long way in the last 18-ish hours. 

Without quoting a bunch of posts or going on at ridiculous length, I'll just sum up thusly:

To those who are speaking in favour of social mechanics being able to determine or force PC decisions/actions - that's all well and good, and no doubt such things enhance your games at your tables.  All is good.

But if any of you ever start advocating for player agency (and some of you have in the past) I'll reserve the right to either take such advocation with a rather large grain of salt or outright call shenanigans; because the sort of mechanics you're favouring are completely antithetical to a player having agency over his/her character.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 13, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Well, this sure went a long way in the last 18-ish hours.
> 
> Without quoting a bunch of posts or going on at ridiculous length, I'll just sum up thusly:
> 
> ...



Is being beaten in combat in D&D antithetical to player agency?  My answer to this rhetorical is no, of course not.

Same with social mechanics -- if the player is able to understand the risks and rewards possible with a given action, however adjudicated (mechanically or by fiat), then they have agency.  If, as I think you incorrectly understand these mechanics to work, the GM is fiat imposing mechanics to take over the PC, that's bad in any system.  One of the reasons I really don't like charm and dominate effects in D&D, either as a player or as a GM.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Feb 13, 2020)

I dunno, all these rules systems, when time might just be better spent learning how to play a character _in character_.  Seems like a little reading up on drama/acting, writing interesting characters, setting goals and getting a group who agree on approach could be done with any system or genre.


----------



## prabe (Feb 13, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Is being beaten in combat in D&D antithetical to player agency?  My answer to this rhetorical is no, of course not.
> 
> Same with social mechanics -- if the player is able to understand the risks and rewards possible with a given action, however adjudicated (mechanically or by fiat), then they have agency.  If, as I think you incorrectly understand these mechanics to work, the GM is fiat imposing mechanics to take over the PC, that's bad in any system.  One of the reasons I really don't like charm and dominate effects in D&D, either as a player or as a GM.




I concur with the first paragraph.

And, I concur with the second, though I tend to think, e.g., the approach in FATE is, exactly as you say, the GM imposing by fiat to take over the PC; also, enchantment-type magic--clearly such, to the relevant players--is one of a very few ways in which I'll take away a PC's agency (whether you think of it as character or player agency).


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 13, 2020)

prabe said:


> I concur with the first paragraph.
> 
> And, I concur with the second, though I tend to think, e.g., the approach in FATE is, exactly as you say, the GM imposing by fiat to take over the PC; also, enchantment-type magic--clearly such, to the relevant players--is one of a very few ways in which I'll take away a PC's agency (whether you think of it as character or player agency).



Disagree.  The player chose their trouble aforethought as something that they want to be an issue for their character as they play.  Each time it's compelled is still a player choice:  let my trouble be a problem or expend effort to tamp it down (ie, FATE point).  The player is making the choice.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 13, 2020)

As it relates to agency, there are any number of games and mechanics that will, in specific instances of play, necessarily inhibit player agency. This is pretty much a fact of play. 

Advocating for such an element....whether it's a charm spell or a compel or some other game mechanic....isn't the same as tossing player agency out the window.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 13, 2020)

Wolfpack48 said:


> I dunno, all these rules systems, when time might just be better spent learning how to play a character _in character_.  Seems like a little reading up on drama/acting, writing interesting characters, setting goals and getting a group who agree on approach could be done with any system or genre.



"Playing in character" sounds like acting?  If so, that's one way to roleplay, for sure, but not the only or even best way, although it seems widely preferred (and is one of my preferences, largely).  However, the topic isn't 'how to act at the table like I imagine my character being' but rather how to enjoy a game that focuses, at least largely, on characters growing and changing.  Acting isn't necessary for this, nor does acting cause this -- it's orthogonal to the issue.  So, no, I don't really see how your argument actually encourages character arcs.  I mean, you can successfully act a flat, unchanging character with great skill and aplomb as much as you can terribly act or even third person a dynamic, evolving character.  Acting doesn't mean much in the context of the discussion.


----------



## prabe (Feb 13, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Disagree.  The player chose their trouble aforethought as something that they want to be an issue for their character as they play.  Each time it's compelled is still a player choice:  let my trouble be a problem or expend effort to tamp it down (ie, FATE point).  The player is making the choice.




Except it's not always the player's choice to compel it, is it? The differential is two FATE points, which is a pretty big deal mechanically, and if you're out of FATE points there's no choice at all, unless you as a player are willing to make a big enough deal at the table, during the game, to try to talk the GM out of the compel.


----------



## prabe (Feb 13, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> As it relates to agency, there are any number of games and mechanics that will, in specific instances of play, necessarily inhibit player agency. This is pretty much a fact of play.
> 
> Advocating for such an element....whether it's a charm spell or a compel or some other game mechanic....isn't the same as tossing player agency out the window.




This is absolutely true. Which ones you like are going to be a matter of taste and preference, neither of which is likely to be entirely rational.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 13, 2020)

Umbran said:


> To be clear.  I like the system, but I know that it is for a particular style of game, and that's not a style I want all the time, much less expect everyone to want.




Likewise. Fate does what it does really well and I also think a lot of people benefit from understanding how and why it works. But that doesn't mean it's what I want for anything even approaching every game.



lowkey13 said:


> Hold on. Someone said FATE .... Fate .... FATE .... darn it, is it supposed to all-caps because of the acronym? Or is that just annoying?




Evil Hat have been calling it Fate rather than FATE for over thirteen years - but aren't _that _fussed. I find all caps simply looks ugly.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 13, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Well, this sure went a long way in the last 18-ish hours.
> 
> Without quoting a bunch of posts or going on at ridiculous length, I'll just sum up thusly:
> 
> ...




Alright, before the proverbial horse that you're setting up to get out the gate wreaks its havoc, let me correct your misunderstanding (at least with respect to me...I'll let others speak for themselves or they can agree with me as they like):

When I use the term _GM Force_, its associated with a very specific type of _player agency_ that is being subordinated to the whim of the GM.  Now some systems promote this "GM Force subordinating player agency" as a "feature", the most famous being White Wolf with its Golden Rule, of which AD&D 2e co-opted (and spawned an orthodoxy henceforth).  In that case its not "extra-system" GM Force.  Accordingly, I won't decry it for being a game that is deceitful about what is happening behind the curtain, because it is honest that Illusionism (covert GM Force) is fundamental to play because the apex priority is about something else (typically "the GM tells a good story and controls the trajectory of play, while the players participate in the GM's story and everyone has a good time.").

But, regardless of the systemitized GM Force/Illusionism...its still there.

So here is my issue as it pertains to GM Force (covert or overt) and player agency.

_*GM Force is the subordination by fiat of a player's thematic, strategic, tactical (any/all) decision-making to the whim/will of the GM, for the sake of controlling the gamestate and the overall trajectory of play.*_

The games I'm talking about in this thread (a) don't have subordination by GM fiat and (b) they don't condone (in fact they do the opposite) GMs controlling the gamestate and the trajectory of play. 

Social Conflict mechanics imposing states-of-being on PCs and creating finality of resolution are neither principally nor definitionally the same thing as GM Force (whether the system condones it as a feature or not).

Hopefully that makes sense and clears that all up.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 13, 2020)

@lowkey13, @Manbearcat, @pemerton 

I wanted to weigh in on the use of mechanics to drive character play.  Each of you said something on this, but it's been a few pages and I'm not up to digging up specific quotes.  However, I wanted to engage you on the topic, so here's my take:

Mechanics are not necessary for character driven play, but they help, a lot.  You don't need them, and can have deep and meaningful character arcs without them, but, at that point, you're doing so ad hoc, as an unstructured (and often unspoken) agreement between player and GM.  This is difficult, because it's very easy to cross a line using ad hoc approaches that one side or the other does not appreciate, but you can do it.  I've been in a D&D campaign that had, absent any mechanics, surprisingly deep character arcs, but that was, as I recognize it, a combination of the right game, right players, right GM, and right stories.  It was a pretty good run.  I played in other games with those same players, and the ad hoc character arcs didn't work as well or sometimes at all.  So, while I agree ad hoc character arcs can occur, they're a challenge to do, and nearly impossible to do on command.

That said, mechanical systems, with constraints, can often do a lot of the heavy lifting for character arcs, but need to be understood by all involved and play goals need to be aligned.  This puts a bit of an artificial spin on play, where everyone's trying to do the arc and using the mechanics to do so, that it can be jarring for some that are wanting a more organic experience.  Depending on the mechanics, game genre expectations, and player goals, this artificiality can vary greatly by system, so it can sometimes be reduced by finding the right setup, gamewise and genrewise.  However, there's no doubt that mechanics can push character arcs, but the feel of that pushing can be offputting.

Long and short, I suppose, is that I don't see system as being necessary for character arcs, but it's still important.  Sometimes, system can be sufficient.  I think system goes a great way towards defining play, but is not definitive of play, if that makes any sense.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 13, 2020)

prabe said:


> Except it's not always the player's choice to compel it, is it? The differential is two FATE points, which is a pretty big deal mechanically, and if you're out of FATE points there's no choice at all, unless you as a player are willing to make a big enough deal at the table, during the game, to try to talk the GM out of the compel.



I'm not going to agree, here.  The player chose for this trouble to be what can be compelled, knowing full well the ramifications of that.  If, at the moment of a compel, the player believes that they're being forced into a choice, I'd say they've forgotten that they agreed to that choice at the start of the game.

And, if you're out of FATE points when compelled, it occurs to me that you maybe made choices to spend your FATE points and that's why you're in this position?  I mean, this seems akin to complaining that the orc just hit you but you don't have enough hit points due to all the fights you've picked up til now and so it's not fair that you don't have a choice about going unconscious.  I'm unclear as to why compels are so often presented absent the larger context of the game, where the player has made many choices to end up there, but not in terms of being out of hitpoints or spell slots or what-have-you. 

Well, that's not entirely, true, I do think I see some rationales, but those mostly go to not fully accepting the concept of play for FATE and retaining some of the expectations of other games, like D&D, where character is the sole realm of the player.  In that context, I get the problem that compels create.  I can't say that's your conception, though, but, if it is, I'd say groovy.  It's not always easy to drop a concept, especially when it's long ingrained, and accept a new paradigm.  I'm not sure it's really valuable to do so, either, if you are having fun one way, to do the work of accepting a different paradigm.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2020)

prabe said:


> If the story of the game is something that emerges from play, how is player choice any different from authorial choice? If you say that a player cannot choose for his character, it seems as though you're saying an author cannot choose, either. Please try not to be too abstruse in answering; I managed to drop out of both high school and college.



You've had some replies to this. Here's mine - it has some similarities to @hawkeyefan's and more, I think to @Manbearcat's, but also hopefully is interesting in itself.

My response to this has two parts.

The first goes back to the fundamentals of RPGing: there is more than one author of the fiction. Which means we may have to resolve disagreements between them. The need to do so can become particularly pressing when the structure of the game gives one partiuclar participant - the player - a special interest in respect of one particular component of the ficiton - his/her character.

The best statement of this point I know of is here, from Vincent Baker: _RPGing is negotiated imagination, and mechanics exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table_.

The second part of my response goes to what is particular about the OP in this thread: @innerdude wants _character-driven_ play. And as @Ovinomancer said, this means that the character has to be at risk. The player deciding without constraint what happens to his/her PC eliminates that element of risk.

That doesn't mean there have to be PC-impacting social mechanics to have character-driven play: you can do it where all the risk to the character is external - losing money, losing status, losing friends etc. I've done this in Rolemaster, and to a lesser extent in 4e D&D. But PC-impacing social/emotional mechanics open up new dramatic possibiities.

I do think that it is almost impossible to have character-driven play if there are no mechanics that allow the players, through resolution of their PCs' actions, to impose social/emotional consequences on NPCs. Without those, whether a PC loses or keeps his/her friends, or his/her status, is purely a matter of GM decision.



prabe said:


> I think the arguement is that they're *unnecessary*.



Well there's probably nothing in RPGing that's necessary as such. It's all relative to goals of play. For the reasons I've just given, I think it's virtually impossible to have characterdriven play if the outcome for NPCs of their social interactions with PCs is entirely the GM's choice. And I think there are reasons why games that are aimed at this sort of play often allow the outcome for PCs of their social interactions with other characters to be determined by means other than player choice.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> if any of you ever start advocating for *player agency* (and some of you have in the past) I'll reserve the right to either take such advocation with a rather large grain of salt or outright call shenanigans; because the sort of mechanics you're favouring are completely antithetical to a *player having agency over his/her character*.



The two bolded phrases are not synonyms. I have never seen anyone argue that players should have unlimited agency (ie be the sole authors of the shared fiction). What I mostly see disputes about is whether players should have _any _agency in respect of the shared fiction.

I think that character-driven play of the sort @innerdude describes can't take place of players don't have some agancy in respect of the shared fiction, including in respect of the emotional states and social responses of NPCs. (Eg it has to be possible for a PC to befriend a NPC without the GM being the one who decides it.)

If player agency is confined to fighting and climbing and other feats of physical prowess, it will be very hard to get _character-driven _arcs because those things on their own tend not to reveal enough about the character.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 13, 2020)

@Ovinomancer 

I would say that almost completely unstructured Free-form gaming where dispute mediation is table consensus and a simple coin flip to break ties can yield character-driven play if Force (as I've outlined above) doesn't emerge to co-opt thematic/tactical/strategic decision-making to control the gamestate and trajectory of play.

Force (be it for or against the player's interests) is absolutely anathema to character-driven play.  Its kryptonite.  
My opinion is just that table consensus will move towards play that is degenerate with respect to the goal of authentic, emergent character-driven play (because peoples' biases, unconscious or acknowledged, and then the propensity to assemble into tribes based on common aims).  

Consequently, a system that:

(a) constrains GMing such that Force isn't on the table
(b) makes it easy for awesome character-driven play to emerge as a byproduct of simply playing the game (c) has clear thematic PC build flags and incentive structures + feedback loops in place that press upon the players to coherently advocate for their PCs 
(d) while ensuring compelling, relevant opposition will consistently emerge to interpose itself between the PCs and their goals in conflict-charged scenes

...that has the best chance of consistently achieving the goal of emergent fiction and character-driven play.

Can you do so without b and c?  Yes.  But (a) and (d) are pretty much mandatory in my opinion.  And (b) and (c) makes the whole operation easier/more reproducible.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 13, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, that's not entirely, true, I do think I see some rationales, but those mostly go to not fully accepting the concept of play for FATE and retaining some of the expectations of other games, like D&D, where character is the sole realm of the player.  In that context, I get the problem that compels create.  I can't say that's your conception, though, but, if it is, I'd say groovy.  It's not always easy to drop a concept, especially when it's long ingrained, and accept a new paradigm.  I'm not sure it's really valuable to do so, either, if you are having fun one way, to do the work of accepting a different paradigm.




This gets down to a different relationship between a D&D DM, a Fate GM, and an Apocalypse World MC and their players. In D&D the DM is the sole and absolute authority over the world, and the players are the sole and absolute authorities over their characters. In Fate the lines on both sides of the table are blurrier, and in Apocalypse World the MC is called the Master of Ceremonies because their role is distinct from everyone else to the point they never pick up a dice, and the players helped create significant parts of the setting. All are valid and using the wrong one is tricky.



pemerton said:


> I do think that it is almost impossible to have character-driven play if there are no mechanics that allow the players, through resolution of their PCs' actions, to impose social/emotional consequences on NPCs. Without those, whether a PC loses or keeps his/her friends, or his/her status, is purely a matter of GM decision.



As I said in my first post in this thread measure what you value or you end up valuing what you measure


----------



## prabe (Feb 13, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I do think I see some rationales, but those mostly go to not fully accepting the concept of play for FATE and retaining some of the expectations of other games, like D&D, where character is the sole realm of the player.  In that context, I get the problem that compels create.  I can't say that's your conception, though, but, if it is, I'd say groovy.  It's not always easy to drop a concept, especially when it's long ingrained, and accept a new paradigm.  I'm not sure it's really valuable to do so, either, if you are having fun one way, to do the work of accepting a different paradigm.




Sorry to snip; this is what I'm responding to.

I'd like to think I gave FATE a fair try, over a year-ish of play. I'm not sure how much of my gradual-then-abrupt frustration with the system was about the other players at the table, and how much of it was me, and how much of it was ... shrinkological badness that doesn't seem particularly relevant to this conversation. At this point, I think what I'd start with is that it seems to me to call for a more adversarial approach to GMing than I'm happy with, from either side of the (metaphorical) screen, which doesn't seem to me as though it'd be conducive to the trust I think is necessary between player and GM. I don't see how you can pick an aspect (let alone a trouble) if you don't trust the GM not to hose you with it.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2020)

Neonchameleon said:


> In D&D the DM is the sole and absolute authority over the world, and the players are the sole and absolute authorities over their characters.



I don't think this is true for all of D&D. Which is why in this thread Ive (at least tried to, and hopefully succeeded) to be careful in referring to versions.

In 4e D&D the GM does not have sole and absolute authority over the world. Results of skill challenges, for instance, are binding on the GM as much as on the players.

And in 4e D&D the players do not have absolute authority over their characrters. PCs can suffer psychic damage, and/or associated conditions, that establish facts about their PCs' psychological states. I think the most sophisticated example of this is the MMIII Chained Cambion, because it imposes psychic damage and a condition which, in play, produce in the players a lived experience of suffering torment and hating one another! (Because if one PC saves but the other doesn't, then the first PC can't act freely without burning the second, which sets up exactly the social dynamic at the table that the Chained Cambion is establishing in the fiction.)

In classic D&D I think it is taken for granted - based on the wargaming ethos - that the players can declare actions the resolution of which is binding on the GM. As well as combat, obviously, there are mechanical systems like the one for wilderness evasion.

I think your description is accurate for 2nd ed AD&D, probably 5e and perhaps (least sure here) 3E.


----------



## prabe (Feb 13, 2020)

pemerton said:


> You've had some replies to this. Here's mine - it has some similarities to @hawkeyefan's and more, I think to @Manbearcat's, but also hopefully is interesting in itself.




It is interesting. Thanks for responding, and (apparently) intentionally toning down some of the high-end theory with which I'm unfamiliar (and which therefore wouldn't have been helpful on any axis).



pemerton said:


> The first goes back to the fundamentals of RPGing: there is more than one author of the fiction. Which means we may have to resolve disagreements between them. The need to do so can become particularly pressing when the structure of the game gives one partiuclar participant - the player - a special interest in respect of one particular component of the ficiton - his/her character.
> 
> The best statement of this point I know of is here, from Vincent Baker: _RPGing is negotiated imagination, and mechanics exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table_.




The idea of negotiation and constraint puts me in mind of playing in a band. Working out a song feels like being part of a gestalt, which also happens when a TRPG table is at its best.



pemerton said:


> The second part of my response goes to what is particular about the OP in this thread: @innerdude wants _character-driven_ play. And as @Ovinomancer said, this means that the character has to be at risk. The player deciding without constraint what happens to his/her PC eliminates that element of risk.
> 
> That doesn't mean there have to be PC-impacting social mechanics to have character-driven play: you can do it where all the risk to the character is external - losing money, losing status, losing friends etc. I've done this in Rolemaster, and to a lesser extent in 4e D&D. But PC-impacing social/emotional mechanics open up new dramatic possibiities.




This sounds as though you could put what the characters want at risk and get somewhere similar.



pemerton said:


> I do think that it is almost impossible to have character-driven play if there are no mechanics that allow the players, through resolution of their PCs' actions, to impose social/emotional consequences on NPCs. Without those, whether a PC loses or keeps his/her friends, or his/her status, is purely a matter of GM decision.




Maybe you could unpack why character-driven play necessitates imposing those sorts of consequences on NPCs? I'm not sure I understand the relationship.



pemerton said:


> Well there's probably nothing in RPGing that's necessary as such. It's all relative to goals of play. For the reasons I've just given, I think it's virtually impossible to have characterdriven play if the outcome for NPCs of their social interactions with PCs is entirely the GM's choice. And I think there are reasons why games that are aimed at this sort of play often allow the outcome for PCs of their social interactions with other characters to be determined by means other than player choice.




Well, I meant necessary to play. I'm not sure the barriers are so steep as you seem to believe. OTOH, as I've said, I'm a believer in social skills (or whatever the equivalent is in a given system) to account for differences in competencies between player and character.


----------



## prabe (Feb 13, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I don't think this is true for all of D&D. Which is why in this thread Ive (at least tried to, and hopefully succeeded) to be careful in referring to versions.
> 
> In 4e D&D the GM does not have sole and absolute authority over the world. Results of skill challenges, for instance, are binding on the GM as much as on the players.
> 
> ...




I missed 4E, mostly because I never knew anyone who played it (and was never interested enough to seek it out).

That said, in my 5E games, I don't have absolute authority over the world. Players have established facts about it, which I have incorporated (or occasionally altered slightly). The PCs can change the world in the course of their adventures (which may not be exactly what you're talking about). Nor do the players have absolute authority over their characters. It's nothing so extreme as the Chained Cambion you mention (which sounds appropriately nasty), but there has been at least one instance of being charmed (which has been called out above as a means of negating agency).

So, I guess I'm not disagreeing with you about D&D other than around the edges (and mostly about the specifics of my own games).


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 13, 2020)

prabe said:


> Sorry to snip; this is what I'm responding to.
> 
> I'd like to think I gave FATE a fair try, over a year-ish of play. I'm not sure how much of my gradual-then-abrupt frustration with the system was about the other players at the table, and how much of it was me, and how much of it was ... shrinkological badness that doesn't seem particularly relevant to this conversation. At this point, I think what I'd start with is that it seems to me to call for a more adversarial approach to GMing than I'm happy with, from either side of the (metaphorical) screen, which doesn't seem to me as though it'd be conducive to the trust I think is necessary between player and GM. I don't see how you can pick an aspect (let alone a trouble) if you don't trust the GM not to hose you with it.



No problem, I definitely don't want to seem like I'm saying you not liking FATE is in any way a negative.  I'm not much of a fan of it, either, preferring a more traditional D&D 5e game or, more strongly, something more in line with PbtA games (specifically Blades or Scum and Villany).  Those are pretty far apart, play way, and I find FATE too in the middle for my preferences.

That being said, I think your last line is very telling of the mindset you've brought with you.  Your trouble isn't something you should see as the GM using to hose you, but rather something that you've chosen to hose yourself.  Of course, I apparently have an idiosyncratic view of FATE, as I'm struggling to understand it as a planned game versus a 'in the moment' game, so the idea of the GM compelling a trouble really just sounds like an opportunity to see where the fiction goes as defined by a player telling me what kinds of things they want to see in the game.  Apparently, though, that's not how many people approach FATE play, instead having a strong DM curated storyline where troubles really are something the GM uses to bleed points from players.  I struggle with that concept as the best use of the rules, but I'm told some really enjoy this kind of play.  So, yeah, I commiserate at having a conception that doesn't jive with how others use a system.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 13, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> ... the most famous being White Wolf with its Golden Rule, of which AD&D 2e co-opted (and spawned an orthodoxy henceforth).




Um... 

2nd Edition AD&D came out in 1989.

White Wolf games was founded in 1991, and Vampire: The Masquerade came out that year, 1991.

Did someone from TSR travel ahead a couple years in time, to co-opt rules that hadn't been published yet?


----------



## prabe (Feb 13, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> No problem, I definitely don't want to seem like I'm saying you not liking FATE is in any way a negative.  I'm not much of a fan of it, either, preferring a more traditional D&D 5e game or, more strongly, something more in line with PbtA games (specifically Blades or Scum and Villany).  Those are pretty far apart, play way, and I find FATE too in the middle for my preferences.




I haven't looked more than a little bit into the PbtA constellation of games. The ones I have looked at, though, have generated nearly-visceral noooope, though, so I don't exactly hold out hope. That said, roughly congruent with you, I don't think liking them makes someone a bad person.



Ovinomancer said:


> Your trouble isn't something you should see as the GM using to hose you, but rather something that you've chosen to hose yourself.




It's not the general "I've chosen this trouble" that bothers me, genuinely. I don't mind the concept of disadvantages as part of building a character. It's the specific timing of the compels that would grind my nerves, I think, along with the "I want things to go badly for my character" thing, because as a player I really want my desires to (more or less) align with my character's.



Ovinomancer said:


> So, yeah, I commiserate at having a conception that doesn't jive with how others use a system.




Yeah. Thanks for answering in good faith. After my little flare-up earlier, that matters to me.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 13, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> @Ovinomancer
> 
> I would say that almost completely unstructured Free-form gaming where dispute mediation is table consensus and a simple coin flip to break ties can yield character-driven play if Force (as I've outlined above) doesn't emerge to co-opt thematic/tactical/strategic decision-making to control the gamestate and trajectory of play.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure I agree.  I think that Force can be present and still have arcs.  In other words, I can see (and have played) a game where some of it is the GM's plotline while other parts have room for player directed play.  Sometimes, these line up and you get character arcs.  But, as with anything ad hoc, it's not predictable.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Feb 13, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> "Playing in character" sounds like acting?  If so, that's one way to roleplay, for sure, but not the only or even best way, although it seems widely preferred (and is one of my preferences, largely).  However, the topic isn't 'how to act at the table like I imagine my character being' but rather how to enjoy a game that focuses, at least largely, on characters growing and changing.  Acting isn't necessary for this, nor does acting cause this -- it's orthogonal to the issue.  So, no, I don't really see how your argument actually encourages character arcs.  I mean, you can successfully act a flat, unchanging character with great skill and aplomb as much as you can terribly act or even third person a dynamic, evolving character.  Acting doesn't mean much in the context of the discussion.




Yep, acting could be one way of exploring character growth, but certainly not the only way. Plenty of books on writing character in short story or novel or screenplay form. Trying to codify it in a rule set only creates constraints as players try to squish their play into the framework or terminology. Just play a.character. It’s much more free and natural especially if you find a like minded group.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 13, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> Alright, before the proverbial horse that you're setting up to get out the gate wreaks its havoc, let me correct your misunderstanding (at least with respect to me...I'll let others speak for themselves or they can agree with me as they like):
> 
> When I use the term _GM Force_, its associated with a very specific type of _player agency_ that is being subordinated to the whim of the GM.  Now some systems promote this "GM Force subordinating player agency" as a "feature", the most famous being White Wolf with its Golden Rule, of which AD&D 2e co-opted (and spawned an orthodoxy henceforth).  In that case its not "extra-system" GM Force.  Accordingly, I won't decry it for being a game that is deceitful about what is happening behind the curtain, because it is honest that Illusionism (covert GM Force) is fundamental to play because the apex priority is about something else (typically "the GM tells a good story and controls the trajectory of play, while the players participate in the GM's story and everyone has a good time.").
> 
> But, regardless of the systemitized GM Force/Illusionism...its still there.



OK, so far I'm with you.



> So here is my issue as it pertains to GM Force (covert or overt) and player agency.
> 
> _*GM Force is the subordination by fiat of a player's thematic, strategic, tactical (any/all) decision-making to the whim/will of the GM, for the sake of controlling the gamestate and the overall trajectory of play.*_
> 
> The games I'm talking about in this thread (a) don't have subordination by GM fiat and (b) they don't condone (in fact they do the opposite) GMs controlling the gamestate and the trajectory of play.



Right, still with you, though you're drifting off point a bit.



> Social Conflict mechanics imposing states-of-being on PCs and creating finality of resolution are neither principally nor definitionally the same thing as GM Force (whether the system condones it as a feature or not).
> 
> Hopefully that makes sense and clears that all up.



No, in fact it rather muddies things. 

You're looking at GM force and player agency as an either-or (that's how the above reads, anyway).  But GM force is but one of three main things that can impact player agency - and for the purpose of this discussion isn't even the relevant one.

The second is external effects e.g. charms-dominations-possessions-etc.

And the third is social conflict mechanics; and while these are certainly "neither principally nor definitionally the same thing as GM Force", they still take away player agency.  These mechanics can be invoked by the GM, or by another player, or by the system; my objection is that they exist to be invoked at all.

Of the three, the first is generally bad while the second is IME usually accepted as part of the game.  It's the third one - the social conflict mechanics - where the issue lies, as for some of us they're a completely unnecessary blow to player agency and fully-in-character roleplay.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 13, 2020)

pemerton said:


> The two bolded phrases are not synonyms.



True, player agency over one's character is a subset of player agency overall. (though I happen to think it's by far the most important aspect)

But for the purposes of the points I'm trying to make in this discussion, they're more or less the same: player agency includes complete control over one's character, absent the use of external control mechanics.



> I have never seen anyone argue that players should have unlimited agency (ie be the sole authors of the shared fiction). What I mostly see disputes about is whether players should have _any _agency in respect of the shared fiction.



Which is a different branch or aspect of player agency, and though perhaps germaine to the larger discussion around character-driven play it's not all that relevant when talking of the impact of social conflict mechanics.



> I think that character-driven play of the sort @innerdude describes can't take place of players don't have some agancy in respect of the shared fiction, including in respect of the emotional states and social responses of NPCs. (Eg it has to be possible for a PC to befriend a NPC without the GM being the one who decides it.)



However, if the player of an NPC (that being the GM) can be forced to play a character a certain way then it naturally follows the same can and will happen in reverse: the player of a PC can be forced by the same mechanics to play that PC a certain way: the emotional state and social response of the PC will be driven by those mechanics. (and I'll cut off the "PCs and NPCs work differently" argument right now by simply saying don't bother, as that discussion is a non-starter)

Never mind that some of the examples here have involved two or more PCs trying to influence each other: the GM isn't even involved.  Does it - to use your own example above - have to "_be possible for a PC to befriend [another PC] without [that PC's player] being the one who decides it_"?



> If player agency is confined to fighting and climbing and other feats of physical prowess, it will be very hard to get _character-driven _arcs because those things on their own tend not to reveal enough about the character.



Agreed.  Character, with all it entails, is more often (and usually better) revealed through roleplay than through physical actions.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think that it's hard to not place importance on who the characters are specifically if you want character driven play. If the characters in the story can be easily swapped out for another, and little is changed about the course of play, then I don't think that it's strongly character driven play. I don't think that means that it is entirely absent of character driven elements, just that they are less central to play.





hawkeyefan said:


> I don't think that you can claim to promote character driven play while simultaneously dismissing the importance of character.



Pithy and true!

It's possible to have RPGing where character is central in the way you describe here, but there aren't the sorts of dramatic arcs that are described in the OP. A lot of my 4e D&D play has been like this - the events and concerns are particular to the PCs, but the fundamental nature of the PCs often is not at risk. (Sometimes it has been. But often not.)

But the converse is, as you say, not possible.



hawkeyefan said:


> Real people are not as in control of themselves as a Player is of his PC.





hawkeyefan said:


> beyond that is the idea that things that we _know _about our characters can change without our permission. They don't happen because I've decided that my character is now angsty because his family was killed, or any similar characterization element. Instead, they happen as the result of play.
> 
> When there are mechanics that involve aspects of the character such as their beliefs or goals or flaws, then those mechanics are kind of by default character driven game elements.
> 
> ...



I think it was @Neonchameleon upthread who gave examples of character arcs from an Apocalypse World game. But AW doesn't have mechanics for flaws, aspects etc in the way that some systems do.

Burning Wheel has Beliefs, Instincts and Traits for PCs, but there is no mechanical system whereby they are changes as a direct outcome of play. A player is free to rewrite his/her PC's Beliefs and/or Instincts at almost any time. (The GM is allowed to delay a change if s/he thinks the player is trying to change them sim;y so as to avoid a hard situation for his/her PC.)

What makes character development take place in these games is that the GM has both the tools and permission to push the PCs (and thereby the players) hard, and the players have permission and even an expectation to respond to that, including by sucking up big impacts on their PCs. I've seen similar stuff in Rolemaster and even AD&D, though these are a bit more wobbly when participants start pushing hard so I wouldn't necessarily recommend them for this purpose

None of the above is to disagree about the potential utility of social/emotional resolution mechanics (below in this post I have an example that involves the use of them). But to the extent that they operate on the PCs (at the initiative of either the GM or other players) I think they're just one tool in the box. They're not fundamental. (I think player-to-NPC social/emotional mechanics are much more important, virtually fundamental, for the reasons I've already posted upthread.)



Ovinomancer said:


> Mechanics are not necessary for character driven play, but they help, a lot.  You don't need them, and can have deep and meaningful character arcs without them, but, at that point, you're doing so ad hoc, as an unstructured (and often unspoken) agreement between player and GM.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> That said, mechanical systems, with constraints, can often do a lot of the heavy lifting for character arcs



I think this is all true.

If the unstructured agreement is about GMing approaches (eg framing scenes on pressure points) then I think that can work fine. If the unstructured agreement is about laying some combination of GM decision-making and loose table consensus over the gaps in the formal system's finality of resolution, I think that creates a much higher degree of instability even with the best will in the world, because the player who cares about his/her PC has such a strong incentive to push back. I would say that, in those sorts of cases, and everything else being reasonably equal, moving to greater finality in resolution (either via informal drifting or changing systems) would probably be a good idea.



Ovinomancer said:


> need to be understood by all involved and play goals need to be aligned.  This puts a bit of an artificial spin on play, where everyone's trying to do the arc and using the mechanics to do so, that it can be jarring for some that are wanting a more organic experience.  Depending on the mechanics, game genre expectations, and player goals, this artificiality can vary greatly by system, so it can sometimes be reduced by finding the right setup, gamewise and genrewise.  However, there's no doubt that mechanics can push character arcs, but the feel of that pushing can be offputting.



This is why, personally, I tend to play systems where the mechanics can't themselves, directly, produce arcs - but they can produce PC-affecting outcomes that recast the circumstances a PC is in and thereby lead the player to take his/her PC in new ways.

I think I may already have posted this example upthread:



pemerton said:


> There was talk of a powerful knight who was blocking the road north, not letting anyone pass who was unable to beat him in battle - and so far unbeaten. (This was Sir Lionheart, of the second Challenge from a Knight scenario in the rulebook.) Naturally the PCs headed off to see if they could do better, with a crowd in tow to see the excitement and the performer working the crowd.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...





I  would guess that this is not quite as gut-wrenching an arc as the OP has in mind. But it is an arc, and has continued - while travelling to the Holy Land on crusade Sir Morgath became infatuated with the Countess of Toulouse (via my use of a GM fiat ability - that's a feature of the system), and has since been joined on his travels by his wife Elizabeth, which has made things even more difficult for him. The player has a certificate whereby he could, if he wished, Suppress Lust and thus end his infatuation, but to date has not done so. (There is no "certificate economy" comparable to the fate point economy in Fate, but some of your remarks upthread about the balance there between player choice and GM force I think are also apposite in the context of this system.)

It doesn't depend on there being any "personality" or "flaw" or "goal" mechanics. It does depend on there being conflict resolution mechanics that result in binding finality for all participants, supplemented by a limited supply of both player- and GM-side fiat options. And I think that the fact that those options extend to social/emotional aspects of the PC is a big help.


----------



## Monayuris (Feb 13, 2020)

innerdude said:


> I've been thinking a lot lately about how despite having a tremendous amount of fun with RPGs over the years, I continue have a sense of lack, or dissatisfaction with one particular aspect of my play experiences---namely, I have found it to be nigh impossible to drift into what I would consider a true "character-driven" style of play.
> 
> Let me explain what I mean by that.
> 
> ...



Don't worry about it.

Role playing is literally just imagining yourself as your character in an imaginary dungeon. That is it. No more needed.

The idea of deep character development or the level that Critical Role goes into the game is not necessary for role playing. This is all ancillary things done by people who feel it adds to their own personal experience and it is not at all required to enjoy this game. It is definitely not required to be a role player. It is something a select few do because they think it is fun, but it is NOT how you need to play the game.

Do your thing as you wish. Ignore the other people who try to tell you you are doing it wrong. If you are playing D&D and you are having fun... no more needs to be said about the subject.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2020)

prabe said:


> it seems to me to call for a more adversarial approach to GMing than I'm happy with, from either side of the (metaphorical) screen, which doesn't seem to me as though it'd be conducive to the trust I think is necessary between player and GM. I don't see how you can pick an aspect (let alone a trouble) if you don't trust the GM not to hose you with it.



I've never played Fate, and probably won't anytime soon, so my thoughts are a little bit conjectural.

But to me it seems like choosing when to compel, as a Fate GM, is a bit like choosing how hard to narrate consequences in a game like Burning Wheel or Prince Valiant or 4e D&D, or choosing how hard a move to make in a game like Apocalypse World, or choosing when to activate a PC's limit in Marvel Heroic/Cortex+ Heroic. As a GM you have multiple obligations - to maintain pressure, to uphold the integrity of the fiction, to be fair to the players particular in respect of honouring their past successes. At least in my experience there is no magic formula which will combine all these duties and the current state of the fiction as input to produce a unique GM decision as output - so many intangible factors around table mood, pacing (the latter itself synergistic with the former), etc are in play I don't think there could be any such formula even in principle.

I just posted an account of Prince Valiant play. In one session I initiated a social conflict which a player lost, with the result that his PC entered into a marriage somewhat against his own preferences. Later on, I used a GM fiat ability to have the same PC fall in love with a different NPC whom he was rescuing from her cruel husband (the Count of Toulouse). Looked at from the outside this might look more arbitrary than a compel: the player has chosen any sort of romance-related flaw for his PC, and there is no Fate point economy whereby he gains from going along with me, or can immediately pay me to leave his PC alone. He has to suck it up, at least until he earns a certificate (entirely in the gift of the GM, based on my sense of roleplaying intensity and entertainment) and so gets his own chance to use a fiat ability.

Why the player accepts it - and I know this from talking to him - is because it's fun! It's hijinks in itself that leads to more hijinks. And it's hardly any sort of rabbit from a hat or bait-and-switch that in a relatively light-hearted Arthurian game knights should find themselves troubled by their relationships with damsels.

EDIT: Just saw this relevant thing from Ovinomancer:



Ovinomancer said:


> Apparently, though, that's not how many people approach FATE play, instead having a strong DM curated storyline where troubles really are something the GM uses to bleed points from players.  I struggle with that concept as the best use of the rules, but I'm told some really enjoy this kind of play.



To me that sounds a bit suck-y. It negates all the stuff I mentioned in this post as what I would assume would guide the use of compels.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 13, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I just posted an account of Prince Valiant play. In one session I initiated a social conflict which a player lost, with the result that his PC entered into a marriage somewhat against his own preferences.




That was not clearly evident from the excerpt you posted.



> Later on, I used a GM fiat ability to have the same PC fall in love with a different NPC whom he was rescuing from her cruel husband (the Count of Toulouse). Looked at from the outside this might look more arbitrary than a compel: the player has chosen any sort of romance-related flaw for his PC, and there is no Fate point economy whereby he gains from going along with me, or can immediately pay me to leave his PC alone. He has to suck it up, at least until he earns a certificate (entirely in the gift of the GM, based on my sense of roleplaying intensity and entertainment) and so gets his own chance to use a fiat ability.




So you apply GM force (I'm assuming you have unlimited GM fiat ability) and the player *has to suck it up *until they earn a certificate, which earning of and number are also controlled by you as GM? Have I got this right?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2020)

prabe said:


> I'm a believer in social skills (or whatever the equivalent is in a given system) to account for differences in competencies between player and character.



This reason isn't very important to me. In 4e D&D - a rather tactical game - the fact that all the PCs have combat ability doesn't stop the best wargamer at the table shining in combat.

And the system has social skills, but the player still has to understand social dynamics at least to the extent of declaring relevant actions. So a player with more social imagination has more scope to do stuff here.

That's not to say that the reason should be irrelevant to everyone, and maybe I'm underestimating how weak some players' social skills are. But for me it's much more about what domains of activity are subject to finality in resolution as opposed to sheer negotiation/consensus/fiat.



prabe said:


> Maybe you could unpack why character-driven play necessitates imposing those sorts of consequences on NPCs? I'm not sure I understand the relationship.



Here's a gratuitous self-quote from somewhere not too far upthread:




pemerton said:


> I think that character-driven play of the sort @innerdude describes can't take place of players don't have some agancy in respect of the shared fiction, including in respect of the emotional states and social responses of NPCs. (Eg it has to be possible for a PC to befriend a NPC without the GM being the one who decides it.)
> 
> If player agency is confined to fighting and climbing and other feats of physical prowess, it will be very hard to get _character-driven _arcs because those things on their own tend not to reveal enough about the character.



That's the reason. I just think, based on a mixture of intuition and experience, that non-social (ie primarily physical/environmental) conflicts are not revealing enough of a character to produce character-driven arcs. The players also need to be able to have their PCs make changes to the social/emotional elements of the fiction.

That's not to say it has to be unlimited fiat power. It can be done through skills, rationing, etc. And sometimes it might fail, so the would-be friend becomes an enemy instead. That's part of putting the character at risk.

I don't think the mechanics for this need to be very complicated: the 1st ed AD&D reaction system might be enough, if used with a bit of imagination. But I think you need some way for the PC's persona/nature to feed through. That's why, for me personally, Oriental Adventures was so significant as a RPGing experience: PCs' honour, status etc affects reaction rolls and so suddenly what happens in the social sphere isn't just the result of an arbitrary roll but starts to tell us something about the character.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2020)

prabe said:


> That said, in my 5E games, I don't have absolute authority over the world. Players have established facts about it, which I have incorporated (or occasionally altered slightly). The PCs can change the world in the course of their adventures (which may not be exactly what you're talking about).



I think what you say is what I'm talking about. That sounds like an approach closer to my experience with (original) AD&D and less "DM empowerment" than I often encounter associated with 5e D&D.

(I don't play 5e myself, so my impression of it is based on reading rules plus others; accounts of it.)


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> But for the purposes of the points I'm trying to make in this discussion, they're more or less the same



No. You were accusing multiple posters, including me, of self-contradiction. You don't get to impose your meaning on our assertions and then infer that we've contradicted ourselves!



Lanefan said:


> if the player of an NPC (that being the GM) can be forced to play a character a certain way then it naturally follows the same can and will happen in reverse: the player of a PC can be forced by the same mechanics to play that PC a certain way



Here's evidence that it doesn't "naturally follow" - there are many RPGs in which what you assert is not true. Upthread I posted the _seduce or manipulate move_ from Apocalypse World, which is an example of this.



Lanefan said:


> I'll cut off the "PCs and NPCs work differently" argument right now by simply saying don't bother, as that discussion is a non-starter



Last I knew _naturally follow _wasn't a synonym for_ decreed thus-and-so by Lanefan_.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2020)

Sadras said:


> That was not clearly evident from the excerpt you posted.



I think that was a tag issue. I've removed the spoiler tags (which were meant to help manage a long quote).



Sadras said:


> So you apply GM force (I'm assuming you have unlimited GM fiat ability) and the player *has to suck it up *until they earn a certificate, which earning of and number are also controlled by you as GM? Have I got this right?



GM fiat ability is not unlimited. I'm not sure why you would make that assumption.

The discussion of how to manage GM fiat abilities is one of the important bits of advice in the system. From pages 43-45:


Special Effects are ways in which a Storyteller (or, in the Advanced Game, any player) can decisively affect the action of the game without any coin throws. Special Effects give the Storyteller control over the course of events, even in the face of very powerful Adventurers.

When possible, the Storyteller should use coin throws to impose his will on the Adventurers. For example, it is more realistic and entertaining to assign a high Difficulty Factor to a task, and let the Adventurers all try and fail, than to simply say “it’s impossible to do that.” But leaving your story vulnerable
to a lucky coin throw can be risky.

For example, if a puny Adventurer was fighting your main villain and making excellent coin throws, fairness dictates that he win, even if it spoils your story. But a Special Effect gives the Storyteller an event that occurs without fail. This can help him control the story without being too dictatorial. To continue the example of a fight, the villain might be able to knock the annoying Adventurer unconscious using the appropriate Special Effect, KNOCK AN OPPONENT SENSELESS.

Special Effects are normally linked to specific characters
in the story (see the Episodes for examples). Usually no more than three characters with Special Effects, or one character with three Special Effects, should be used, so as to let the players retain some control.

The players should not know what Special Effects your characters have, but they should be logical ones for the characters. For example, a beautiful girl is more likely to have the Effects of INCITE LUST or INSPIRE INDIVIDUAL TO GREATNESS than she would be to have HIDE or KILL A FOE IN COMBAT. Your players may be able to guess what kind of Effects a character has, and this increases the fun of the game.

Only one character can be influenced directly by a Special Effect, although the ramifications of the Special Effect may affect a group. The holder of the Special Effect decides which character is affected. Both Adventurers and characters controlled by the Storyteller can be aided or influenced by a Special Effect.

The user states that he is putting into action a Special Effect and reads it into the plot. The desired event happens, and the story is changed, often dramatically. The Storyteller must create a reasonable explanation for the way in which the Effect takes place, in terms of the current situation.

Special Effects are available from two sources: Episodes and Storyteller Certificates, the latter used only in the Advanced Game. Thus in the Basic Game, only Storytellers will be using Special Effects, while in the Advanced Game, any player may use a Special Effect.

Special Effects from Episodes may be used more than once if specifically stated in the Episode writeup. Special Effects can be used only once when derived from a Storyteller Certificate​
The award of Storyteller Certificates at out table combines the rules on pp 55-56 for the award of Certificates and Gold Stars:


[T]he Chief Storyteller may award a Certificate to any player as a reward for good acting or other reasons.

Anytime during play, whether or not they are the current Storyteller, the owner can turn in the Storyteller Certificate to the Chief Storyteller and exercise one use of a Special Effect. . . .

In the Advanced Game, all Storytellers can use gold stars to reward good players.​
(The Chief vs all Storyteller stuff isn't relevant to us as we're not using rotating storytelling. I'm the sole GM.)

In our game we've probably averaged a bit less than one Certificate per session. We think of them as a bit like Persona or Deeds points in Burning Wheel - awarded for big achievements and/or impassioned roleplaying.


----------



## KenNYC (Feb 13, 2020)

You will never get a meaningful roleplaying experience worrying about rules.  The moment you look at your sheet the roleplaying is over, so to achieve whatever character immersion you want, you have to go back to OD&D or D&D or a relaxed AD&D and just roleplay with a system that has next to no stats.  It also helps if you have a DM that doesn't worry about rules either and just says "yes, and..." a lot and you say it right back to him.  This is why 5e was such a letdown to me after 30 years away.  I don't want to make a religious check to see if I know something.   I want to approach an NPC and have a conversation with them and learn something,   Keep on making tedious skill checks and you'll never have a character driven campaign.   And throw away those backgrounds the books try to foist on you.   I have to play a character four or five times, get the feel of him, and then I know what his background is.    Yes I can act out playing whatever was randomly rolled for me, but it is certainly more immersive and natural to just play five sessions, realize my character detects magic a lot,  and suddenly the answer comes to me and the character is fleshed out.   Then I play accordingly.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 13, 2020)

KenNYC said:


> You will never get a meaningful roleplaying experience worrying about rules.




It is important to note the OP is discussing a particular type of roleplaying experience which includes a risk of the foundation of the character. It is not about simple immersive play.



> This is why 5e was such a letdown to me after 30 years away.  I don't want to make a religious check to see if I know something.




You do not have to. The DMG provides the die route, the middle path and the limited/no die route as possible options when handling a situation. It really depends on the DM.



> I want to approach an NPC and have a conversation with them and learn something,




All still possible within 5e.



> And throw away those backgrounds the books try to foist on you.   I have to play a character four or five times, get the feel of him, and then I know what his background is.    Yes I can act out playing whatever was randomly rolled for me, but it is certainly more immersive and natural to just play five sessions, realize my character detects magic a lot,  and suddenly the answer comes to me and the character is fleshed out.   Then I play accordingly.




Again, you do not have to randomly roll your background, every table I have known has players select their preferred background for their character. I believe the background rolling possibility might have existed within AD&D.



> Keep on making tedious skill checks and you'll never have a character driven campaign.




The idea by some is that GM-force based on DM-decides whether for or against the character works against character-driven campaigns. Some, similar to you, have advocated for less die-rolling system.


----------



## chaochou (Feb 13, 2020)

Sadras said:


> I'm not certain if the correct term should be "at stake" as this fallout was already pre-planned by the players upon character generation...




Right, so the characters weren't being changed as a result of the events of play. This was planned prior to any play having happened.



Sadras said:


> and although they had laid the bread crumbs for this story arc along the way (now evident), both myself and the other players had missed them.




And these changes were so 'dramatic' that everyone else failed to notice them.

They also had such an impact on the events of play - what was going on in the game - that no-one else noticed.

Sound exactly like what the OP is after, and what @pemerton and I and others are discussing.



Sadras said:


> Needless to say, the player of the paladin is retiring her character (for now) - while the warlock now free from the burden of the lie, looked to continue on a different path (new class).




So the players finally resort to the only way they're allowed to impact the actual subject matter of the game by nuking the one thing they have control of - they're own characters. I wonder what effect that had... it must have completely changed everything...



Sadras said:


> The player of the paladin is to create a new character to join the others.




Join the others. On the main railroad 'story arc'.... to add some colour to your scripted plot with their 'unscripted dialogue'.



Sadras said:


> I feel the above statement is clearly false, given my above example.




Your example only demonstrates how powerless your players are. They can roll dice then they're told, and fight what they're told (but only win when you decide). And if they're having fun, good for you. Just don't bring that into a thread about character-driven play and expect plaudits from anyone other that railroaders also seeking to validate illusionism as a technique.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 13, 2020)

Wolfpack48 said:


> Yep, acting could be one way of exploring character growth, but certainly not the only way. Plenty of books on writing character in short story or novel or screenplay form. Trying to codify it in a rule set only creates constraints as players try to squish their play into the framework or terminology. Just play a.character. It’s much more free and natural especially if you find a like minded group.



No, acting is orthogonal to exploring character growth.  Orthogonal, in this sense, meaning 'not related to.'  

I say this because I can look at acting and determine if it is either necessary to have character growth, meaning that acting must be present to have character growth, or if it is sufficient to have character growth, meaning that acting alone can cause character growth.  

The necessary part you've already noted isn't true -- there are other ways to have character growth, so therefore it's not necessary to have acting be present to have character growth.  I'll leave aside your attempt to limit other methods to writing for now.

That leave sufficiency.  This is as easy to show because all I have to do is show that you can have acting while not having character growth.  This is a trivial show -- there's a wealth of acted parts with no character growth in all forms of media, including at the table. I, personally, have acted the part of many NPCs that have had no growth, and not a few PCs that have likewise had no growth, in both 1-shots, short campaigns, and even in longer campaigns.  So, therefore, acing is not sufficient to have character growth.

If acting is neither necessary nor sufficient for character growth, then it's not really part of the discussion of 'how do we do character growth.'  It is a useful discussion for 'how to we connect to our characters in play?'  This is because, while acting is not necessary to connect to character, it can be sufficient.  It's just not terribly interesting in regards to the discussion on character arcs, as it's not an important component of having character arcs.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 13, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 13, 2020)

KenNYC said:


> You will never get a meaningful roleplaying experience worrying about rules.  The moment you look at your sheet the roleplaying is over, so to achieve whatever character immersion you want, you have to go back to OD&D or D&D or a relaxed AD&D and just roleplay with a system that has next to no stats.  It also helps if you have a DM that doesn't worry about rules either and just says "yes, and..." a lot and you say it right back to him.  This is why 5e was such a letdown to me after 30 years away.  I don't want to make a religious check to see if I know something.   I want to approach an NPC and have a conversation with them and learn something,   Keep on making tedious skill checks and you'll never have a character driven campaign.   And throw away those backgrounds the books try to foist on you.   I have to play a character four or five times, get the feel of him, and then I know what his background is.    Yes I can act out playing whatever was randomly rolled for me, but it is certainly more immersive and natural to just play five sessions, realize my character detects magic a lot,  and suddenly the answer comes to me and the character is fleshed out.   Then I play accordingly.



This is a pretty narrow view of games, one that seems very entrenched in a specific form of play.  As an entry into the topic, it really fails to address how this kind of play can create the type of experience the OP has requested.  You specifically reference the, "yes, and..." improv advice, but this counters character driven play because it asks you to subsume character to the play by agreeing with the situtation as presented by others and building onto it, whereas character play requires pushback on things that are central to or important to the character.

Don't get me wrong, this is a perfectly fine way to play, and I'm happy that you enjoy it.  It isn't, however, an actual solution to the OP except in the ad hoc, unpredictable way I've described previously.  Sometimes lightning strikes doing this, but, like lightning, that's neither reliable or should be expected.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Feb 13, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> No, acting is orthogonal to exploring character growth.  Orthogonal, in this sense, meaning 'not related to.'
> 
> I say this because I can look at acting and determine if it is either necessary to have character growth, meaning that acting must be present to have character growth, or if it is sufficient to have character growth, meaning that acting alone can cause character growth.
> 
> ...




You seem preternaturally obsessed with acting and simultaneously wishing for frameworks, rules, systems and terminology to simulate playing a character.  You’re obviously going to continue on that path and so nothing to help you. Ignoring you and moving on.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 13, 2020)

chaochou said:


> Right, so the characters weren't being changed as a result of the *events of play*.




I once again provide the quote to which I objected (refer below). I never once mentioned that characters were being changed as a result of play. That is all you.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> There can't be dramatic character arcs if "the story" is already written (by the GM or the module author or whomever) and the GM _already knows what is to come_.
> 
> Doubly so if the GM has already decided what that story will be _independently of the development by the players of their characters._






> And these changes were so 'dramatic' that everyone else failed to notice them.
> They also had such an impact on the events of play - what was going on in the game - that no-one else noticed.




I said they left bread crumbs, you interpreted that to mean _dramatic changes. _That is on you.



> So the players finally resort to *the only way* they're allowed to impact the actual subject matter of the game by nuking the one thing they have control of - they're own characters.




How is it the only way? And how did they nuke control of their characters? Why do you not see this as an evolution of their characters?

This happened last week. These characters are still integral to the storyline but I would have to sit and discuss with the players how they see themselves going forward, will there be a downtime period - I have literally no idea.
Again you're jumping to conclusions. That is on you.



> I wonder what effect that had... it must have completely changed everything...




That is where we ended it, with OOC conversation on the player's new character and the other character likely becoming a sorcerer. Again this is not nuking, perhaps they will change or add flaws, bonds and ideals - I have no idea as yet, but this is something the players wanted to explore, and that they did.



> Join the others. On the main railroad 'story arc'.... to add some colour to your scripted plot with their 'unscripted dialogue'.




Don't forget my dramatic character arcs which funny enough you and I both seem to have at our tables despite you running your games so differently. That is on us. 



> Your example only demonstrates how powerless your players are.




In what way are they powerless and how has my example demonstrated that? You make bold statements and yet you back it up with . That is on you.



> They can roll dice then they're told, and fight what they're told (but only win when you decide).




And yet again, none of that disputes my claim that dramatic story arcs occur within my railroad-y story arc games with my colourful unscripted player dialogue.   That is on you me, no you. I give up, it's on somebody.



> Just don't bring that into a thread about character-driven play and expect plaudits from anyone other that railroaders also seeking to validate illusionism as a technique.




Thank you for clearing that up, because for a moment I was concerned that you were gonna offer me a plaudit, but you set me straight. Top man!

Echo on regardless.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 13, 2020)

Sadras said:


> It is important to note the OP is discussing a particular type of roleplaying experience which includes a risk of the foundation of the character. It is not about simple immersive play.




Hr.  Hold on a second.

The OP talks about play that leads to a _change_ in the foundation of the character.

In common RPG parlance, risk is... a chance of harm.  The GM creates challenges with risks in them - if you don't find ways to deal with the challenges, the consequences imposed by the GM are things the PCs don't like.  

That's not the same thing as play that leads a player to realize that their character, as a result of things that they have experienced, will experience change.  There is no "risk" if the choice to change or not is entirely in the hands of the player.  "I watched my best friend die - I used to be a happy-go-lucky bard, but now... I am driven by vengeance!" is character driven play that has nothing to do with "risk".


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Feb 13, 2020)

Umbran said:


> That's not the same thing as play that leads a player to realize that their character, as a result of things that they have experienced, will experience change.  There is no "risk" if the choice to change or not is entirely in the hands of the player.  "I watched my best friend die - I used to be a happy-go-lucky bard, but now... I am driven by vengeance!" is character driven play that has nothing to do with "risk".




So... In order for there to be a risk, there needs to be something in conflict. For character driven play, those things have to be related specifically to the character, and they have to be 'in play'.

For your example above, I might suggest that the character has two beliefs...

1. I will not be driven by vengeance.
2. I would do anything for my loved ones.

To put them into play, the bard friend says "Avenge me!" with his dying breath. Now, the two beliefs held by the character are in conflict.  Does the player forgo vengeance, keeping to belief 1 and discarding belief 2? Or does he avenge his friend the bard, keeping to belief 2 and discarding belief 1?

For this type of character driven play to function, the players need to choose (some number of) beliefs for their characters, which can be placed into conflict during play. This is (more or less) what beliefs in Burning Wheel are for, they are cues from the player about what sort of things the game master should challenge the character with.


----------



## prabe (Feb 13, 2020)

pemerton said:


> This reason isn't very important to me. In 4e D&D - a rather tactical game - the fact that all the PCs have combat ability doesn't stop the best wargamer at the table shining in combat.
> 
> And the system has social skills, but the player still has to understand social dynamics at least to the extent of declaring relevant actions. So a player with more social imagination has more scope to do stuff here.
> 
> That's not to say that the reason should be irrelevant to everyone, and maybe I'm underestimating how weak some players' social skills are. But for me it's much more about what domains of activity are subject to finality in resolution as opposed to sheer negotiation/consensus/fiat.




In D&D terms (because it's the system in my head at the moment):

I think it's more along the lines of if you have a persuasive, talkative player whose fighter used Charisma as a dump stat, forcing the player and character to live with the consequences of dumping Charisma; or, if you have a quiet introvert playing a paladin, letting mechanics and dice enable the character to have a more forceful personality.

In practice, I use a lot of passive stat stuff for this, modified by ... how the players play the scene, I guess.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 13, 2020)

Michael Silverbane said:


> So... In order for there to be a risk, there needs to be something in conflict. For character driven play, those things have to be related specifically to the character, and they have to be 'in play'.




You seem to be missing the point.  I am not asking how one would introduce risk in this context.  I am challenging the idea that risk is necessary at all.

Fundamentally - in character driven play, the player makes choices driven by who and what the character is.  The OP wanted there to also be fundamental change to the character.

While you _can_ play this as if the character was a list of fundamentals, and as if some of them were written on cards and put "in play" with some defined process for resolution of game events to change those cards, that's not actually necessary to reach the stated goal.

This rather hinges on a point - "play" is not limited to "interaction with the rule set".


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Feb 13, 2020)

Umbran said:


> You seem to be missing the point.  I am not asking how one would introduce risk in this context.  I am challenging the idea that risk is necessary at all.




I would say that risk is only a necessary component for the game to be "substantively character-driven."

Sure, you can play your character as having changed due to in-fiction events in any role-playing game, but for character change to be the point of the game (which is how I read the phrase, "substantively character-driven," used in the thread's title), the game itself must be able to drive character change.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 13, 2020)

KenNYC said:


> You will never get a meaningful roleplaying experience worrying about rules.  The moment you look at your sheet the roleplaying is over, so to achieve whatever character immersion you want, you have to go back to OD&D or D&D or a relaxed AD&D and just roleplay with a system that has next to no stats.  It also helps if you have a DM that doesn't worry about rules either and just says "yes, and..." a lot and you say it right back to him.




The first sentence is true, the second is a massive oversimplification - and if the character sheet were entirely something that got in the way freeform would be objectively superior and we might as well just give up on D&D in favour of freeform and Improv. One reason to not worry about rules is you've already mastered them - and rules help bring you on the same page for complex interactions. "Yes-and" only takes you so farm

I've already mentioned Apocalypse World before in this thread to show how well the right rule system can encourage to the sort of character growth @innerdude wants (and a time it did with complete newbies) but there are a lot of things Apocalypse World does very right. This is partly because Vincent Baker's wife, Meguy Baker, is an experienced freeform RPer, and Vincent's goal therefore is always to create a game that provides her a _better _experience than freeform would be - and she's his collaborator and first playtester. 

And there are several things he does in all his games that enable this. Some of which are:

Keeps the stats few - I can't recall more than five stats/skills you actually roll in any of his games
Keeps the rolls simple and consistent with not too many modifiers so working out the outcome is fast
Keeps the abilities few and evocative so they are easy to remember (one of the Apocalypse World moves is literally called NOT TO BE naughty word WITH and makes the single fighter equal to a small gang)
Keeps the rhythm of the game the same as freform - so you roll in Apocalypse World at exactly the same points you'd hand over narration in freeform.
Designs the rules so that they are in line with what you would actually do in freeform.
Keeps the outcomes far richer than a simple pass-fail so rolling adds to the game.
Points 1-4 all minimise the disruption of looking at the character sheet - you look at it when you'd hand over narration anyway (point 4) and 1-3 all mean that there's not _that_ much to remember. Point 5 again minimises the disruption. And point 6 is where it becomes actively better than freeform while having few downsides.

To illustrate how this works, Apocalypse World doesn't have any Perception skill. Instead when you want to look round the room to work out what's going on here you use the Apocalypse World "Read a Sitch" move.



			
				Read a Sitch from Apocalypse World said:
			
		

> When you read a charged situation, roll+sharp. On a hit, you can ask the MC questions. Whenever you act on one of the MC’s answers, take +1. On a 10+, ask 3. On a 7–9, ask 1:
> 
> Where’s my best escape route / way in / way past?
> Which enemy is most vulnerable to me?
> ...




Everyone knows how to Roll + Sharp (roll 2d6 and add the one of your five stats called Sharp) and you can do it proactively without being annoying by spamming perception checks because there should always be an interesting answer. Also "be prepared for the worst" on a failed roll means that the GM has an absolute right to say "Your enemy's true position is standing right behind you placing a pistol against the back of your head" or "you catch the flash of triumph in the eyes of the waiter and realise that your drink had a bitter aftertaste. The room starts spinning." so the roll isn't risk free - it's a legitimate answer to the question and a way you'd find out. Just an ... unfortunate ... way because you failed the roll.

But fundamentally all those questions are things that when looking round a character is likely to be looking out for - and a character is likely to want to know wtf is going on. It's both a much more active choice and a choice more in line with what players naturally do than just a simple "Roll perception" which is one of eighteen different skills (17 in 4e, 33+ in 3.X) on your skill list and doesn't provide anything remotely as defined in terms of what you are looking for as asking one to three of those six listed questions does. So it fits in line with what freeform RPers would be doing naturally when their character is worried about trouble.

Saying "Yes and" is all very well - and I've enough of an experience of improv to know where it can lead. But one of the things RPG rules and mechanics provides is that gritty extra "yes but" in ways that work and that build. However you need to do it carefully.


----------



## chaochou (Feb 13, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Do you think this is likely to lead to a productive conversation? Do you think that this is particularly helpful?




The only way to talk about character-driven play is to seperate it clearly from GM-driven play, and that means highlighting where play is GM driven. The fact that a lot GM-driven play doesn't want to admit what it is, isn't my problem.

I consider it extremely helpful to bring such illusionism blinking and resentful into the cold hard light. Why can't players who are playing their own side-game of outcome-free emoting throughout the GMs plot can be discussed in those terms? To present such as a demonstration of a 'dramatic character arc' when no-one even noticed it was happening, is frankly laughable. To bring it into a thread about character-driven play is even more so.

Illusionism is about lying to people about how much agency the players have. Player agency is a valued currency - one playstyle features it and another doesn't but lies about it. Are you able to talk about that? Is it allowed (by you)? Apparently not.

But maybe you have an example of character-driven play to share? Or recommended systems for the OP? If not, why are you here?


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 13, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 13, 2020)

Umbran said:


> You seem to be missing the point.  I am not asking how one would introduce risk in this context.  I am challenging the idea that risk is necessary at all.
> 
> ...
> 
> This rather hinges on a point - "play" is not limited to "interaction with the rule set".



It's a very long time since I agreed with @Umbran on much but what's said here is bang on.

Playing through a character's arc - which may or may not involve significant changes to said character - might rarely if ever involve 'risk' and might never need to touch the game rules.

And to follow on: correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but it seems 'risk' in this context is being used as shorthand for 'potential for forced changes to a character's feelings or emotions that its player doesn't necessarily want'; which means I'm in effect risking my agency over my character.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not for a second suggesting my character's arc should always go smoothly and have everything neatly fall into place.  There'll be failures along the way, possibly up to and including complete failure to reach or even get close to whatever end goal I've set, and that's just part of the game.

What I'm advocating for is the right to retain control over my character even in a failure situation - let me as its player determine how it reacts in-character to said failure, and-or determine what it does next, rather than having my reaction forced on me by the game system (or worse, the GM).

The same applies if I am the GM: what my NPCs do-say-think should as far as possible* not be system-forced but should come instead from what that character is and how it perecives the situation.

* - I throw this qualifier in to acknowledge that not every NPC the party meets is going to have a fully fleshed out characterization or personality.  Those that do, however, should be able to ignore the forced-resolution mechanics just like a PC can.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 13, 2020)

Michael Silverbane said:


> I would say that risk is only a necessary component for the game to be "substantively character-driven."




With respect, I think that's backwards.  The extent that the player puts the character at risk to the game mechanics, that is the game driving the character.

Character driven play is where the nature of the character determines what happens in play, not the other way around.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 13, 2020)

chaochou said:


> Player agency is a valued currency - one playstyle features it and another doesn't but lies about it.




*Mod Note:*

You probably want to be very careful about characterizing things as "lies".  You should also probably take care in the challenging attitude.  This is supposed to be a friendly discussion.  If you become antagonistic and demanding, there's a problem.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 13, 2020)

Michael Silverbane said:


> I would say that risk is only a necessary component for the game to be "substantively character-driven."
> 
> Sure, you can play your character as having changed due to in-fiction events in any role-playing game, but for character change to be the point of the game (which is how I read the phrase, "substantively character-driven," used in the thread's title), the game itself must be able to drive character change.




"the game itself must be able to drive"...Drive as in force? Or drive as in elicit?


----------



## prabe (Feb 13, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Character driven play is where the nature of the character determines what happens in play, not the other way around.




I suppose it's possible to have what happens in play alter the nature of a character, and then further events be determined by the character's nature. Seems a little like what has been said elsewhere in the thread about this not being a pure (clean? simple?) dichotomy. Doesn't make the definition wrong, just pointing out that the boundaries are porous and indistinct.


----------



## innerdude (Feb 13, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> ....correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but it seems 'risk' in this context is being used as shorthand for 'potential for forced changes to a character's feelings or emotions that its player doesn't necessarily want'; which means I'm in effect risking my agency over my character.
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I'm not for a second suggesting my character's arc should always go smoothly and have everything neatly fall into place.  There'll be failures along the way, possibly up to and including complete failure to reach or even get close to whatever end goal I've set, and that's just part of the game.
> 
> What I'm advocating for is the right to retain control over my character even in a failure situation - let me as its player determine how it reacts in-character to said failure, and-or determine what it does next, rather than having my reaction forced on me by the game system (or worse, the GM).




I'm not advocating for GM force to change a character. Nor am I asking for "forced change" from the system, if the player doesn't want it.

But that's the key phrase---_if the player doesn't want it_.

I'm suggesting that I'd actually like to play a game with players who *DO *want it. I want them to readily accept and embrace _that their characters are actually going to change in ways more meaningful than leveling up_. And if by accepting that as a core premise, the players come to find that the system is testing and stretching their characters in ways they didn't expect, then that's precisely the point.

If the default point of view is, "My character should only ever change in ways that I, the player, choose to allow them to change or at most by adhering to stated character building rules," then we've started off on the completely wrong foot for "character-driven" play in the first place.

From what I know of your background (long, long loooooooong time AD&D 1e player who expects to play a single campaign anywhere from 5-7 years), your perspective makes perfect sense.

And while it's a valid perspective for a certain style of play, it's not a style I'm particularly interested in.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2020)

Sadras said:


> I once again provide the quote to which I objected (refer below). I never once mentioned that characters were being changed as a result of play. That is all you.



The quote you're objecting to is from me:



> There can't be dramatic character arcs if "the story" is already written (by the GM or the module author or whomever) and the GM _already knows what is to come_.
> 
> Doubly so if the GM has already decided what that story will be _independently of the development by the players of their characters._




I would have hoped it was fairly clear that by "dramatic character arcs"  I meant what the OP referred to, that is, _emotionally-affecting changes in the charcter(s) that are produced via application of the mechanics in play_.

Here is your account of the events in your game:



Sadras said:


> Just this weekend I witnessed this - an incredible piece of invested roleplaying between two sibling PCs. This had all been pre-thought out by the players that at some point they would have an epic argument about their relationship and their "shared" beliefs that would effectively forever change them and their relationship.
> 
> I and the other player present did nothing but watched in awe as this all played out in a game of D&D. No rolls were needed, just an intense honest conversation that flowed naturally between two characters.
> 
> ...





Sadras said:


> this fallout was already pre-planned by the players upon character generation and although they had laid the bread crumbs for this story arc along the way (now evident), both myself and the other players had missed them. We had noticed the peculiarities but had not picked up that this was going to explode.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



As I understand this, there occurred - parallel to the GM's "main story" - a distinct story that was collaboratively authored by two players which most of the rest of the group didn't really feel the force of until those two players, by agreement, brought it to a head. The result is that, at least for the moment, one of the PCs is being retired from play.

I don't see how that shows what I said to be wrong, because it's not an example of what the OP is talking about. The players don't seem to have put their characters at risk. There characters don't appear to either have driven, or to have been changed by, the actual play of the game as that unfolds via action declarations and their resolution. As you present it, it just looks like collaborative authorship of a subplot alongside what I take to be (given you presented it as contradicting my claim) your own GM-authored main plot.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2020)

Michael Silverbane said:


> For this type of character driven play to function, the players need to choose (some number of) beliefs for their characters, which can be placed into conflict during play. This is (more or less) what beliefs in Burning Wheel are for, they are cues from the player about what sort of things the game master should challenge the character with.



I think that it can be done also if the beliefs (or similar) are presented implicitly rather than expressly on the sheet. For instance, they might be implied by a class or playbook selection. Or be manifested through the play of the character.

To give a simple (simplistic?) example: in a fairly light fantasy-ish game, you might have a kinght or paladin who, via class/playbook-type choice plus evident trope is all about honour, justice, upholding the right, etc. And that character might make a friend. And then it turns out that friend is a heathen, or assassin, or something similar that a knight or paladin would typically hate and oppose. Now the player, in playing their character, has to choose between abstract values and concrete friendship. That could produce the sort of thing the OP talks about.

I say all this because it lets me beat my drum again: more than formalised devices like Beliefs, Aspects etc, I think that the sort of play the OP describes  depends upon robust action resolution, so that consequences can be bindingly established in the fiction in ways beyond table consensus or GM fiat. For instance, in the example I just gave we are going to need mechanics to adjudicate what happens when the PC confronts his/her friend, so that definite fallout of some form or other is generated that the player can't just ignore.



Michael Silverbane said:


> Sure, you can play your character as having changed due to in-fiction events in any role-playing game, but for character change to be the point of the game (which is how I read the phrase, "substantively character-driven," used in the thread's title), the game itself must be able to drive character change.



I agree, but for the reasons I've just given I don't think this has to be via direct mechanical operation upon mechanical elements like Beliefs.

Another example - better than my toy one - is the Apocalypse World actual play sketch that @Neonchameleon posted somewhere upthread. The key there was that the MC established situations and narrated consequences ("made moves" in AW parlance) that put the PCs' commitments under pressure, and then doubled down on initial outcomes to keep that pressure up and see what happened.

(You can see that I'm a bit obsessed by the centrality of _establishing and building on consequences_ as the key to all this. Which is also where I see _risk _being a real thing.)


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 13, 2020)

innerdude said:


> I'm not advocating for GM force to change a character. Nor am I asking for "forced change" from the system, if the player doesn't want it.
> 
> But that's the key phrase---_if the player doesn't want it_.
> 
> ...



I wonder if our definitions of "character-driven play" are the least bit aligned.

I see "character-driven play" as meaning, at its root, play where the characters (or more precisely the players in character) rather than the GM set the context and tone and sequence of play, and thus to a large or complete extent drive whatever storyline the game generates along with much of the day-to-day play that gets it there.  The GM is still responsible for the setting, and for enforcement of the system rules when-where appropriate, but the characters drive the game both in the short and long term.

They can and often will (but don't have to) still change in ways far more meaningful than simply levelling up or as reflected by any other number, but those changes and any results thereof or reactions thereto remain under the player's control.  And yes, a character might find itself in a situation where it's being tested or stretched in ways unexpected.

Reading what you say here, it almost seems like you're looking for the game to in some ways drive the characters via more of a mandated* or expected set-up of emotional tests and trials, which seems a counterintuitive way to use the term 'character-driven play': the characters really aren't driving.  Couple that with emotion-binding resolution mechanics that mean to some extent the players can't always drive either, and what have you got?  It's character-focussed, absolutely, but doesn't seem very character-driven.

* - not exactly the term I want to use but I can't think of a better one right now...I don't want to say 'system-forced' or 'system-demanded'.



> From what I know of your background (long, long loooooooong time AD&D 1e player who expects to play a single campaign anywhere from 5-7 years), your perspective makes perfect sense.



This does raise a few yet-unanswered questions: 

What real-world time frame are you looking at for a campaign or story arc to unfold?
Are you intending a situation where it's the same characters all the way through?

I ask because both of these can and do make a huge difference to how play unfolds, regardless of anything else.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 13, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Um...
> 
> 2nd Edition AD&D came out in 1989.
> 
> ...




Haven't read anymore of the thread yet (and likely won't be able to this evening...which may portend my getting behind and losing interest in the thread).

But come on man.  I don't want to make this thread take a left turn, so I won't belabor this too much.  But you had to know the point of my post wasn't about whether White Wolf co-opted AD&D 2e or AD&D 2e co-opted White Wolf.  Its completely irrelevant to the point.  The point is, these two systems came out 30 years ago at roughly the same time (which is why I can't recall the exact year that they came out without looking it up).

The point is, roughly 30 years ago, a textual analysis shows that Zeb Cook's DMG had a marked departure from the disposition of fair and neutral refereeing (with consistent rulings and extreme care in consistent mediation and adjudication and certainly care and openness in changing rules) that came before it...to an ethos that coincides markedly with White Wolf's Golden Rule; GM as storyteller and entertainer and changing/reinterpreting the rules at any time and/or fudging your application of them for the sake of (the GM's perception of) compelling storytelling and entertainment is a virtue.  And canonical modules during that period (specifically the Dragonlance modules) presuppose this GMing ethos.

The point was simple; a TTRPGing culture accreted around these things in the late 80s early 90s...and that culture has become a major (the major?) orthodoxy of TTRPGing culture, though it is a clear departure from an ethos of neutral, fair, consistent refereeing, following the rules, making neutral/consistent/fair/transparent rulings of corner cases (not rulings in the interest of promoting specific outcomes that produce the type of storytelling and entertainment that the GM is mandated to push toward), and integrity of outcomes as a byproduct of all of the former.  Mentzer's guidance goes so far as to tell GMs its not fair to change the rules until everyone agrees with the change (putting the GM in a first among equals environment)!

89 vs 91, who co-opted whom...it doesn't matter.  Storytelling and entertainment suddenly have primacy over fairness and neutrality...and that shift has implications on play.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2020)

chaochou said:


> The only way to talk about character-driven play is to seperate it clearly from GM-driven play, and that means highlighting where play is GM driven. The fact that a lot GM-driven play doesn't want to admit what it is, isn't my problem.



I think this is pretty fundamental.

To requote some of the OP:



innerdude said:


> I continue have a sense of lack, or dissatisfaction with one particular aspect of my play experiences---namely, I have found it to be nigh impossible to drift into what I would consider a true "character-driven" style of play.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



The OP has clearly addressed the generation of _emotional resonance _by means of_ the creation of fiction out of whole cloth. _And he has made it clear that this is _not what he is looking for_. He is looking for emotional resonance generated by _the actual mechanical interplay of rules _that produces _material changes to a character that are fundamental to that character's place in the fiction_.

@Sadras's example is an examle of _the creation of fiction out of whole cloth_ - by players rather than GM, which is (as best I can tell) why it was a "subplot" that other participants barely noticed until the players performed their pre-arranged climactic scene. Given that (to quote Sadras) "I and the other player present did nothing but watched in awe as this all played out in a game of D&D. No rolls were needed" I can only assume that this performance didn't take place during some moment of crisis in the "main arc" but rather was insulated from the main arc in terms of its occurrence and its consequences.

I'm happy to take Sadras's word that this was a terrific experience for that group. But I think it's clear that it's not an example of what the OP is looking for, and is certainly not a counterexample to the claim that a necessary condition of getting what the OP wants is to drop the notion of "the adventure" or "the main story" that is authored by the GM.

Moving away from GM-driven play, though necessary, is not sufficient. My current Classic Traveller game is not GM-driven - it's driven by a mixture of random determination (Classic Traveller is a very dice-driven game) and framing in response to player cues. But those cues aren't the sort of character-based ones that will produce the sort of play the OP is looking for. To allude to Hamlet's Hit Points (which I think was mentioned upthread) the game is much closer to James Bond, or perhaps Alien, than to Casablanca, or Blade Runner.

To actually address the OP;s concerns - ie to discuss approaches and techniques and systems that will allow what he is interested in to happen in a RPG - requires being honest about what we ourselves are doing in our play, and what sorts of experiences it is producing.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 13, 2020)

pemerton said:


> To give a simple (simplistic?) example: in a fairly light fantasy-ish game, you might have a kinght or paladin who, via class/playbook-type choice plus evident trope is all about honour, justice, upholding the right, etc. And that character might make a friend. And then it turns out that friend is a heathen, or assassin, or something similar that a knight or paladin would typically hate and oppose. Now the player, in playing their character, has to choose between abstract values and concrete friendship. That could produce the sort of thing the OP talks about.
> 
> I say all this because it lets me beat my drum again: more than formalised devices like Beliefs, Aspects etc, I think that the sort of play the OP describes  depends upon robust action resolution, so that consequences can be bindingly established in the fiction in ways beyond table consensus or GM fiat. For instance, in the example I just gave we are going to need mechanics to adjudicate what happens when the PC confronts his/her friend, so that definite fallout of some form or other is generated that the player can't just ignore.



Here I think it's up to the player of the knight to, thinking as the knight would think, decide what to do; whether to value friendship above values, or values above friendship, or try to somehow balance both.  The rest of the table, the GM, and the game system: none of these need be involved in resolving that decision - if in fact it's to be resolved right now; maybe the knight instead finds a way of (or an excuse for) punting the decision down the road a ways - it's all down to the knight's player.

Even more fun if this friend is in fact another PC. 



> (You can see that I'm a bit obsessed by the centrality of _establishing and building on consequences_ as the key to all this. Which is also where I see _risk _being a real thing.)



Consequences are important, no doubt there. However the presence or absence of risk (and of all the possible consequences) might not be apparent until it's too late; and even then consequences can be malleable depending on the situation:

You try to persuade the Duke to give you his son's hand in marriage [_benefit: marry into nobility; risk: make an ass of yourself and get laughed out of court_] but you (for whatever reason) botch the roleplay so badly that the last thing you hear is "Off with her head!" from the Duke [_unforeseen consequence!_] as you're hauled off to the dungeon after having unforgivably insulted his forebears.

So now you're up against it.  But maybe the Duke has a change of heart during the night and decides head-lopping is too harsh a punishment for merely talking like a drunken peasant, so he instead decides to make you what he sees you as - a peasant - and just strips you of all titles, status and land [_altered consequence_] and punts you out in the street.  [_from here this story could go all over the place, entirely dependent on what you-as-player do next_]


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> With respect, I think that's backwards.  The extent that the player puts the character at risk to the game mechanics, that is the game driving the character.
> 
> *Character driven play is where the nature of the character determines what happens in play, not the other way around.*




Ok, I've sifted through some posts briefly and this caught my attention.  I guess its Umbran and Manbearcat disagree night, because I disagree with this.

Its both.  Its:

Character driven play is where the nature of the character _determines _what happens in play (relevant conflict-framing) and what happens in play _reveals _the nature of the character (the fiction that emerges post-conflict). 

Rinse, repeat 

Put another way:  The character:game relationship is synergistic and reciprocal.

Feels odd to have this dispute with someone who is a big fan of Fate.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 14, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not sure I agree.  I think that Force can be present and still have arcs.  In other words, I can see (and have played) a game where some of it is the GM's plotline while other parts have room for player directed play.  Sometimes, these line up and you get character arcs.  But, as with anything ad hoc, it's not predictable.




I'm trying to organize my thoughts in another fashion that may tease out or disagreement.

Let me go to another arena; Mixed Martial Arts.

No clue if you're a martial artist or a fan of the sport.

Last Saturday Dominick Reyes and Jon Jones fought for the Light Heavyweight Championship in the UFC.

The State Athletic Commissions provide the judges for these events.  This particular event took place in Texas (which has had relatively few events).

One of the judges the TSAC provided was a huge problem for 3 fights (I am the last person in the world to buy into Conspiracy Theories, but combat sports have been riddled with corruption for a century...so this level of gross incompetence is...questionable).

The Championship fight is a 5 rounder.

The overwhelming consensus among everyone watching (and the overwhelming % of professional mixed martial artists) was that Reyes, the Challenger, won the first 3 rounds (and pretty handily), while Jones won the last 2 (when Reyes faded).  That should trivially yield a 48-47 decision for (new Champion) Reyes.

Reyes had more Output, landed more Significant Strikes, and Stuffed 2 Takedowns/and repelled attempted Clinches in the 2nd and 3rd round (that Jones had to try to initiate because he was losing on his feet and was dinged).

Yet...somehow...somehow that judge scored TWO of those first three rounds for Jones.

Ultimately, the judges completely stole that outcome from Reyes and inexplicably handed the decision to Jones.



So what I'm trying to convey with this is, yes, Reyes was able to "characterize his PC" in the span of those 5 rounds...but the "Force" of the judges utterly overwhelmed the gamestate and their "metaplot" basically subordinated Reyes' agency, dictating the outcome, despite the fact that his work should have cast him as the protagonist.

Instead, he becomes just another "also-ran" in the legacy of Jon Jones (DMPC?).

I guess my sense of it is that, like judging in an MMA bout or referees on a football field, Force is a zero-sum game.  Whatever the outcome was going to be without Force we will never know...because ultimately, it radically changed the gamestate at its moment of deployment and therefore forever perturbed the trajectory of play, those effects rippling from that point forward.

Its a pretty harsh purity test, I admit.  Because of the inherent imbalance of power at the table, GM-driven or character-driven is binary, not a continuum.  If a GM can subvert the gamestate to his/her will once, the participants know it can (and surely will) happen again at any point.  That is the psychology that looms like a Sword of Damocles over the table.  This is why we have the "Murderhobo" legacy in D&D.  Play degenerates to (a) players always engaging in violence as the arena of dispute-settlement because that is the only arena that is (mostly) "Force-proof" and (b) players willfully making no relationships/ties/laying down roots and (c) willfully not engaging with content that the GM is trying to impose upon them.

EDIT - and to reiterate, games that feature Force/Illusionism as a gamestate-dictating/fiction-generating technique is a feature, not a bug, to the "Storyteller and Entertainer" ethos of games.  Players who participate in those games want/expect that.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 14, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> Character driven play is where the nature of the character _determines _what happens in play (relevant conflict-framing) and what happens in play _reveals _the nature of the character (the fiction that emerges post-conflict).




Back in the beginning of the thread, I noted these two as separate processes, not necessarily linked.  A game can have one, the other, or both.



> Feels odd to have this dispute with someone who is a big fan of Fate.




As noted - in Fate, these are separate processes.

Though, let us note - in Fate, scene framing is not strongly determined by the character's nature - that comes in during resolution, as the characters invoke aspects, and they are compelled.  The original framing may have nothing to do with the character, but the nature of the character seeps into the scene.  I find this to be a major bonus for the GM - they don't have to structure and frame everything with the characters specifically in mind, because the game will insert those things as they go.  Indiana Jones runs into snakes not because the GM thought ahead and placed them there, but because he's Indiana Jones, and he's got a thing about snakes....

Play revealing things about the characters in Fate is exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned the player having a choice to change the nature of their character, without any pressure from system or GM:  at a milestone, a player can rename an Aspect, changing fundamentals of their character.  But that's "can", not "must."


----------



## Sadras (Feb 14, 2020)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The OP talks about play that leads to a _change_ in the foundation of the character.
> 
> In common RPG parlance, risk is... a chance of harm.  The GM creates challenges with risks in them - if you don't find ways to deal with the challenges, the consequences imposed by the GM are things the PCs don't like.
> 
> That's not the same thing as play that leads a player to realize that their character, as a result of things that they have experienced, will experience change.  There is no "risk" if the choice to change or not is entirely in the hands of the player.  "I watched my best friend die - I used to be a happy-go-lucky bard, but now... I am driven by vengeance!" is character driven play that has nothing to do with "risk".




I agree with this. 
Just to be clear I was not offering my in-game example as one of risk or things at stake. 
I merely said my in-game example was one I believe reflected a dramatic character arc.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 14, 2020)

chaochou said:


> The only way to talk about character-driven play is to seperate it clearly from GM-driven play, and that means highlighting where play is GM driven. The fact that a lot GM-driven play doesn't want to admit what it is, isn't my problem.




See this where things got sticky.
You're equating _character-driven play_ with _dramatic character arc_ whereas I am not.
Are you now saying by your definition they are one and the same thing?


----------



## Sadras (Feb 14, 2020)

innerdude said:


> I'm not advocating for GM force to change a character. Nor am I asking for "forced change" from the system, if the player doesn't want it.
> 
> But that's the key phrase---_if the player doesn't want it_.
> 
> ...




Thanks for this clarification. I believe I can now see why you wanted perhaps the GM to be included within the example I provided.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 14, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I would have hoped it was fairly clear that by "dramatic character arcs"  I meant what the OP referred to, that is, _emotionally-affecting changes in the charcter(s) that are produced via application of the mechanics in play_.




I'm happy if your intention in the use of _dramatic character arcs_ in the excerpt of your post was in relation to application of the mechanics in play. It did not specifically state it so hence I took issue with the comment.



> There can't be dramatic character arcs if "the story" is already written (by the GM or the module author or whomever) and the GM _already knows what is to come_.




What about this -
Character discovers secret backstory by DM (I know) which could emotionally-affect a change in the character (in 5e one could pick up or lose a personality trait) via application of a mechanic (homebrewed or whatever, you could use the Sanity rules here for instance). This GM force (via Backstory) could be negated by the player via a character resource (resource could be an Inspiration point, or sacrificing it for a period of time).

Isn't that similar to your Prince Valiant RPG but in THIS instance there is a "story already written by the GM or module or whomever" and the GM knows how the adventure might unfold, but now there has been a dramatic character arc produced via application of the mechanics in play?


----------



## chaochou (Feb 14, 2020)

Sadras said:


> See this where things got sticky.
> You're equating _character-driven play_ with _dramatic character arc_ whereas I am not.
> Are you now saying by your definition they are one and the same thing?




Here's what Pemerton said:



> What you describe here won't deliver the sort of play the OP is talking about.
> 
> There can't be dramatic character arcs if "the story" is already written.




It's abundantly clear that the words 'dramatic character arcs' is a paraphrase of 'the dramatic character arcs as being described by the OP'.

And it's quite clear what the OP is talking about - in conversation the entire OP can be paraphrased interchangeably as 'dramatic character arc' or 'character driven play'. Pemerton has repeatedly quoted the OP at length to reiterate more precisely what is being discussed.



> the experience of watching a character _materially change_ _in ways that are fundamental to their place in the fiction._
> emotional resonance.
> the application of GM Force runs counter to both endpoints - it detracts from the aspects of player freedom and choice, while only minimally (if at all) leading to resonance
> 
> All under a thread title 'Can rpg play be substantively character driven?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 14, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> One of the judges the TSAC provided was a huge problem for 3 fights (I am the last person in the world to buy into Conspiracy Theories, but combat sports have been riddled with corruption for a century...so this level of gross incompetence is...questionable).




Longer than a century - a century ago the Gold Dust Trio took professional wrestling and turned it from a corruption riddled thing that was sometimes a legitimate combat sport to something where the booking was obvious if you knew what to look for.

This is relevant because despite the fact that endings in professional wrestling are pre-planned (sometimes but not always more is) character development can and does happen both within and outside the booking. In the case of the Reyes/Jones match you're talking about, there would be Consequences. 

An obviously corrupt referee (for those not aware the ref is always part of the cast in pro-wrestling) is a big thing and doesn't happen that often - but it does several things. The first is that it solidifies Jones as a heel - someone the audience is intended to boo the hell out of. Jones' character has developed. The second is that it solidifies Reyes as the underdog babyface that the crowd is intended to cheer. The third is that it brings that specific referee onto the stage as an actual character (most of them are intended to be the next thing to anonymous) and we wonder what his motivation is.

And were this pro wrestling a ref cheating against you _would not be bad for the babyface/protagonist's career. _I see there as being two basic pro-wrestling storylines going forward - and in both of them Reyes is the protagonist.

1: Reyes was actually out of his league both metaphorically and literally. He was the local wrestling league champion who was granted a challenge for the national (NWA) title. And our guy won - but that bastard no good cheating smarmy guy robbed him of the prize. So how good is our guy? We now know he's good enough to beat the national champion - and by extension that makes all the local guys challenging Reyes look good because they are taking on someone who can beat the best guy in the world. Rick Flair by the way was a master of wrestling anyone in any style in America and leaving the local crowd thinking that their guy could have won. Reyes is still only a local hero but is a bigger one than before. (This sort of booking went away largely with national TV, the breakup of the NWA, and the loss of the local territories).

2: Reyes was part of the same league and lost through a bribed ref. He is _pissed_ and is going to be spending a lot of time cutting promos on the champion as a no good low down bastard who has all the skill to make it to the top (you never run down your opponent's level of danger because it makes you look worse when you win or lose) and he wants a rematch. If he's at all good on the mic the crowd is completely behind Reyes because he was the peoples' champion and he was robbed. His complaint is legitimate. And this time to prevent a dirty cheating referee from robbing him the match can only be decided by knockout, pinfall, or submission. The ref will not otherwise intervene. After losing the first couple of rounds Jones brings a steel chair (or other foreign object) into the ring and proceeds to beat Reyes down with it - and the ref doesn't intervene because a disqualification is not a knockout, pinfall, or submission. Reyes loses by knockout after chair shot to the head. And Reyes is utterly pissed this time - and coming for the champion with blood in his eyes, but having beaten him twice the champion is not accepting any more challenges from him unless he can earn them (insert ridiculous task here). Reyes may be mad enough to turn heel at this point - or we  have a perfect excuse to put our hero through some kind of gauntlet which he wins but takes an "injury" - or to put either his career or his hair on the line for the match. This time the match takes place in a steel cage so no foreign objects (except maybe knuckle dusters) can be brought in. And the crowd is white hot for the match and wanting to finally, _finally_ see Reyes win the title he's deserved twice before. He almost certainly does - but what has getting there cost him? And what sort of champion is he going to be?



> Instead, he becomes just another "also-ran" in the legacy of Jon Jones (DMPC?).




And this sums up my point neatly. He becomes just another also-ran in the legacy of Jon Jones _if and only if the results of the matches aren't pre-ordained_. Pulling something as major as a corrupt referee in a pre-ordained match is adding a massive amount of fuel to the fire that is the feud. And people care more about characters and feuds than they do about simple win/loss ratios.

The New York Times stopped reporting the results of professional wrestling matches in the sports section in the 1930s because everyone knew they were fake - but for most of the 20th Century, both before and after, professional wrestling had more people watching it than any other combat sport because, by being fake, it could put on much better storylines. One in which Reyes would not become another also-ran in the legacy of Jon Jones unless he took a training accident at the wrong time.

... and I don't normally find myself on the pro-illusionism side of the debate. But then there's the way the professional wrestling business has more or less collapsed in the 21st Century.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 14, 2020)

Sadras said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think I quite understand the example.

You seem to be positing that the application of a social/emotion mechanic (such as sanity or morale or whatever) might prompt the player to change an aspect of the character (eg rewriting a Bond, Ideal or Flaw). That seems - at the basic structural level - similar to the Nightcrawler example I posted upthread (only driven by "failure" rather than "success"). I don't see how it illustrates a story having already been written by the GM: how did s/he know what the outcome would be of the SAN check? Or how the player would develop his/her PC in response?

Or are you positing that the GM rewrites the PC via a fiat power? But how does s/he know what is going to happen as a result? In my Prince Valiant game one of the PCs - as a result of a GM-exercised Special Effect, fell in love with the Countess of Toulouse. But that didn't determine what would happen - eg that he would sneak her out of the castle they were sheltering in to keep her safe from her husband, the Count, which produced some difficulties for the other PCs when the Count demanded to them that they produce his wife. Nor that, after another PC killed her husband, that he would come up with a plan to make her the ruling Countess of Toulouse and thus separate himself from her so that he wouldn't act on his infatuation to the detriment of his marriage.

And if the player has a device for controlling or restoring his/her PC (like spending a Fate point to refuse a compel) then the GM clearly can't author the story in advance because the player has this power to determine which way it goes at a crucial moment.

So I'm clearly not seeing whatever it is that you are seeing in your example. And I'm also not seeing what "secret backstory" has to do with anything.  As you describe it the player knows _that _the mechanic is invoked (the change in the PC presumably isn't being kept secret from the player) and presumably the player knows what it is in the fiction that explains _why_ it is invoked. (Ie I assume the GM is not just saying _make a SAN check_, or _add such-and-such a trait to your sheet_ without any explanation as to why).

There's also the bigger question as to how it is brought about that the PC is in the fictional circumstance that triggers the mechanic in the first place. That goes to bigger issues of framing which are highly relevant to character-driven play, but don't seem like they'll shed any further light on this particular example as they will only reinforce my failure to understand how the GM is authoring this and knowing what is going to happen.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 14, 2020)

@pemerton perhaps it would be easier understood with an example.

PC trained by master. Master disappears for a number of years popping in and out of PC's life. PC discovers his master was the werewolf the party had been chasing for months (Secret Backstory by DM) and who is responsible for an ally's death. PC confronts master with the truth. With the mask now off, the master attempts to manipulate/seduce PC to his cause which is played up....

DM invokes mechanics (sanity/morale) to prompt change in aspect of PC. The player can allow the mechanics to play out with the risk of effecting change or utilise a character resource (inspiration) to ensure the emotional fallout does not affect the character - because the player does not want it.



> Nor am I asking for "forced change" from the system, if the player doesn't want it.




The DM does not know how it will play out but suspects if the PC beats the mechanics or utilises a resource, the PC will likely attack the werewolf, at the very minimum deny his call for joining. If the player suffers a change - who knows what could happen.

Is this an example of character-driven play in your estimation - whether this revealed backstory is part of the main storyline or not in a _GM-driven_ rpg.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 14, 2020)

@Neonchameleon

Good, and very interesting, post.

I agree that a Narrativist (in the Forge parlance) game that transparently eschews Gamism (again, Forge parlance) as a priority, which makes overcoming the corrupt will of the institution a fundamental pillar of dramatic play, can be compelling and character-driven when constructed around that premise.

What I don’t agree with (and I’m not sure where you stand on this because your post, while interesting and illuminating, altered the play premise I was intending), is that a game that declares Gamism, neutral/fair refereeing, and competitive integrity as it’s apex priority can be character-driven when the referee system subordinates the outcome of play from the participants will to their own will.

If we transliterated your post into a rule-set and then slapped some pithy, alternative construction of the paragraph directly above on the tin so as to convey what the game is meant to be about to purchasers...

Regardless of whether it’s a commercial success, that game is either (a) deceitful with respect to what it’s about or (b) the designers aren’t terribly competent.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Feb 14, 2020)

billd91 said:


> "the game itself must be able to drive"...Drive as in force? Or drive as in elicit?




For me, the answer to that is "Yes."

As a non-douchey expansion on that, I think that there is room for both, games that encourage or elicit character growth, and those that force character change (which may or may not be growth). And probably an untold number of variations.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 14, 2020)

@Neonchameleon

Related thought.

This is why 4e was such a success with me. It was a Narrativist/Gamist hybrid game that successfully fused those two agendas into a character-driven experience through:

* Focused premise

* Thematic PC Build Flags

* Incentive structures to aggressively pursue that premise and the embedded themes of character

* Player-facing action/conflict resolution that was (a) tactically deep, (b) dramatically compelling, that (c) just fundamentally worked so the GM could simply interpose obstacles between the PCs and their goals and “play to find out what happens” (No Force required).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 14, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> What I don’t agree with (and I’m not sure where you stand on this because your post, while interesting and illuminating, altered the play premise I was intending), is that a game that declares Gamism, neutral/fair refereeing, and competitive integrity as it’s apex priority can be character-driven when the referee system subordinates the outcome of play from the participants will to their own will.
> 
> If we transliterated your post into a rule-set and then slapped some pithy, alternative construction of the paragraph directly above on the tin so as to convey what the game is meant to be about to purchasers...
> 
> Regardless of whether it’s a commercial success, that game is either (a) deceitful with respect to what it’s about or (b) the designers aren’t terribly competent.




The thing is that I'm not sure that an _RPG_ that declares competitive integrity as its apex priority would ever make for a good RPG. Almost all PvE games have different mechanics for the two sides (and many of those that don't in theory do in practice). And with competitive games with a top down view, very limited time pressure, and strict integrity you're going to end up with a game that's as dry as chess. The more you add expression being directly meaningful and asymmetry to the game the more you weaken how fair the competition is.

This doesn't mean that you can't make almost fair competition a major part of a game - both 4e and oD&D do it in very different ways (challenging encounters with 4e and a push-your-luck style of dungeon crawling in oD&D) and I'd argue that having competition in whatever way makes the stakes and so the play much more meaningful and so more intense and evocative. But it's the competition and desire that matter far more than whether the competition is even claimed to be fair. And the competition and challenge being meaningful is far more important than whether it's actually fair.

 I'm once again going to come back to professional wrestling to illustrate this. As mentioned, it was an open secret from the 1930s onwards (if not earlier) that pro wrestling was fake - but people still watched it despite many of them knowing that, and many of those who didn't remaining deliberately ignorant. That's because there were parts that were highly real; all those stunts they carry out are real and the whole thing is done live. They are combination actor/stuntmen playing the parts of athletes competing for a belt, and the whole thing is more real than most reality TV.

This degraded over the 90s (those who care can look up the Curtain Call - I'm not going to go into it) - and in 1997 came the big event that was the Montreal Screwjob in which, the official story is, that Bret Hart was told that he was going to retain his title going into the match despite the fact it was public knowledge he was going to the rival WCW soon while HBK and the referee were both told HBK were going to win - and that it would have to be done via a fast count. Anyway this happened and Bret Hart hit the roof, furious after the event and going to the papers with the story of how he was screwed out of his title.

You'd have thought that the open admission that pro wrestling was fake would have killed pro wrestling - but it did the opposite. Everyone knew that pro wrestlers were actors and stuntmen, but they now knew that pro wrestlers were actors and stuntmen who cared enough about the title to screw each other for real and it suddenly became about a thousand times more compelling. And the WWE became a reality TV show about a particularly muscular backstabbing acting troupe. The competition was rigged but it was there and taken seriously by everyone. Competitive integrity wasn't a thing (Mr. McMahon (the character) as the evil boss was the biggest villain the wrestling world had ever seen) but the WWE thrived by having a way it could have genuine competition and tangible examples of people truly caring even when the game was openly acknowledged to be utterly rigged.

Meanwhile the WWE's rival through the 90s, the WCW, put the biggest nail in their coffin two years later with the Fingerpoke of Doom. Hulk Hogan and Kevin Nash were (in character) friends - and Nash held a championship Hogan wanted. So come the match Hogan poked Nash, Nash lay down for Hogan, Hogan "pinned" him, and match over. Along with any sort of possibility the wrestlers actually cared about the championship. So what were they doing there other than muscular pairs gymnastics? And if they didn't care about the prize why should the audience?

The WWE claims to be about wrestling, but since 1997 at the very latest anyone with a clue has known it really isn't. But it's at its best when they treat it as if it's about wrestling and winning the championship even if it's about actors playing those parts? Is this deceitful? No more than the briefcase in Pulp Fiction being deceitful when it was what everyone wanted but it was just a briefcase with a yellow light in it.

On the other hand (and this is turning into a ramble) RPGs need to show what they do on a meta level. You at least need to show a bit behind the curtain.

On the ... what am I? An octopus? It isn't remotely false to say that wrestlers want belts and championships and are competing to get them. The belt is respect, fame, and money. If you pitch pro wrestling as being about athletes training and competing to win championship belts every word of that is true. It's just the field of competition that's slightly different. Is this dishonest?

And I'm rambling and think I finished with my point several paragraphs back. But which parts of competition matter and what honesty in an artificial environment are is an interesting question.

(And no I didn't mean to imply that I dislike chess - just that it's dry and abstract compared to e.g. League of Legends or Smash Ultimate, or even any RPG).


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 14, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 14, 2020)

Good post @Neonchameleon 

I don’t have time to reread and digest in full. Im confident that I need clarification and I’m confident that there is some daylight between us on some of that. When I get a chance to reread and gather my thoughts (late tonight or this weekend), I’ll get up a response.

To be honest, I feel that the primary subject matter of this thread is nearing resolution (and by resolution I mean stalemate). So I think the premise you’ve put forth (about competitive integrity in TTRPGs) is ripe for discussion.

I’d be curious what others think about your premise.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 14, 2020)

@lowkey13

Let me try to distill my premise into something pithy and maybe this will reveal the machinery of the purity test (and, of course, you know that “purity” here doesn’t mean “lacking badness”).

TTRPG Instantiation 1 features starting conditions A and 100 parameters (conflicts). At none of 1-100 is GM Force introduced to change the outcome of the conflict/parameter. Every moment of the gamestate and the ultimate end of the gamestate bears no “Force Noise.”

TTRPG Instantiation 2 features the same starting conditions A and 100 parameters (conflicts). At conflict/parameter 12, 39, 64, and 92, Force is introduced to alter/dictate the outcome of those particular sequences of play. Now that is only 4/100 conflicts/parameters.

My contention is that, despite it being a very small number of instances of Force, the 1st order and downstream effects are going to change all of the gamestates from 12 onward, and the ultimate gamestate as well (possibly significantly so).

That is why I’m calling it binary instead of a continuum. Obviously, more or less force (in quantity and potency) will affect the instantiation, but that isn’t relevant to my point. My point is that instantiation 1 will not be reproduced in trajectory, outcome, and agency distribution by any instantiation where Force is introduced (UNLESS more Force is introduced to Curve Fit the new instantiation with 1...which of course will perturb things again and impact the agency distribution...so...no).


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> @lowkey13
> That is why I’m calling it binary instead of a continuum. Obviously, more or less force (in quantity and potency) will affect the instantiation, but that isn’t relevant to my point. My point is that instantiation 1 will not be reproduced in trajectory, outcome, and agency distribution by any of instantistion where Force is introduced (UNLESS more Force is introduced to Curve Fit the new instantiation with 1...which of course will perturb things again and impact the agency distribution...so...no).




I think I see why you're calling it a binary, here, and it's not entirely wrong. I think, though, that you could posit an instantiation where the Force was used to alter all the outcomes, and now you you have a game of Pure Force, and you're kinda back to a continuum or a binary where Force is always used, or not always used. This binary isn't any more (in)correct than yours, I think.

As a side thought, is the GM using judgment to interpret an ambiguous outcome (in, say, a skill--the question doesn't seem applicable in combat) Force? If so, it would seem to make a Pure Forceless game harder to achieve.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 14, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> A: Player Agency is best accomplished through rulesets that allow specific rules to determine what the PC does. In other words, the use of specific and constraining rules regarding social interactions, or how the PC acts in certain circumstances, allows the Player to make informed choices given that they have adequate knowledge of possible outcomes.
> 
> B. Player Agency is best accomplished by allowing the Player complete freedom to determine the inner processes of the player (outside very limited circumstances). Rules that would force the PC to do something are a codifiction that prohibits player agency.




Oh, jeez. I think that both A. and B. are (or can be) correct.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 14, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 14, 2020)

So I've recently had the opportunity to play some Blades in the Dark, instead of running it for my group. And as I was playing, I was thinking about this thread a bit, and how I feel that Blades lends itself to character driven play more so than D&D does.

Again, I don't think D&D can't do this, I just think other games are designed to promote that kind of gameplay where as D&D leaves it up to the group to decide how they want to do this. I play and enjoy both games. Each does certain things well. In regard to character-driven play, I think Blades is better. I'll offer a couple of comparisons to show how.

In 5e D&D, the player is meant to choose two Traits, an Ideal, a Bond, and a Flaw at character creation. Per the rules, when the player evokes one or more of these elements in play, the DM can grant him Inspiration. This can then be spent by the player to gain Advantage on any future roll that he chooses. You can only have Inspiration or not have it, so you cannot bank multiple uses through repeatedly evoking your Traits/Ideal/Bond/Flaw during play. You need to spend Inspiration before you can gain it again.

In Blades in the Dark, the player must choose a Vice. This is the thing that they struggle with. It's both how they cope with the harshness of life as a scoundrel, and also a point of weakness. It is mechanically meaningful because it is the way that the PC can reduce Stress, which is a PC resource taken in order to power special abilities and to resist Harm and other consequences. So when a PC takes a Stress, they need to indulge their Vice in order to reduce their Stress. There is also the risk of overindulging, which can have consequences of varying degrees for the PC and their crew. Also, Vice is directly related to one of the XP Triggers: "You struggled with issues from your Vice or Traumas during the session." At the end of each session, the player decides to take an XP point if they struggled with their Vice or Traumas. If they did so more than once, they can take 2 XP.

There are a lot more differences I can go into, and maybe I will in a future post, but just looking at these two areas of these games, I think it's pretty clear that certain games are just designed to deliver play that's more character-driven.

In D&D, the entire structure of the Traits/Ideal/Bond/Flaw is optional. Yes, it's meant to be there to give the PC some sense of character, and the player may portray the character accordingly. If they do, they may be rewarded by the DM with Inspiration. Yes, there are ways to tweak this, or alternate systems we could use for this....but ultimately, this system as is is nothing more than suggestion.

In Blades, the decision of Vice will not only inform the player on how to portray their character, but it also determines a weakness that absolutely must come up in play. They will indulge their vice often, and will potentially accumulate Traumas that make it harder and harder to resist their Vice, and will also permanently impact and shape their character. Ultimately, their Vice may consume them. It also has the strong hook to grant 1 or 2 XP per session if the PC struggles with it. And I think this is a big distinction here.....not just that it comes up, or that the player portrays the character as having a vice, but that they must struggle with it. That's big.....it means that play is impacted in some way by this Vice.

So if a D&D PC has the Flaw of "I'm a compulsive gambler. Games of chance and taking risks gets my blood flowing like nothing else" the player may play that up quite well. He may earn some inspiration for doing so. He may even go above and beyond and make decisions for his character that may be harmful because of this Flaw. That's all quite possible, and can be a lot of fun.

He could also ignore it and never bring it up in play.

With Blades, there is no avoiding the PCs Vice. It is essential to the character, and essential to the game. Perhaps that's the big take away.....it is essential to the character and to the game. Hence, play is character driven.


----------



## dragoner (Feb 14, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> C. With a bit of luck, the PC's life was ruined forever. Always thinking just behind some narrow door in all of his favorite inns and taverns, men in red breast plates are getting incredible kicks from things he'll never know.




"I am that child with the dirty face, no doubt unwanted, that from far away contemplates coaches where other children emit laughter and jump up and down considerably"
-_Reinaldo Arenas _

Even rules, et cetera, can't solve this between character driven, or whatever; nevertheless it is good, because that is where the different games lie. In one game recently, the PC, she was on a beach at a resort, trying to convince a reporter to listen to her story and maybe glean other intel from her. How would this reconcile hacking up Orcs for xp? Backing it up to the let's play make believe stage of RPG's, one does seem more free-form and the other mechanical.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 15, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I keep seeing examples throughout this thread (and, for that matter, in any lengthy thread on the subject here), usually involving "angels on the head of pin" discussions about what DM Force, of DM decides, or Player Agency really, really, really means.
> 
> Because the viewpoints of people contesting the jargon are not orthogonal; they are diametrically opposed.
> 
> ...



I don't think I"ve seen A and B debated in this thread by anyone who is familiar with both. Various posters have put forward instances of the system you describe in A (eg I've talked about MHRP/Cortex+, and maybe morale in Traveller, and Prince Valiant). Various posters have also put forward instances of the system you describe in B (eg Apocalpyse World, Burning Wheel at least as far as PCs; Beliefs are concerned, @hawkeyefan's excellent post about BitD).

Who is asserting that MHRP is better for character-driven play than BitD? Or vice versa.

What _is _being widely asserted is that a game in which _the character's emotional/social state is at risk_ is better for character-driven play. @hawkeyefan has give a terrific explanation of how this is so in BitD. And it doesn't turn on A vs B - after all, BitD (at least as he describes it) is an instance of B. (Which would make sense - Apocalypse World, of which BitD is sort-of a derivative, is an instance of B.)

@Lanefan and maybe one or two others are asserting that A-type systems are incompatible with player agency, but without actually ever having played such systems, or even read them as best I know. That is angels-on-the-head-of-pin territory.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 15, 2020)

Sadras said:


> PC trained by master. Master disappears for a number of years popping in and out of PC's life. PC discovers his master was the werewolf the party had been chasing for months (Secret Backstory by DM) and who is responsible for an ally's death.



I guess my first question is _how is this secret backstory_? If the PC discovers it (by whatever mechanism) it's not secret!

It could be a consequence (eg following a failed check, the GM - to borrow AW/DW terminology - _reveals an unwelcome truth_ ie that the master is really a werewolf). Or it could be an element of scene-framing. From you description either possibility seems open.



Sadras said:


> PC confronts master with the truth. With the mask now off, the master attempts to manipulate/seduce PC to his cause which is played up....
> 
> DM invokes mechanics (sanity/morale) to prompt change in aspect of PC. The player can allow the mechanics to play out with the risk of effecting change or utilise a character resource (inspiration) to ensure the emotional fallout does not affect the character - because the player does not want it.



This seems like it could happen in any system with some sort of PC-affecting social/emotional mechanics. Assuming the GM is not just cheating, the resolution will depend on the outcome of the mechanical process (which in your version depends on whether or not the player spends a resource).



Sadras said:


> *The DM does not know how it will play out* but suspects if the PC beats the mechanics or utilises a resource, the PC will likely attack the werewolf, at the very minimum deny his call for joining. If the player suffers a change - who knows what could happen.



Given the bolded part, I still don't understand how this is meant to be an example of character-driven play occurring when the GM knows what is going to happen in virtue of having pre-authored "the adventure" or "the plot".



Sadras said:


> Is this an example of character-driven play in your estimation - whether this revealed backstory is part of the main storyline or not in a _GM-driven_ rpg.



Whether or not it's character-driven in my view can't be known from what you've set out due to the stuff I mentioned in my first paragraph of response in this post - _without knowing where the revelation came from _(what sort of consequence?; what sort of framing?; how did it relate to already-established fiction?; how was that prior fiction established?) we don't know how this moment of crisis is related to the character who has the master.

Probably the best-known variant of what you describe in popular culture is Darth Vader being revealed as Luke's father. In the fiction, the ground has been prepared in all sorts of ways - we know Luke is an orphan, who knows little about his father except that he was  great pilot; Luke has a mentor who knew his father, and who taught Darth before the latter turned to evil; Darth himself is a mysterious figure with his face hidden behind a mask, but is said to have killed Luke's father.

Whether or not the RPG version of this counted as character-driven would turn on how all that unfolding stuff was actually done. If the GM just narrates it all through to the moment of revelation than it is certainly not what the OP is talking about, because t_he mechanical process of play hasn't had any hand in it_.

But suppose the backstory is gradually set-up as some sort of interplay between player and GM in the course of play (eg Luke's player fails a check, and the GM reveals an unwelcome truth via narration from the NPC Obi-Wan - M_y former star pupil killed your father - sorry about that!_). And suppose further that the final revelation is the ultimate unwelcome truth narrated in response to some failed check by Luke during the confrontation with Vader. That looks like it could be an instance of what @innerdude was referring to.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 15, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 15, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 15, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> @lowkey13
> 
> Let me try to distill my premise into something pithy and maybe this will reveal the machinery of the purity test (and, of course, you know that “purity” here doesn’t mean “lacking badness”).
> 
> ...



But it's still force-free 96% of the time.



> My contention is that, despite it being a very small number of instances of Force, the 1st order and downstream effects are going to change all of the gamestates from 12 onward, and the ultimate gamestate as well (possibly significantly so).
> 
> That is why I’m calling it binary instead of a continuum. Obviously, more or less force (in quantity and potency) will affect the instantiation, but that isn’t relevant to my point. My point is that instantiation 1 will not be reproduced in trajectory, outcome, and agency distribution by any instantiation where Force is introduced (UNLESS more Force is introduced to Curve Fit the new instantiation with 1...which of course will perturb things again and impact the agency distribution...so...no).



Not necessarily.

If each of the 100 conflicts can end one of two ways (let's keep it simple and say there's just two outcomes possible for each, shall we?) then there's a bell-curve chance covering all the possible end results after all 100 have been gone through.

Applying force to four of them might skew the bell curve a bit but in the end not much; every possible end result is almost certainly still in play, only with the odds shifted a bit.

Applying force to 80 of them is going to skew the odds a lot and very likely put some initially-possible results out of play.

But it's only when you apply force to all 100 that you've also outright forced the end result.

So it is a continuum or spectrum, rather than purely binary.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 15, 2020)

pemerton said:


> @Lanefan and maybe one or two others are asserting that A-type systems are incompatible with player agency, but without actually ever having played such systems, or even read them as best I know.



There's various systems I can't speak to from play experience, but there's some I can.

Social mechanics in 3e D&D (and 3.5, and PF, and games based on those), the existence of which mechanics in my view make them A-type systems, can and do trample the aspect of player agency that has to do with - absent external control mechanics - playing one's character as one sees fit.  The rub here is that the game doesn't really make this clear until you're already into it.

Some mechanics in other games seem explicitly geared toward denying player agency in how one plays one's character; perhaps on the assumption that's what you've signed up for when you agreed to play that game.

What boggles my mind there is that someone would ever sign up to play a character using a system where, in the end, you can't play your character in the manner you want to.


> That is angels-on-the-head-of-pin territory.



Meh - my angels jumped off a while ago, and are now down in the pub having a beer.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 15, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> This question you've posed above seems to presuppose something about TTRPGs:
> 
> _*Game systems are discrete tool-kits meant to be deeply curated, to taste, mixed/matched in a modular fashion by x (typically the GM, but sometimes the group).*_
> 
> This zeitgeist seems to be so deeply embedded in the D&D cultural fabric that people just take it for granted that "this is the way, the one truth."




Not by most of the people over the last 40 years I've gamed with. They were modular - a campaign used specific book, not pick-and choose from the rules in those books. Which is why I ran a lot more Moldvay/Cook and Mentzer than AD&D1E. 2E claimed this in the text, but again, I haven't encountered many who played it that way; most who did seem to have had a binder elucidating the nasty snarl of rules they cribbed from elsewhere, and no one willing to play their "D&D"...



Umbran said:


> I think, over time, there's been a growth in the number of systems available, and an improvement in the design of systems, in general, that helps to support the increased emphasis as RAW/RAE, and a bit of a decline in retooling systems.



A lot of it also seems to be that more players are less "social outliers" than in the past; the hobby still isn't mainstream, but at least isn't instant social pariah for gaming.


Lanefan said:


> It's rare, however, that a social interaction is going to have as direct and immediate influence on the health and-or functionality of your character as is combat.
> 
> Exactly.  Stop here and we're all good.



Sounds like you weren't the one being bullied in the 'hood. "Is my sister pretty?" from a black kid to a white one in a black neighborhood was an intentional mine placed before the white kid, so as to excuse the beating of the white kid when asked what triggered the fight...  My childhood included a lot of running from bullies because I couldn't navigate the 1970's ethnic violence triggering social minefield.




Neonchameleon said:


> There are also three ways of handling this I'm aware of; the D&D way, the GURPS way, and the Fate way. That's the order they appeared in the gaming community in and the games I believe represent the styles. It's also IMO worst to best.
> 
> In *D&D* if I have a character who struggles with unfathomable anger that's entirely a player choice. And if I do something with this flaw it's because I the player have decided to, and have decided to do something that's inimical to the interests of the wider group. By roleplaying this I am being anti-social and sabotaging the rest of the group while showboating. (@Manbearcat would call this the player having their say, above)



Not always true. Many a GM said, "If it's on your sheet, it counts"... and so if you chose not to play the angry, you got docked a chunk session XP. But if you played it, you got a bonus chunk. So, while it's entirely your choice to add that or not, the GM is (at least in AD&D onward) entitled to enforce it with XP awards/penalties.


Umbran said:


> Bribery?  Might as well say the GM in D&D is bribing the players with gold, magic items, and XP!  Is the GM in D&D bribing you when you get Inspiration for playing to your Ideals, Bonds, of Flaws?
> 
> Extortion?  The problem with extortion is that it isn't consensual.
> 
> In Fate... _you_ make up the Aspects.  You're setting allowed places where the GM has a hook to play with.  And, you can negotiate about using that hook each time!




Even the rules of both SOTC and Fate Core make it painfully clear: Only put things into your aspects that you want to come up in play. 



lowkey13 said:


> IME, people that like FATE really, really like FATE.
> 
> And people that don't can appreciate it, but don't care for it.
> 
> Unfortunately, the people that really, really like FATE seem to think that the people who don't like FATE just haven't played it enough, haven't played it right, or just need it explained again.



Many of the people claiming to dislike it after playing it cite reasons that are explicitly against the RAW, so it's clear they haven't played the game as written.

I'm not a preacher of it as the Überspiel... it's good, and it works well at pushing the character drama...
... but I think Mouse Guard, Burning Wheel, and Modiphius' STA do better at that. (I may dislike STA's buying more dice, and next I run it, that goes away... but other than that, the system does make beliefs and goals both important and able to be required to be changed.



lowkey13 said:


> Hold on. Someone said FATE .... Fate .... FATE .... darn it, is it supposed to all-caps because of the acronym? Or is that just annoying?
> 
> So someone said *FATE is a system best enjoyed by ruthless power gamers?*




I've found that many powergamers can thrive in Fate. Once they realize what's happening mechanically, they can be very, very effective. I know, because that's how I approach Fate as a player! Getting the stubborn powergamer to actually try it, however...

Oh, and as of Fate Core, its Title Case, not all caps.



Ovinomancer said:


> That being said, I think your last line is very telling of the mindset you've brought with you.  Your trouble isn't something you should see as the GM using to hose you, but rather something that you've chosen to hose yourself.  Of course, I apparently have an idiosyncratic view of FATE, [...]



It's not hard to use Fate to do a strong GM driven story... provided all you plot out are the encounters, not how they should end... For example, plan the encounter where the Camel Dealer has the information they need. He's got his aspects... and the players interact with him to get the information... but the GM plans for the 4-5 most common ways... and makes note of who later will be affected by various approaches. Beat it out of  him? NPC 13 is going to have a grudge against the PCs. Bribe him? NCP 12 changes his Nth aspect to "I can be bought, too!"...


Umbran said:


> 2nd Edition AD&D came out in 1989.
> 
> White Wolf games was founded in 1991, and Vampire: The Masquerade came out that year, 1991.
> 
> Did someone from TSR travel ahead a couple years in time, to co-opt rules that hadn't been published yet?



Lion Rampant published Ars Magica in 87, and it's chock full of Marc Rein•Hagan's story-first mentality.


pemerton said:


> I guess my first question is _how is this secret backstory_? If the PC discovers it (by whatever mechanism) it's not secret!



It's secret _until the players find out about it._ If the exemplar mentor turned werewolf disappeared without the characters' knowing why, and then find out the new werewolf is the mentor... it was a secret bit of backstory - the why and where - which may be based upon the player having chosen to have lost touch with the old mentor, leaving the GM room to push buttons and make decisions about backstory...


----------



## Campbell (Feb 15, 2020)

The issue with GM Force  from my perspective does lies more in its implication then the act itself. It pretty much kills any meaningful unity of purpose. Instead of following these characters down their path where ever it might lead you are exercising your will. When GM Force is on the table at any time that means it is always on the table and *choosing not to* employ it is a *willful act*. 

For me this is not too big of a deal when playing a more plot focused game, but in a character driven game that focuses on who these characters are as like people there is a certain amount of vulnerability involved.  When the things at stake are more personal picking and choosing outcomes based on what you want to have happen runs the risk of taking advantage of that vulnerability.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 15, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> There's various systems I can't speak to from play experience, but there's some I can.
> 
> Social mechanics in 3e D&D (and 3.5, and PF, and games based on those), the existence of which mechanics in my view make them A-type systems, can and do trample the aspect of player agency that has to do with - absent external control mechanics - playing one's character as one sees fit.  The rub here is that the game doesn't really make this clear until you're already into it.
> 
> ...



Because many of us realize that the agency you claim is in older games is often an illusion in the game as played. If one accepts Gygax Rule 0 (The GM is always right, and can mod rules on a whim), your agency ends wherever the GM decides, _including the potential of telling you how your character feels about something!_ 

The GM I had the least agency as a player under was running AD&D 2E. Second worst was AD&D 1E.

The game I had the most agency as a player under was Fate... But I was also able to powergame the rules to make for a strong narrative situation where I wasn't at risk, but was making the tank-type character wipe the walls with the big bad....  I was truly able to affect the story state more as a player in that game than any time I wasn't GMing.

D&D game rules prior to 3E explicitly give the GM the power to change the rules on the fly for pretty much any reason. Sane DM's don't... they pick a subset, superset, or superset of a subset of the rules, and stick to them, because player agency requires knowing enough to make informed decisions, and a GM willing to let the player have some.

In, say, Mouse Guard...
Yes, I give up some agency by writing the belief, "I will do the underhanded if it is required for the common good." I'm saying, "This is a conflict I want to explore" - if the GM agrees, great. If not, I can still use it to nerf myself in the GM phase, so I have more freedom (more rolls I get to make) in the player phase...

The other thing is that most of the more narrativist games do is explicitly deny revision on the fly from GM prerogatives... many Fate flavors are pretty clear that only the group as a whole gets to change rules. Many in fact also limit a lot of other traditional GM prerogatives that actually thus deny the GM the authority to do certain things.

What a ruleset cannot do is force the GM to follow it, but I know that I'd rather not play if the GM isn't using a cogent and clear set of rules.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 15, 2020)

Campbell said:


> The issue with GM Force  from my perspective does lies more in its implication then the act itself. It pretty much kills any meaningful unity of purpose. Instead of following these characters down their path where ever it might lead you are exercising your will. When GM Force is on the table at any time that means it is always on the table and *choosing not to* employ it is a *willful act*.
> 
> For me this is not too big of a deal when playing a more plot focused game, but in a character driven game that focuses on who these characters are as like people there is a certain amount of vulnerability involved.  When the things at stake are more personal picking and choosing outcomes based on what you want to have happen runs the risk of taking advantage of that vulnerability.



I didn't have time before to respond to @Manbearcat, but you've actually helped sum up that response.  I agree Force can be damaging to a game where everything is character focused.  If the GM is Forcing a character outcome, that feels bad all around.  But, that wasn't the conjecture as I understood it, but rather that you can have character arcs in a game with GM Force.  I still think this, because you can have Force existing in areas that aren't about character choices and not have it in places it doesn't.  People (players) can have multiple tiers of acceptable interference whereby you can have a social group that accepts certain applications of Force and doesn't accept others.  Force is not a all or nothing affair, but it's often treated that way.

Now, that said, my preference is largely that Force not exist in a game focused on character, but I don't agree that any existence of Force precludes character driven play.  It's not the binary @Manbearcat or you suggest -- reasonable people can enjoy a mix if properly constrained.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 15, 2020)

I get what @Manbearcat means about GM Force being binary. I mean, it’s either present or it’s not, a game allows for it or doesn’t. 

And I agree that even one instance of it coming into play can shape an entire campaign as a result. 

But I don’t know that it must be so, and therefore it’s always a thing to avoid. And I do think character driven play can take place in a game where GM Force has been present. But whether it can survive when GM Force is directly applied to the character driven elements...that seems less likely. 

It’s more a question of whether GM Force can be used in a principled manner.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 15, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I had to read that twice, but I think I have it.
> 
> The fundamental issue is that ... people use terms in different ways. It's like a battle over what something means, as opposed to observing what things are ... and because people are using their own jargon to develop their own theories, they don't see that their specialized cases are not applicable to others.
> 
> ...




Alright, so multiple things here:

1)  With respect, I'm not a big fan of the meta-analysis of the psychology and sociology of what is happening in your post above.  Its not that I disagree with it.  Honestly, its that I don't care.  I don't come to this board to accuse people of ONETRUEWAY or see people accuse me or others of it.  That is so_effing_tired on this board.  Its not going to condition people away from talking about games the way they are.  If that worked, it would have worked a long_long_long time ago.

In my opinion, all of this "YOU'RE (not you, people) ACCUSING ME OF BADWRONGFUN ETC ETC" does nothing but stifle actual conversation about design imperatives, GMing techniques, and actual play analysis based on design imperatives and GMing techniques.  People have to sift through the weeds of dozens of back and forth of this meta-analysis of board culture and motive-hunting all the time.

Yes, there is blatant edition warring troll stuff.  That is, by far, the worst.  But now that 4e is gone, its cooled by orders of magnitude.  This other stuff has become, by far, the WORST part of trying to engage and sustain interesting discussion on ENWorld.

I come here for interesting, technical conversations about TTRPGing.  I know some folks are offended by that and/or don't think that is possible because they believe that TTRPGs are mostly/wholly art and reducing it to technical conversation is unsettling (or something).  I obviously concede it is some art, but also lots of other stuff.  I want to talk about that other stuff.  I'm certainly not going to spend my time telling them that they're unsettled or offended by the art:engineering (and whatever else divide) and belabor that over_and_over_and_over.

With respect, if they don't want to engage in technical conversations about TTRGing, they can just not engage.  Telling me to stop or that they feel that I or anyone else uses technical conversation about TTRPGs to diminish them or their play...its not going to stop me from trying to have these conversations.

So with that out of the way....

2)  Unrelated, I can't remember where you and I were having an exchange about murderhobo play, but the implication you made (I think) was that some people want murderhobo play.  Of course they do.  If that is their aim, then their play cannot degenerate to that.  It can only ascend to that.  If I say "degenerate into murderhobo play", I would hope the inference you would draw is that (a) they don't want to be engaged with murderhobo play yet (b) they've found themselves there do to some combination of system design (like  screwy PC build design, incoherent incentive structures, or action resolution mechanics that don't propel play toward their aim and away from murderhoboing, or an approach to GMing that propels play toward strategic disconnectedness from setting/situation and expedient/pragmatic slaughter).

To repeat, if I say "degenerate", the inference that should be drawn is that the participants at the table didn't want to end up where they are.  They wanted to be somewhere else but ended up here anyway.

3)  Back to technical conversation, you disagree with me on the definition of GM Force.  I've offered my definition many times (in this thread and others).  Here is my definition in a different arrangement of words:

*Manipulation of the gamestate (typically covert) by a GM which nullifies (or in slightly more benign cases; modifies) player input in order to form or maintain a narrative that conforms to the GM's vision.*

Disagree with that?

If so, could you explain whether you think this thing that I've described above is a phenomenon in TTRPGing?

If it is, could you explain what we're disagreeing about?  Is it impact on the trajectory of play?  Is it impact on the psychology at the table (due to players' perception of the new mode of authority distribution at the table after the GM has deployed it)?  This latter bit seems to be where @Ovinomancer and I are disagreeing.

You can correct me if I'm wrong here @Ovinomancer , but it seems that your position is that all of the following are true:

* The impact on the trajectory of play (the present and future gamestate) of a GM who uses Force is continuum-based.

* The impact on the psychology of the table (regarding newly defined authority distribution post-Force) is also continuum-based.

Is that correct?

Let me interject here (interject...with...myseeeeeeeeeeeeeelf?).

Like the conversation about about "degenerating into murderhoboing", the conversation about Force has to entail 3 table states when it comes to expectations and psychological ramifications:

STATE 1 - None of these players care about Force.  Therefore, there can be no degenerate play with respect to Force.  They're just completely casual, hang out and have a good time and GM do whatever the eff they want to entertain them.

STATE 2 - These players EXPECT Force to be used.  They want the GM to hit the "Force accelerator" as need be to ensure that the story told at the table is compelling in the way they want it to be compelling.

STATE 3 - These players abhor Force.  They expect it to never be used.  They want player-facing rules that work sans-Force and clearly delineated authority distribution and transparent GMing.

To be clear, when I'm having these conversations, its STATE 3, that I'm talking about.  There is no purpose in talking about STATE 1 or STATE 2.  Those tables probably exist in much higher proportion than 3, but when it comes to Force, they're agnostic or supportive...so talking about Force's effect on play for their table psychology is irrelevant (in the same way that play doesn't "degenerate" into murderhobo play when the players are agnostic and/or want/expect it).



So then, thoughts on that definition of Force above and all the crap I threw up there surrounding it.

Also, to @Ovinomancer (and anyone else who wants to reply, including @hawkeyefan who just posted directly above about it), outside of table psychology, but back to the impact on the actual machinery of play (as it pertains to GM-driven vs Character-driven), do you have in mind a break-point where something becomes GM-driven vs Character-driven?  I'm not looking for a quantity here, but a quality (if you're able to describe it).


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 15, 2020)

One addendum right quick:

First PLEASE DON'T GET HUNG UP ON THE CONNOTATIONS OF THE WORD *CHEATING*.  

The Astros cheated and won the 2017 World Series.

We can't precisely quantify the cheating or measure its impact.

However, we all feel it was significant enough to alter the trajectory of play sufficient that the Yankees contribution toward their own winning efforts was subordinated/nullified.

And we all feel badly about it.

I feel like this is VERY apropos to TABLE STATE 3 above and the present conversation.


----------



## prabe (Feb 15, 2020)

I'm not one of the people you've been volleying with, about this, but:

I'm willing to agree with your description of GM Force, and I (maybe only now, with an example, because sometimes I am slow) understand your use of "degenerate" in this context.

I think GM Force is a thing that happens. I think some rule sets encourage it more than others, and some (maybe? plausibly?) demand it.

I think it's possible to argue that not having a way in the mechanics to determine the outcome of social interactions, or the timing (I guess) of when character flaws (or Troubles, or Vices, or whatever) come into play can feel like GM Force.

Without getting too hung up on the word, if GM Force feels like cheating at a given table (or even to a given player) there's a reasonable case to be made that in that case it is cheating, regardless of GM intent.

Looking at my previous thought, I'm thinking it's possible for different players at the same table to be in different STATEs (as you call them). I'm also thinking that there may be a continuum of STATE states (heh, heh) at least in the amount of Force that people or groups in the middle expect to be used. There's a difference between not wanting stupid/pointless character deaths and not allowing character deaths at all, but those could both plausibly be in STATE 2.

I'm not feeling particularly coherent about this, so I'll stop now.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 15, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> <snip>
> 
> You can correct me if I'm wrong here @Ovinomancer , but it seems that your position is that all of the following are true:
> 
> ...



Yes to both.  I'll elaborate further, but I wanted to go ahead and break in and answer these questions.



> Let me interject here (interject...with...myseeeeeeeeeeeeeelf?).
> 
> Like the conversation about about "degenerating into murderhoboing", the conversation about Force has to entail 3 table states when it comes to expectations and psychological ramifications:
> 
> ...




I disagree that your states are comprehensive, and, in fact, miss the position I'm staking.  There's a position that juxtaposes all three states, in that I may not care about Force in one aspect of a game, expect it in another, and be very upset about it in a third.  I honestly think this is a place that D&D occupies:  Force is expected due to prep concerns -- ie, the GM is largely expected to Force the prep to the forefront of the game and/or only present prepared items (ie, there's no real game outside of prep, which is a version of Force).  Force is aberrant in regards to character, though, as this is the sole proprietorship of the player.  And, Force may be not cared about in regards to other aspects of play.

So, no, I don't fully agree that Force is a binary on-or-off thing, as it can be applied to different areas of the game independently.

That said, if the table expectation is no Force, then, yes, it's a binary issue.

To relate my experience, at a high level, I was playing in a 3.x game.  The premise of the game was that Force was involved -- it centered around a prophecy.  However, there were large chunks of the game that revolved around the characters solely.  The GM was experienced in a number of different games and did an excellent job of having a plotted game but having enough "slop" to add in character driven side-arcs.  He, in effect, ran a hybrid game -- half plotted and full of force and the other half (outside of the clearly defined plotted elements) open to player direction and focusing on character arcs.  It was, as I noted, a perfect storm of events that resulted in finding things out about my character that I didn't know, or initially thought differently.  So, in this game, there was clearly Force (the plotted elements aligned with a prophecy), but not in all areas.  My tolerance for Force is higher than others (but not infinite by any imagination) so I could accept (and did, in session zero) Force in agreed areas.  This ad hoc arrangement worked very well and delivered character arcs not just for me but for most of the other players (we had two players uninterested in arcs, and so did not have one).  

Fundamentally, I think the difference here is that I see character arcs existing in a game that isn't entirely focused on delivering that play whereas you're discussion play entirely focused on character.  I'll agree with you that, in the latter case, Force in any amount is detrimental to the premise of the game.  I'll disagree, though, in that I assert character arcs can exist outside of a game focused on character, and those games may have Force.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 15, 2020)

@Ovinomancer

I don't have a ton of time right now, so if you're able to respond to this, I won't get a look at until afterwhile.

Two things:

1)  I think something has gone slightly awry (I don't know where this happened, if I was involved with it or not).  We're mashing together two different things:

a)  *Character Arcs* - A journey of a character that involves an inciting incident > conflict/obstacles > victory/setback/fall > resolution and transformation of the character.

b)  *(Substantively) Character-Driven Play (lead post premise)* - The players, through advocating for their characters (both through the machinery of system and their related expression of character ethos/pathos), drive the fiction through a perpetual series of gamestates, until all thematic questions have been answered (and the the game ends).

These are different things.

I absolutely, 100 % agree in all ways that _Character Arcs_ can emerge in games laden with (even fraught with) Force.  Force is absolutely zero barrier to Character Arcs.  The only thing that matters is that the journey above happens...doesn't matter how agency is distributed.

The question I'm posing is _how Force interacts with (b) above._ 

So I guess my question with respect to your play anecdote above would be:

Through the medium of their character, would a player have the capability (both authority and means to declare actions and not have that input nullified by GM) to challenge the conception of that prophecy and either undo its ability to become manifest and/or undo its revelation ?


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 15, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> Because many of us realize that the agency you claim is in older games is often an illusion in the game as played. If one accepts Gygax Rule 0 (The GM is always right, and can mod rules on a whim), your agency ends wherever the GM decides, _including the potential of telling you how your character feels about something!_
> 
> The GM I had the least agency as a player under was running AD&D 2E. Second worst was AD&D 1E.



Which then - again - places the onus on the GM to get out of the way and give the characters (players) time and space to do what they're doing.

Gygax Rule 0 is, IME, mostly for resolving rules/rulings arguments: ultimately the GM has the hammer.



> D&D game rules prior to 3E explicitly give the GM the power to change the rules on the fly for pretty much any reason. Sane DM's don't... they pick a subset, superset, or superset of a subset of the rules, and stick to them, because player agency requires knowing enough to make informed decisions, and a GM willing to let the player have some.



Within any given campaign I largely try to keep the rules consistent, with major changes (mostly) coming between campaigns.  That said, if something develops within a campaign that needs attention (usually involving someone finding either a major typo, an outright error, or a game-wrecking loophole) I'll fix it right away.

That said, I have very few rules or guidelines* governing social interaction anyway, which is mostly what we've been discussing.

* - most of what I have are to do with treatment of henches, and possible results/consequences therefrom; but even there if the hench-in-character would for whatever reason react differently than the guidelines suggest then that's what it's gonna do.



> The other thing is that most of the more narrativist games do is explicitly deny revision on the fly from GM prerogatives... many Fate flavors are pretty clear that only the group as a whole gets to change rules.



In the right group this is cool.  My experience is that, given the chance, players will tend towards favouring changes that help their PCs (individually or collectively) while pushing back against any changes that hamper the PCs, which is only natural.



> What a ruleset cannot do is force the GM to follow it, but I know that I'd rather not play if the GM isn't using a cogent and clear set of rules.



Yeah - a GM who generally doesn't follow her own rules doesn't work well for me either.

Which comes back, in a way, to the drum I often bang regarding PCs and NPCs functioning mechanically the same within the setting: it's way easier as a player to extrapolate the mechanics I already know regarding PCs onto the NPCs than it is to have to learn two disparate sets of mechanics - one for PCs and the other for NPCs* - and therefore it's on the GM to ensure consistency here even if the RAW say or suggest otherwise.

* - assuming NPC mechanics are player-side info in that system; otherwise there's no way of knowing what rules the GM is following if any.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 15, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> @Ovinomancer
> 
> I don't have a ton of time right now, so if you're able to respond to this, I won't get a look at until afterwhile.
> 
> ...



No prob, get back when you can.

I don't think we're on the same page about character arcs, though.  I'm not prepared to agree with your summation about character arcs being present even if the player has little to no input vice all or almost all of the input.  I think you've noted that we're in a terminology/concept ambiguity, and that's making things difficult to discuss.

As for "character-driven" play, as I understand, we're largely in agreement.  I think that there can be a small amount of Force and still have good play, though, else GMs could not accidentally put undue pressure on a sitch and Force an outcome through inexperience or inattention.  Character-driven play is very intensive in the moment, and if such mistakes are not survivable, then we're in a bad spot!  That said, Force should be avoided and play should aim to eliminate it entirely as a matter of principle.

On "character arcs", I'm trying to discuss the means by which a character undergoes change in play that may be surprising to the player -- the character at risk moment.  This is what I read the OP as driving for and this is different from how I read your formulation of character arcs above in that it is play that engages the character and allows all involved to find out what that means.  This is similar to character-driven, in that the results shouldn't be predetermined but played through, but can exist outside of a character-driven game.  I'm not ready to agree that a character arc in the context of the OP can be entirely Forced by the GM and remain what the OP is trying to seek.  I also don't think that you must be in a character-driven system/game to find what the OP is trying to seek.  I think you can have meaningful, non-Forced character arcs in a game that has Force in other aspects.  I don't think reducing character arcs to their fiction counterpart (created by a single author according to their decisions from outside the character) is useful in the context of the thread.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 15, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> Like the conversation about about "degenerating into murderhoboing", the conversation about Force has to entail 3 table states when it comes to expectations and psychological ramifications:
> 
> STATE 1 - None of these players care about Force.  Therefore, there can be no degenerate play with respect to Force.  They're just completely casual, hang out and have a good time and GM do whatever the eff they want to entertain them.
> 
> ...



Ah.  I'm thinking of all three types as - again - a continuum, while mostly focusing on STATE 1. (good definitions, by the way!)

Why STATE 1?  Because it's the most variable, and in some ways most interesting, where STATE 2 and STATE 3 are closer to absolutes.

In STATE 1, even if the players don't care about Force, it's still on the GM to pay at least a little attention to what she's doing Force-wise; as if she overdoes it there may suddenly come a flashpoint where those players find they DO care.  Result: arguments all round.

I also think character-driven and-or character-based play is quite possible in STATE 1 provided the GM lets it happen.  Personally I think it's a GM mistake to not let it happen, others' views may differ.

Murderhobo play is possible in all three states.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 15, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> *Manipulation of the gamestate (typically covert) by a GM which nullifies (or in slightly more benign cases; modifies) player input in order to form or maintain a narrative that conforms to the GM's vision.*
> 
> STATE 1 - None of these players care about Force.  Therefore, there can be no degenerate play with respect to Force.  They're just completely casual, hang out and have a good time and GM do whatever the eff they want to entertain them.
> 
> ...




I snipped your post down to what I feel are the essential bits. 

I feel that there’s another state, one that has elements of more than one of the others. This is one where the players are accepting of Force applied in certain instances, but not in others. 

You mention in the bolded part above that Force can nullify or perhaps just modify player input. This implies that some application of Force is worse than others. 

Some players may be okay with more minor usage, or usage in certain areas but not in others. Or perhaps you have a group whose opinion on Force is not shared.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 16, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Also .... @pemerton - I forgot to ask you how your Dying Earth RPG campaign went.



We haven't come back to it - it was just me and two players, so if we have a session with just the three of us it might be revived.



lowkey13 said:


> After you mentioned it, I went ahead and grabbed it and ran it for a little while.



It's nice to hear that I can be a force for good.



lowkey13 said:


> It seemed a little more ... comedic ... than the games I normally associate with you.



It's not quite Burning Wheel.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 16, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> It's secret _until the players find out about it._



In that case the "secret" is redundant - necessarily stuff the players don't know is not known by them (ie secret from them).


----------



## pemerton (Feb 16, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Social mechanics in 3e D&D (and 3.5, and PF, and games based on those), the existence of which mechanics in my view make them A-type systems, can and do trample the aspect of player agency that has to do with - absent external control mechanics - playing one's character as one sees fit.  The rub here is that the game doesn't really make this clear until you're already into it.



This is an odd example, because there are no GM-to-player or player-to-player social mechanics in those systems. 

I haven't dug up my copy of the 3E PHB, but this is from the online 3.5 SRD:

You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check​


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 16, 2020)

pemerton said:


> This is an odd example, because there are no GM-to-player or player-to-player social mechanics in those systems.
> 
> I haven't dug up my copy of the 3E PHB, but this is from the online 3.5 SRD:
> 
> You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check​




Not that 3.x D&D is the best example of it, but I think the ability for a PC to influence a NPC where the outcome is determined by a roll is a pretty big part of what we’re talking about, as well. 

I don't really think that “act it out to the best of your ability and I as GM will decide” is all that great an approach. 

I like when the GM is involved in the factors at play...the NPCs starting attitude, for example....and then the resolution is left up to the roll. The roll is what determines how well the PC performed, how diplomatic or persuasive or deceptive they were, and therefore the outcome. 

This puts all the GM’s judgment into establishing the situation and the chances before hand, and then leaves the outcome to the roll. I prefer that to a GM interpreting a roll or in the absence of a roll, interpreting the quality of the player’s attempt, and then deciding the outcome. 

The GM deciding the outcome is probably the most relevant bit. Many will be fine with that. Others won’t.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 16, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> prep, which is a version of Force





hawkeyefan said:


> I feel that there’s another state, one that has elements of more than one of the others. This is one where the players are accepting of Force applied in certain instances, but not in others.



I don't know if hawkeyefan had in mind, as one of the _certain instances_, GM preparation.

I don't think preparation must equate to (to quote @Manbearcat) *Manipulation of the gamestate (typically covert) by a GM which nullifies (or in slightly more benign cases; modifies) player input in order to form or maintain a narrative that conforms to the GM's vision.* 

Apocalypse World, for instance, relies on GM prep. But (provided the GM MC follows the relevant instruction) it doesn't involve GM force in the above sense.

Obviously Manbearcat can speak for himself (when he has a chance to get back to this thread), but mainly when I think of GM force I think of _ignoring/overriding the action resolution mechanics_ and of _establishing consequences, and hence future framings, in disregard of what the players took themselves to have staked in action resolution_.

The second conjunct there is more subtle than the first. It seems to me a good chunk of the AW instructions to the MC are various ways of avoiding it (eg lead with your soft moves before following up with your hard ones). Burning Wheel makes a very big deal of it. A GM who preps plot is on his/her way to doing it, but prepping plot isn't the only sort of prep.

That said, maybe @Ovinomancer was using "prep" as a shorthand for prepping plot, as per the example in his follow-up post?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 16, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Not that 3.x D&D is the best example of it, but I think the ability for a PC to influence a NPC where the outcome is determined by a roll is a pretty big part of what we’re talking about, as well.



Sure. I was just querying @Lanefan's suggestion that 3E D&D is a system which has _specific rules to determine what the PC does_. I don't think that suggestion is correct.



hawkeyefan said:


> I don't really think that “act it out to the best of your ability and I as GM will decide” is all that great an approach.



I tend to think it's terrible.

I agree with this from upthread:


prabe said:


> I think GM Force is a thing that happens. I think some rule sets encourage it more than others, and some (maybe? plausibly?) demand it.
> 
> I think it's possible to argue that not having a way in the mechanics to determine the outcome of social interactions, or the timing (I guess) of when character flaws (or Troubles, or Vices, or whatever) come into play can feel like GM Force.





hawkeyefan said:


> I like when the GM is involved in the factors at play...the NPCs starting attitude, for example....and then the resolution is left up to the roll. The roll is what determines how well the PC performed, how diplomatic or persuasive or deceptive they were, and therefore the outcome.
> 
> This puts all the GM’s judgment into establishing the situation and the chances before hand, and then leaves the outcome to the roll.



I tend not to use "starting attitude" as  big factor in social resolution, unless there is already some established fiction that so-and-so is friendly to, or hostile to, the PC in question. If such a thing is established, then it becomes a relevant modifier (eg a penalty in Traveller, a DC-adjuster in 4e or Burning Wheel, a mod to the dice pool in Prince Valiant, etc).

The player declares their action, which normally consists in saying (or perhaps paraphrasing) what their PC says. This will establish the parameters for consequences of success or failure. It might also affect the difficulty (eg if it's a big ask) or grant a bonus (Traveller doesn't have so much room for this, but BW, 4e D&D and Prince Valiant all have room for some sort of add resulting from an impassioned performance).

Then the dice are rolled and the outcome determined via the appropriate system method. (Eg in Traveller there's a look-up table for NPC reactions; other systems might be more about GM narration of fiction-appropriate consequences that reflect either success or failure.)

Nothing too radical there I don't think!


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 16, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I don't know if hawkeyefan had in mind, as one of the _certain instances_, GM preparation.
> 
> I don't think preparation must equate to (to quote @Manbearcat) *Manipulation of the gamestate (typically covert) by a GM which nullifies (or in slightly more benign cases; modifies) player input in order to form or maintain a narrative that conforms to the GM's vision.*
> 
> ...



No, and the fuller context of what I said should help make this clearer.  I was talking about the act of pushing prepped material to the fore, ie, making whatever was prepped (a dungeon, an encounter, a plot) enter into play regardless of any other concern, or failing to provide any other material (as in a sandbox outside of the prepped material).  That is what I was talking about, the use of prepared material ("prep") in a Forceful way.

You can prepare things and not use Force, but that's less common in D&D, which was the example I was presenting.  Yes, I'm aware of old school dungeon crawls -- those are not the current majority of play.  I think looking to the material offered for sale is the better way to judge trends in what's popular in play, and those are currently full of Force in regards to D&D.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 16, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I don't know if hawkeyefan had in mind, as one of the _certain instances_, GM preparation.
> 
> I don't think preparation must equate to (to quote @Manbearcat) *Manipulation of the gamestate (typically covert) by a GM which nullifies (or in slightly more benign cases; modifies) player input in order to form or maintain a narrative that conforms to the GM's vision.*




I was thinking of prep and similar GM input. My 5E game has a lot of threads, but the primary one is based on the scenarios that I’ve introduced to the game.

My players don’t mind if I craft hooks that largely determine the thrust of the game. Largely because I’ve based it on things that they’ve indicated they enjoy, but still....they accept that.

However, if I resorted to Force to dictate how they engage the hooks, or to change the outcome of something, they’d balk at that for sure.



pemerton said:


> Sure. I was just querying @Lanefan's suggestion that 3E D&D is a system which has _specific rules to determine what the PC does_. I don't think that suggestion is correct.




No, not really. Nothing beyond the ones that have always been present such as Charm Person and the like.



pemerton said:


> I tend to think it's terrible.




I had a feeling you might!



pemerton said:


> I agree with this from upthread:




Yeah, @prabe made a good point there. The absence of mechanics can definitely feel like GM Force. Hard to say if it just _feels _that way, though.



pemerton said:


> I tend not to use "starting attitude" as  big factor in social resolution, unless there is already some established fiction that so-and-so is friendly to, or hostile to, the PC in question. If such a thing is established, then it becomes a relevant modifier (eg a penalty in Traveller, a DC-adjuster in 4e or Burning Wheel, a mod to the dice pool in Prince Valiant, etc).




I only used starting attitude as an example because I think that’s the most relevant factor in the 3.x system.



pemerton said:


> The player declares their action, which normally consists in saying (or perhaps paraphrasing) what their PC says. This will establish the parameters for consequences of success or failure. It might also affect the difficulty (eg if it's a big ask) or grant a bonus (Traveller doesn't have so much room for this, but BW, 4e D&D and Prince Valiant all have room for some sort of add resulting from an impassioned performance).
> 
> Then the dice are rolled and the outcome determined via the appropriate system method. (Eg in Traveller there's a look-up table for NPC reactions; other systems might be more about GM narration of fiction-appropriate consequences that reflect either success or failure.)
> 
> Nothing too radical there I don't think!




No, not at all.

Blades in the Dark follows this scheme. The player declares their characters goal for the action, the GM determines the Position (difficulty) and the Effect (degree of outcome). the player therefore has a strong sense of the chances for success, the degree of success, and the degree of potential consequences. Then the roll determines success, partial success, or failure.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 16, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Blades in the Dark follows this scheme. The player declares their characters goal for the action, the GM determines the Position (difficulty) and the Effect (degree of outcome). the player therefore has a strong sense of the chances for success, the degree of success, and the degree of potential consequences. Then the roll determines success, partial success, or failure.



Is _position_ comparable to starting attitude? Or a more gestalt thing?

(My understanding is that in BitD degree/severity of consequence is a function of position and effect.)


----------



## prabe (Feb 16, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, @prabeade a good point there. The absence of mechanics can definitely feel like GM Force. Hard to say if it just _feels _that way, though.




@hawkeyefan I think you were the one who mentioned something about a "principled GM" which seems as though it would correlate to what I talk about when I talk about trusting a GM. I mention this because if you trust your GM, I think maybe the GM's judgment wouldn't feel so much like (might not be) Force.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 16, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Is _position_ comparable to starting attitude? Or a more gestalt thing?
> 
> (My understanding is that in BitD degree/severity of consequence is a function of position and effect.)




More gestalt, really. It probably includes or encompasses starting attitude in a social action of some kind. The GM determines the Position as Controlled, Risky, or Desperate depending on the fictional circumstances. 

Without getting too deep into the Blades mechanics, here's a quick summary:


Convincing a friend to help you with something would likely be a Controlled roll
Convincing someone you just met to help you would likely be a Risky roll
Convincing someone who dislikes you to help you would likely be a Desperate roll

There's a little more to it, but I think this gives the gist. Position gives you an idea of how tough an action may be. Effect gives you an idea of the outcome (three options Great, Standard, or Limited) and is similarly determined. 

So anytime you're about to make a roll, the GM gives you both Position and Effect, and combined they determine the severity of consequences on a failure, or the strength of benefits on a success.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 16, 2020)

prabe said:


> @hawkeyefan I think you were the one who mentioned something about a "principled GM" which seems as though it would correlate to what I talk about when I talk about trusting a GM. I mention this because if you trust your GM, I think maybe the GM's judgment wouldn't feel so much like (might not be) Force.




I think if GM Force is a possibility....which in many games it is....then the question becomes when and how it's used. I think that in such games, trusting the GM to only use it in a principled way is a huge part of what can make such a game work or not for those players. 

I don't mind if the GM has a specific idea in mind for how he wants play to go. If he has the idea of "an adventure" in mind. I'm generally as okay with that as I might be with him selecting a setting or rules system when we decide to play a game. 

But I want to be able to engage with that adventure however I want to. Within reason, I suppose, but I'd kind of expect a good deal of leeway. Certainly more than most "adventure path" type adventures typically allow.

I recently played in a game that was very much of the adventure path sort, and I had my character ask a question, and the GM said to me "so what you're asking is...." and reframed my question to match one of the "if the players ask this...." tidbits in the book. I really, _really_ hated that.


----------



## prabe (Feb 16, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think if GM Force is a possibility....which in many games it is....then the question becomes when and how it's used. I think that in such games, trusting the GM to only use it in a principled way is a huge part of what can make such a game work or not for those players.
> 
> I don't mind if the GM has a specific idea in mind for how he wants play to go. If he has the idea of "an adventure" in mind. I'm generally as okay with that as I might be with him selecting a setting or rules system when we decide to play a game.
> 
> ...




One of my gaming groups tends to do Adventure Paths, and I hate them (the adventures; I love the people). There's nothing to engage with but the grind toward the Big Climax. I never conceive of the character as anything other than a bundle of mechanics. I don't care if we succeed at the Final Boss Fight. I actually kinda hope we don't, because I don't think the world in the Adventure Path is worth saving.

I believe we are very much on the same page here, possibly the same paragraph.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 16, 2020)

prabe said:


> One of my gaming groups tends to do Adventure Paths, and I hate them (the adventures; I love the people). There's nothing to engage with but the grind toward the Big Climax. I never conceive of the character as anything other than a bundle of mechanics. I don't care if we succeed at the Final Boss Fight. I actually kinda hope we don't, because I don't think the world in the Adventure Path is worth saving.
> 
> I believe we are very much on the same page here, possibly the same paragraph.




Yup. I tend to only play those kinds of paths if that's what everyone else wants to do, or if it's for a one shot, or if we just want to try a system out. They don't tend to last long because no one really cares all that much about what's going on in them.

I prefer a more dynamic mode, overall. Like I said, I don't mind if the GM has some kind of loose "plot" in mind, as long as I'm free to engage with it how I'd like, and even better if it's been tailored to my and other players' characters in some way. 

Such is possible with D&D, but from what I've seen it takes a group of players and a DM that are very comfortable with one another, and who work together a lot on how the game should function.


----------



## prabe (Feb 16, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I prefer a more dynamic mode, overall. Like I said, I don't mind if the GM has some kind of loose "plot" in mind, as long as I'm free to engage with it how I'd like, and even better if it's been tailored to my and other players' characters in some way.
> 
> Such is possible with D&D, but from what I've seen it takes a group of players and a DM that are very comfortable with one another, and who work together a lot on how the game should function.




That's the kind of D&D game I try to run. I usually describe it as the characters pick their goal/s, and the order in which they pursue them. I figure out what's between them and their goals. I prefer for there to be multiple threads dangling for me to pull on, but it's entirely up to the players/characters how to respond. The two tables I run are in game stores, and I didn't know half the players at either table before starting the campaign; which I guess means I think it's not as hard in D&D as all-a-that, but I readily admit I have good players.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 16, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> It’s more a question of whether GM Force can be used in a principled manner.



Anything which can be used _can_ be used in a principled manner.

It's not a "can" question, it's a "should" statement, and "will it be used in a principled manner by the current GM?"

Edit: given Manbearcat's redefinition which I'd previously missed, the deleted text was erroneous.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 16, 2020)

pemerton said:


> In that case the "secret" is redundant - necessarily stuff the players don't know is not known by them (ie secret from them).



The player could have said, "My master left and I don't know why." In which case the secret is why, and they know to look for it. It can be a driving personality element, with the details/resolution left to the GM. So, that there is a secret is known to the player, but the content isn't.

Secret is a term with multiple layers of meanings.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 16, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Feb 16, 2020)

@lowkey13  You have my respect. This conversation ran its course many pages ago when people stopped having a discussion and started telling everyone else what others really meant or implied with their own words. Time to disengage and find another fun topic with friends and no-nothings.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 16, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I'm going to meta-analyze this for you, as you did for me!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Alright, just was about to start follow-ups.

Lowkey, seriously, I have no clue how you came up with that summation of what I wrote. 

It’s not even in the same dimension of what (I thought) I actually wrote.

This is what I meant to write:

* I don’t want to engage with meta-analysis of board culture, psychology, and forum posting ethics (completely leaving to the side of whether the take that was in your post about them was correct or not). There is a tendency on this board for these meta-analyses and they tend to dominate conversations when they emerge. I’m not interested in them so I’m not going to engage with that portion of your post. I’m going to engage with our disagreement over the term/usage/relevance if Force.

* There was nothing in there calling you an edition warrior or a troll. Not even close. I said that sucks that people do that, and I agree that it happens now and again, but it’s many times reduced since 4e left prominence.

That is pretty much it. Looking at that and the original, I still don’t understand where your pereception of what I posted is coming from.

People reading this:

Please call me out on this if what I wrote contained all of that offense cause holy crap...dead...serious. I need to know because, if so, I’ve got some serious issues that I need to sort out (some kind of disconnection from what I’m writing).

If folks say that what you have written above is the substance of my post and offense-worthy in the same way, I’ll apologize a thousand times, and take some nice time away to figure out how in the hell Im so removed from what I’m typing.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 16, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I'm going to meta-analyze this for you, as you did for me!




*Mod Note:*

You really should have disengaged rather than post this snark.  The tone ensures that the party you are nominally writing to will accept none of it.  They will just think you are being more of a jerk.  

Try this, folks - if you think someone is disrespectful, or even just full of crap and not listening... just don't answer them.  I know that human psychology is such that there's a super-strong desire to counter every imagined slight.  But that urge does not serve well here.  

Learn to walk away, please.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 16, 2020)

I’m willing to accept it and I’m absolutely willing to apologize.

I seriously want 3rd party feedback that what I wrote was what was what should have been inferred in that encapsulation and should have brought that much offense taken by another person through it.

I talk to my friends in real life in stark ways. I assume that all of you guys understand I’m your, and you’re mine, friend.

I wouldn’t spend the years “hanging out” with you guys if I didn’t feel that way. My disagreements with real life friends are much more vehement than this!

But in that post, I was simply trying to say what I captured in the directly above and then bridge to the part of the conversation I wanted to engage with.

Man, what a weird way to start the day.


----------



## darkbard (Feb 16, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> People reading this:
> 
> Please call me out on this if what I wrote contained all of that offense cause holy crap...dead...serious. I need to know because, if so, I’ve got some serious issues that I need to sort out (some kind of disconnection from what I’m writing).
> 
> If folks say that what you have written above is the substance of my post and offense-worthy in the same way, I’ll apologize a thousand times, and take some nice time away to figure out how in the hell Im so removed from what I’m typing.




I readily admit I am inclined generally to see your posts in a positive light (largely because of your frequent attempts to disengage from meta-nonsense and your overall generous and self-reflective attitude in posting), but my immediate take was, "how did lowkey get _that_ from _this_?!?" I don't see what lowkey does. Like, at all.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 16, 2020)

If I had to guess, I’d say that the dismissal of the meta topic was seen as a dismissal of the entire post? 

It certainly wasn’t my take away.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 16, 2020)

And as a quick aside, it seems that virtually everyone disagrees with my take on continuum vs binary wrt Force and possibly other elements of what I’m saying about Force, so the challenge that lowkey put forth in that post about that seems like a good one (given that context), so I’m glad to have that challenge (to force, lol?, me to crystallize my thinking, and perhaps revise events of it; though I’m not there yet).

Finally, I’d appreciate it if people who don’t like me or generally disagree with me to weigh in on the subject above, even if just through PM.

I’m out for awhile.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 16, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> One addendum right quick:
> 
> First PLEASE DON'T GET HUNG UP ON THE CONNOTATIONS OF THE WORD *CHEATING*.




I'm going to chime in on this.  The negative aspects of "cheating" are not so much connotation as denotation. The dishonesty and breaking of trust is baked into common use.  If you don't intend them, don't use that word. 

And if you do intend them, you better be ready to be called out for insulting someone.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 16, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> If I had to guess, I’d say that the dismissal of the meta topic was seen as a dismissal of the entire post?




It does kind of read that way.

And, to be honest, how people use terms, or resist changes in use, _IS_ a problem.   Frequently.  Any time you see (or are involved in) an argument over terminology, it is likely useful to step back and think about what everyone is _really_ arguing about.  Because the terminology is a means to an end, an argument over terminology is going to be a proxy fight over something else.

And dismissing that is basically saying, 'I don't really care what anyone else is saying - I just want to say what I am saying."  And that's not discussion.

Lowkey's problem was in going snarky, instead of just saying, "Dude, this is dismissive of X, Y, and Z."


----------



## Umbran (Feb 16, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> It’s more a question of whether GM Force can be used in a principled manner.




Define "principled".  Whose principles?


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 16, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 16, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Define "principled".  Whose principles?




I don’t think there would be an agreed upon standard, so it would have to come down to what the specific group wants and expects.

So for Manbearcat, no amount of force would be acceptable. For my group of players, some would be, but with the expectation that it not be applied in a way that negated some result of player choice. Still others would expect force as part and parcel of the gaming experience.

The middle ground is going to be pretty vague and hard to gauge unless the participants all discuss it, or as @prabe mentioned, if it’s all kind of worked out as they play. 

So in this sense, I’d say principled use would imply that the expectations of all participants have been considered and the GM proceeds accordingly.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 16, 2020)

Umbran said:


> And dismissing that is basically saying, 'I don't really care what anyone else is saying - I just want to say what I am saying."  And that's not discussion.




I don’t think that was at all the tone of that post. It was more “I’m not going to defend my opinions against baseless accusations of attributing other playstyles as badwrongfun, but instead I’m going to focus on what I think is the relevant topic”. 

Basically, “I’d prefer to have a conversation about gaming techniques rather than a conversation about how to converse about gaming techniques”.

It seemed to me that it was the use of the term “degenerate”. I took lowkey’s exception to the term being that it implied a certain playstyle was a degenerate playstyle. I took Manbearcat’s reply to clarify that what he meant was “a desired mode of play that has somehow become an undesired mode of play”. 

I think that was a clarified well. The point was also made that such clarification shouldn’t be needed as often as it seems to be around here, and I feel like that seems to be what caused the confusion.

But a dismissal of the original post? Not at all.


----------



## darkbard (Feb 16, 2020)

hawkeyefan's take lines up pretty neatly with my own. This doesn't need to be about drawing up sides, of course; it does, however, reveal how different folks can have such widely divergent takes when reading the same thing. <shrug> Maybe we can all try to focus on engaging the substance of discussions and not look to take umbrage* so quickly?

*No offense, Umbran. ;^)


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 16, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 16, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I explained my position. It's not this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can take @Manbearcat's elucidation and other poster's views and either synthesize them or ignore them and insist on being offended.  The former may advance discussion.  The latter is just trying to shut it down.  If you can't engage, then disengage.  Insisting you're right to be offended is just noise.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 16, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 16, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I explained my position. It's not this.
> 
> It's not a dismissal. It's that he couldn't care enough to disagree with the post.




He made a multi-point post in response to yours. If you really think that he didn’t care, then okay....but I think it’s clear that he did.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 16, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 16, 2020)

Umbran said:


> I'm going to chime in on this.  The negative aspects of "cheating" are not so much connotation as denotation. The dishonesty and breaking of trust is baked into common use.  If you don't intend them, don't use that word.
> 
> And if you do intend them, you better be ready to be called out for insulting someone.




Yeah.  A bit lazy and short-on-time while trying to get a quick thought up via my phone as I was leaving.

I obviously knew that was a potential hazard as I tried to pre-emptively disarm it.  The Astros things popped in my head and I thought it was topical and relevant (because it integrates both the procedural problems and the way it makes us feel; which were both in play in the present conversation), so I figured associating it with the dynamic of TABLE STATE 3 that I was envisioning (where Force isn't welcome) would be illuminating.

I'll get a post up tonight on the binary vs continuum topic.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 16, 2020)

The OP wanted to talk about the possibility of a particular sort of RPG play, in which _the mechanical processes of play produce character-driven, emotion-evoking dramatic arcs_.

Some people have replied with examples of such systems, episodes of play that demonstrated what was asked for, analysis of the relevant techniques. Part of that is inevitably addressing how to avoid "Railroad GM-ing" (to use the OP's phrase) - because this is part of showing why the OP's doubts are unwarranted.

Every post in this thread that tells the OP that he can get what he wants through the "Railroad GM-ing" that (per the OP) he finds _highly distasteful and generally anathema_ is off-topic and an attempt at hectoring in respect of RPGing preferences.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 17, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Whether or not the RPG version of this counted as character-driven would turn on how all that unfolding stuff was actually done. If the GM just narrates it all through to the moment of revelation than it is certainly not what the OP is talking about, because t_he mechanical process of play hasn't had any hand in it_.
> 
> But suppose the backstory is gradually set-up as some sort of interplay between player and GM in the course of play (eg Luke's player fails a check, and the GM reveals an unwelcome truth via narration from the NPC Obi-Wan - M_y former star pupil killed your father - sorry about that!_). And suppose further that the final revelation is the ultimate unwelcome truth narrated in response to some failed check by Luke during the confrontation with Vader. That looks like it could be an instance of what @innerdude was referring to.




I find this incredibly difficult to imagine play out simply on mechanics only because I'd say the GM would have _likely _already decided or at the very least thought of this before play and could use mechanics, whether successes or failures, to push play towards the desired reveal.

So how do mechanics in this instance help or change whether it was _mechanics_ that revealed it or the DM via the fiction. To me it looks like mechanics are but an illusion of a prethought out idea. What am I missing?


----------



## Numidius (Feb 17, 2020)

I'm sooo late to the party!


----------



## Numidius (Feb 17, 2020)

Sadras said:


> I find this incredibly difficult to imagine play out simply on mechanics only because I'd say the GM would have _likely _already decided or at the very least thought of this before play and could use mechanics, whether successes or failures, to push play towards the desired reveal.
> 
> So how do mechanics in this instance help or change whether it was _mechanics_ that revealed it or the DM via the fiction. To me it looks like mechanics are but an illusion of a prethought out idea. What am I missing?



I don't see a problem either way. Gm or players must refrain from thinking, elaborating, in their own heads? 

The point is a roll was botched. Before that a partial success Introduced the argument. 
AW has Gm rules for that, also a Gm must prepare Fronts in andvance, to be deployed in game against the Players, or into the setting anyway. These fronts can be actual armies, or just anything fluffy else.


----------



## Numidius (Feb 17, 2020)

"These" games acknoweldge that Gm Force is a thing, and can be a decisive factor in a well run campaign, and provide rules for this. 
The Gm may be adversarial in a "good" way, by the rules, without using Illusionism to calibrate encounters. 

The Doom pool in Marvel Heroic. 
Soft & Hard Moves in AW. Etc. 

In "traditional" games and from a Player perspective: compare Classes in D&D and Careers in WFRP. 
In both games You can play a pre-planned campaign where everyone at the table agrees to follow it to the very conclusion, but how does your character development is dealt with? 
In D&D basically, whatever happens, you're going to be stuck in your class, maybe multiclassing, but in the end always a fighting machine. 
In WFRP you can be an armored knight that suddenly decides having "Enough!" and become a pacifist Agitator, an Initiate of a Cult, and never unsheathe the sword again, and still continue to play meaningfully in the campaign. 

In a recent WFRP campaign, on hiatus now, my PC was a young former Cadet, then Captain of a town watch in Marienburg, with a peculiar background that the Gm never cared/had time to use in play. 
Long story short, we ended up fighting undead dark elves in a decades long forgotten and unseen Black Ark stuck somewhere on the bretonnian coast. 
I failed and botched rolls after rolls, eventually acting under terror and switching-on the magical engines of the Ark in order to flee from a hoarde of undead former slaves of the dark elves. 
We, the party, made it to escape, but the Ark is now sent offshore and we know it is heading towards Marienburg (think Amsterdam/Venice mash up), because reasons. 

My PC, horrified and remorseful, indulged in drugs, some mud 'shrooms from a previous adventure, and failed (again) the resistance roll... 
I started considering out loud the religious implications setting wise, from the POV of my Pc: Khaine is the god of dark elves continent, worshipped by humans assassins and the like in the Old World. Morr is the humanity god of death and proper funeral rites, and happens to be the brother of Khaine. 

The next session my PC headed towards the coastal and only town around (from where we arrived after a ship travel), went straight to the cemetery, asked for the priest in charge, and with all his looming, shocked, appearance showed the priest two dark elvish blades from the Ark as proof and demanded being formally initiated to the cult of Morr to recover the will to get back on the Ark and try to stop its journey. 

The Gm had no idea of my plan, but quickly asked for an Intimidation roll on my part. This time was a success. I spent some xp and entered the Initiate of Morr Career. 
Gm: "Now everything changes for your PC"
Me: "The PC knows he's probably going to die trying to stop the Ark, anyway. But now he has overcome his terror of undeath magic." 

We hired two small vessels with crews and are now in deep sea water...


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2020)

Sadras said:


> I find this incredibly difficult to imagine play out simply on mechanics only because I'd say the GM would have _likely _already decided or at the very least thought of this before play and could use mechanics, whether successes or failures, to push play towards the desired reveal.
> 
> So how do mechanics in this instance help or change whether it was _mechanics_ that revealed it or the DM via the fiction. To me it looks like mechanics are but an illusion of a prethought out idea. What am I missing?



I'm not sure what you have in mind by _mechanics_. What @Numidius describes a post or two below yours is the sort of thing I have in mind - as rolls fail or succeed the GM narrates (ie establishes and set out) consequences, which can include revelations of unwelcome truths. These are guided by the relevant system considerations (eg in Burning Wheel the GM should have regard to the intent of the failed task as well as the Beliefs and Instincts of the character; in AW the GM should _make the character's lives interesting_ _make Apocalypse World seem real, _and _remain faithful to the established fiction_.

So in these systems, the werewolf thing (or the "I am your father" thing) wouldn't come from nowhere. It would develop over a series of situations, maybe as a result of snowballing failures, maybe as a result of iterating failures and successes.

In the Burning Wheel game where I'm a player we went to the Tower of Evard because my knight PC's wizard offsider wanted to check it out (mechanically: she succeeded on a Great Masters-wise check to correctly recall the location of Evard's tower in the Pomarj; so the GM had to introduce it into the fiction). When we got there we fought a demon, which didn't go to well but did earn my PC a new infamous reputation in hell as an Intransigent Demon Foe. Then, checking out Evard's tower, a result of a check (the mechanical and full framing details now escape me) resulted in my PC finding old letters that seemed to imply that Evard, the demon summoner (it seems) is my mother's father. (My relationship with my mother and my Belief about my family are elements of my PC build.) That's an unhappy revelation - an _unwelcome truth_ in AW terms. I don't know how much the GM anticipated something along those lines, but he can't have planned anything about Evard too far ahead given that Evard and his tower were only introduced as elements in the shared fiction because of a successful check made for an offsider whom I generally control and which on this occasion I declared and rolled.

This sort of thing would, in my view, be an instance of the sort of _mechanics-drive-character-arc_ thaat @innerdude is talking about. (And using his holy grail system, Burning Wheel!)


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2020)

Sadras said:


> I find this incredibly difficult to imagine play out simply on mechanics only because I'd say the GM would have _likely _already decided or at the very least thought of this before play and could use mechanics, whether successes or failures, to push play towards the desired reveal.
> 
> So how do mechanics in this instance help or change whether it was _mechanics_ that revealed it or the DM via the fiction. To me it looks like mechanics are but an illusion of a prethought out idea. What am I missing?



The use of mechanics that will result no matter what in the outcome the GM wants are uses of Force.  In every game I'm aware of, the rules say mechanics are used to determine the success or failure of a_ PC action_.  If that result is just what the GM wants it to be, then, yes, your correct that it doesn't matter how the GM tells the players what idea the GM has and it doesn't really matter what the players try to have their PCs do.  This is gamestate is often referred to as a railroad.

The other side of the coin is that the GM has no agenda for play, and is engaged in play to find out what happens.  Blades in the Dark is the version of this play that I'm most familiar with, so I keep using it as an example.  In Blades play, there is no 'next thing' in the GM's head. The core concept of the game is that the PCs are a crew of criminals in the haunted city of Duskvol.  The players start a session of play by declaring what score they want -- who the target is, what the objective is, and how they'll start the score, ie, the initial fictional framing of the attempt.  The GM has no part in this, they have to take what's presented to them and go.  Then, the mechanics are engaged for the initial position of the game, the Engagement roll.  This can be good, bad, or both.  After the roll, the GM's job is to frame a scene involving all of the factors of the score and the engagement roll that puts the players in a spot so that play can begin.  The players react to being in a spot by declaring actions, which either work or generate a roll.  The outcome of the roll (good, bad, both) determines what constraints are on the GM for advancing the result.  The game is built for both good and bad to be the most common outcome, leading to increasing complications for the PCs (the snowball) which drives the action forward.  The GM is improvising in small chunks with tight constraints, so it's not really very hard to follow the lead of the game.  It also provides good recommendations and guidelines for play that, if embraced, make Blades one of the least burdensome on the GM games I've played.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 17, 2020)

pemerton said:


> In the Burning Wheel game where I'm a player we went to the Tower of Evard because my knight PC's wizard offsider wanted to check it out (mechanically: she succeeded on a Great Masters-wise check to correctly recall the location of Evard's tower in the Pomarj; so the GM had to introduce it into the fiction). When we got there we fought a demon, which didn't go to well but did earn my PC a new infamous reputation in hell as an Intransigent Demon Foe. Then, checking out Evard's tower, a result of a check (the mechanical and full framing details now escape me) resulted in my PC finding old letters that seemed to imply that Evard, the demon summoner (it seems) is my mother's father. (My relationship with my mother and my Belief about my family are elements of my PC build.) That's an unhappy revelation - an _unwelcome truth_ in AW terms. I don't know how much the GM anticipated something along those lines, but he can't have planned anything about Evard too far ahead given that Evard and his tower were only introduced as elements in the shared fiction because of a successful check made for an offsider whom I generally control and which on this occasion I declared and rolled.




If I had to summarise this rather crudely, player rolls for a desired location (presumably to learn more about/find Evard) which becomes true in the fiction. DM introduces combat encounter at new location. Search ensues (unknown if successful or failure), which results in DM introducing content. I'm not convinced, from this example, that this idea wasn't prethought by the DM - whether it was Evard or someone else doesn't matter since all they needed to be established was that your mother's father was a demon summoner - that is it.

How does the _unhappy truth_ change your character mechanically?



> This sort of thing would, in my view, be an instance of the sort of _mechanics-drive-character-arc_ thaat @innerdude is talking about. (And using his holy grail system, Burning Wheel!)




I find that a more apt description, _mechanics-driven-character arc/play_ rather than the _character driven play._


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 17, 2020)

prabe said:


> One of my gaming groups tends to do Adventure Paths, and I hate them (the adventures; I love the people). There's nothing to engage with but the grind toward the Big Climax. I never conceive of the character as anything other than a bundle of mechanics. I don't care if we succeed at the Final Boss Fight. I actually kinda hope we don't, because I don't think the world in the Adventure Path is worth saving.
> 
> I believe we are very much on the same page here, possibly the same paragraph.



APs and similar structures can be fine if they're part of a bigger campaign; they then become in effect just one great big adventure broken into bite-size bits, and there's always the sense that the party can drop it and go do something else if so desired.

But a single AP as the entire campaign?  No thanks.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2020)

I think the BitD example falls of the rails a little when you take a closer look at what 'no agenda' means set next to what actually happens at the table. If the GM is making choices about what limited success looks like, or deciding what the cost of failure looks like, he is making those decision based on, to use the term above, an 'agenda'. The GM can't GM without doing this because the nature of that role at the table means constant decision making, and decisions are made on the basis of some criteria set or heuristic. Whatever that heuristic is, it's the GMs, not the players'. This is made even clearer when you look at the notion of fictional framing. It might indeed be the players who set the initial frame, but it's the GM who fills the frame so that the players can play. That filling of the initial frame is also a series of decisions, which are also made by the GM using some sort of heuristic. A third example is the one of consequences on a larger scale. To continue with the BitD example, iot is the GM, not the players, who largely decides what the broader implication of the player's actions will be - the reaction of other factions etc, and so again, we have decisions based on heuristic of some kind. In all three cases that heuristic will necessarily include value judgments about good and bad, better or worse, interesting and not interesting, and in all those cases based on the GMs idea about the fiction present at the table.

BitD might involve more back and forth when it comes to control over the fiction, but it's still a back and forth


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 17, 2020)

pemerton said:


> In the Burning Wheel game where I'm a player we went to the Tower of Evard because my knight PC's wizard offsider wanted to check it out (mechanically: she succeeded on a Great Masters-wise check to correctly recall the location of Evard's tower in the Pomarj; so the GM had to introduce it into the fiction). When we got there we fought a demon, which didn't go to well but did earn my PC a new infamous reputation in hell as an Intransigent Demon Foe. Then, checking out Evard's tower, a result of a check (the mechanical and full framing details now escape me) resulted in my PC finding old letters that seemed to imply that Evard, the demon summoner (it seems) is my mother's father. (My relationship with my mother and my Belief about my family are elements of my PC build.) That's an unhappy revelation - an _unwelcome truth_ in AW terms. I don't know how much the GM anticipated something along those lines, but he can't have planned anything about Evard too far ahead given that Evard and his tower were only introduced as elements in the shared fiction because of a successful check made for an offsider whom I generally control and which on this occasion I declared and rolled.



To riff off this example for a moment if I may, each GM's approach is going to be a bit different in terms of on-the-fly prep.

I know were I the GM here and the party decided to go to Evard's Tower (or some other on-a-whim location that hadn't ever come up before in the game), all I'd be thinking about whenever I had a spare moment during the session would be "what if"s.  What are they most likely to do, and of those what are the possible results if they do x, y, z, or a.  Also I'll consider even more basic things such as how many floors does it have, is there a dungeon or basement below, what condition is it all in, and so forth.

That way, when they get there and start interacting with the place I've half a clue in my own mind about some basics and thus don't trip myself up in contradictions - which I'm prone to do otherwise, and which I see as a rather unforgivable GM sin - and am also more likely to be able to react confidently to what they do as I've already thought it through even if only briefly.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 17, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I think the BitD example falls of the rails a little when you take a closer look at what 'no agenda' means set next to what actually happens at the table. If the GM is making choices about what limited success looks like, or deciding what the cost of failure looks like, he is making those decision based on, to use the term above, an 'agenda'. The GM can't GM without doing this because the nature of that role at the table means constant decision making, and decisions are made on the basis of some criteria set or heuristic. Whatever that heuristic is, it's the GMs, not the players'. This is made even clearer when you look at the notion of fictional framing. It might indeed be the players who set the initial frame, but it's the GM who fills the frame so that the players can play. That filling of the initial frame is also a series of decisions, which are also made by the GM using some sort of heuristic. A third example is the one of consequences on a larger scale. To continue with the BitD example, iot is the GM, not the players, who largely decides what the broader implication of the player's actions will be - the reaction of other factions etc, and so again, we have decisions based on heuristic of some kind. In all three cases that heuristic will necessarily include value judgments about good and bad, better or worse, interesting and not interesting, and in all those cases based on the GMs idea about the fiction present at the table.
> 
> BitD might involve more back and forth when it comes to control over the fiction, but it's still a back and forth




This is a good point. I don't think that any of the processes in BitD are free of GM judgment.....I think they require a good deal of it. But there are limitations in place that help guide that judgment, and I think those are a deterrent to the kind of Force in question. 

The mechanics of the game help guide the GMs judgment. It's not simply left entirely up the GM. 

I think in most games, the fiction of the game is likely to serve as a guide of how things go; the GM will make decisions based on how things were in the fiction. This is true of just about any game. With BitD, there are also some mechanics in place to decide such consequences and their severity.

So there are kind of two layers of constraint, in that sense, if we think of the fiction as constraining the GM's judgment (which I think we likely all would...I hope? ).

I hope that's clear. I didn't want to type up an overly long example.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I think the BitD example falls of the rails a little when you take a closer look at what 'no agenda' means set next to what actually happens at the table. If the GM is making choices about what limited success looks like, or deciding what the cost of failure looks like, he is making those decision based on, to use the term above, an 'agenda'. The GM can't GM without doing this because the nature of that role at the table means constant decision making, and decisions are made on the basis of some criteria set or heuristic. Whatever that heuristic is, it's the GMs, not the players'. This is made even clearer when you look at the notion of fictional framing. It might indeed be the players who set the initial frame, but it's the GM who fills the frame so that the players can play. That filling of the initial frame is also a series of decisions, which are also made by the GM using some sort of heuristic. A third example is the one of consequences on a larger scale. To continue with the BitD example, iot is the GM, not the players, who largely decides what the broader implication of the player's actions will be - the reaction of other factions etc, and so again, we have decisions based on heuristic of some kind. In all three cases that heuristic will necessarily include value judgments about good and bad, better or worse, interesting and not interesting, and in all those cases based on the GMs idea about the fiction present at the table.
> 
> BitD might involve more back and forth when it comes to control over the fiction, but it's still a back and forth



Yea, I think it's enough to say that the GM doesn't have any specific outcome in mind when framing the encounter to call it "Force-free".  Trying to get to the point where the GM doesn't have any sort of subconscious bias or preference towards any outcome, where the GM is a perfectly neutral arbiter, is probably a fool's errand.  Honestly, I don't think it sounds like a particularly fun endpoint even if it was possible; the GM should end up as a story contributer even if they're not pushing to a particular goal in a Force-free game.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> This is a good point. I don't think that any of the processes in BitD are free of GM judgment.....I think they require a good deal of it. But there are limitations in place that help guide that judgment, and I think those are a deterrent to the kind of Force in question.
> 
> The mechanics of the game help guide the GMs judgment. It's not simply left entirely up the GM.
> 
> ...



I'd agree with you, and with @TwoSix. I wasn't suggesting that there aren't limitations in place - different systems have all manner of rules, spoken and unspoken that are designed to limit or guide GM judgement. However, what is the case is that judgement on the part of the GM, agency if you will, or force, exists in every game at every table. It's also true that the extent to which a given GM conforms to those rules varies by GM and doesn't necessarily conform to the intent of the rules set. I'd like to get past the ephemeral fantasy of the entirely impartial GM because I think it makes talking about what matters a lot more difficult. What matters is the nature of the limitations on GM judgment, and I would submit that the nature of the judgment and what limitations apply are more a factor of the actual GM then of the rules set in question, however much the choice of system might betray a certain leaning one way or the other when it comes to ideas of force and agency.


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Yea, I think it's enough to say that the GM doesn't have any specific outcome in mind when framing the encounter to call it "Force-free".  Trying to get to the point where the GM doesn't have any sort of subconscious bias or preference towards any outcome, where the GM is a perfectly neutral arbiter, is probably a fool's errand.  Honestly, I don't think it sounds like a particularly fun endpoint even if it was possible; the GM should end up as a story contributer even if they're not pushing to a particular goal in a Force-free game.




I tend to concur with the two main points, here. If the GM has no deep-seated preference but is using their judgment in good faith, it's hard to exactly call it "Force." In my experience, this comes up in social encounters in game systems that don't have rules or mechanics for determination based on, e.g., a die roll. Or if a GM is trying to use something like the Passive Skills mechanic that is implicit in D&D 5E (to pick something I tend to do, in a system I know pretty well). I also think the GM can legitimately expect to be contributing to the story that emerges at the table, even if there's not a specific intent for the story to go a specific place.


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I'd agree with you, and with @TwoSix. I wasn't suggesting that there aren't limitations in place - different systems have all manner of rules, spoken and unspoken that are designed to limit or guide GM judgement. However, what is the case is that judgement on the part of the GM, agency if you will, or force, exists in every game at every table. It's also true that the extent to which a given GM conforms to those rules varies by GM and doesn't necessarily conform to the intent of the rules set. I'd like to get past the ephemeral fantasy of the entirely impartial GM because I think it makes talking about what matters a lot more difficult. What matters is the nature of the limitations on GM judgment, and I would submit that the nature of the judgment and what limitations apply are more a factor of the actual GM then of the rules set in question, however much the choice of system might betray a certain leaning one way or the other when it comes to ideas of force and agency.




I have a thought, which I have explored some but not extensively, that one can tell a lot about how principled a GM is by the constraints he puts on his own behavior. Not exactly how many, but which ones.

Seeing it, it seems kinda lacking, but I did say I haven't explored it much (even my my standards).


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 17, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I think the BitD example falls of the rails a little when you take a closer look at what 'no agenda' means set next to what actually happens at the table. If the GM is making choices about what limited success looks like, or deciding what the cost of failure looks like, he is making those decision based on, to use the term above, an 'agenda'. The GM can't GM without doing this because the nature of that role at the table means constant decision making, and decisions are made on the basis of some criteria set or heuristic. Whatever that heuristic is, it's the GMs, not the players'. This is made even clearer when you look at the notion of fictional framing. It might indeed be the players who set the initial frame, but it's the GM who fills the frame so that the players can play. That filling of the initial frame is also a series of decisions, which are also made by the GM using some sort of heuristic. A third example is the one of consequences on a larger scale. To continue with the BitD example, iot is the GM, not the players, who largely decides what the broader implication of the player's actions will be - the reaction of other factions etc, and so again, we have decisions based on heuristic of some kind. In all three cases that heuristic will necessarily include value judgments about good and bad, better or worse, interesting and not interesting, and in all those cases based on the GMs idea about the fiction present at the table.
> 
> BitD might involve more back and forth when it comes to control over the fiction, but it's still a back and forth




I don't have time to engage in detail or address the threads I left hanging.  But I just wanted to address this.

This comes up a lot and I think what is happening here is a fundamental misunderstanding of system and subbing the deeply intertwined, holistic nature of system agenda, principles, and GMing guidance (which yields huge GM constraint) with some level (how unbridled I'm not sure, but its not a significant level of bridling) of "GM discretion/decides."

Upthread, I delineated "Players say", "GM's say", and "System's say."

A significant bulk of what you're invoking above in Blades (and in @Ovinomancer 's example) is "System's say" (in all 3 of (a) how the GM is constrained, (b) the order of operations by which GM judgements must be made to stay in accordance with the rules and ethos of the game, and (c) how player-facing all of this is), not "GM's say".  Also, where its not "System's say" its one part "GM's say" and one part the synthesis of the "say" of all 3 (because its all bound by a focused play premise that is "System's say").

I've tried to explain this in many different threads, but it appears to me that its extremely difficult to conceive (particularly if you're steeped in an alternative paradigm) unless you experience running/playing the games (and likely more than once).


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> I don't have time to engage in detail or address the threads I left hanging.  But I just wanted to address this.
> 
> This comes up a lot and I think what is happening here is a fundamental misunderstanding of system and subbing the deeply intertwined, holistic nature of system agenda, principles, and GMing guidance (which yields huge GM constraint) with some level (how unbridled I'm not sure, but its not a significant level of bridling) of "GM discretion/decides."
> 
> ...



I don't disagree with you in general. My point was more about how the presence of 'GM says' is only partially limited by system, and never entirely absent and that there are a whole bunch of levels at which a GM can interact with the notion of those limits that index a whole range of unstated notions about 'GM force'. Moreover, what you're describing happens in every game, not just ones that have explicit mechanics in place, the difference being that in games with less mechanics the conventions and expectations on the parts of both player and GM are far more unspoken. What's important is the extent to which the GM conforms to the expectations of the table when it comes to exerting what could be called GM force, not, I think, the extent to which that force might in certain circumstances be more or less constrained by the system.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I don't disagree with you in general. My point was more about how the presence of 'GM says' is only partially limited by system, and never entirely absent and that there are a whole bunch of levels at which a GM can interact with the notion of those limits that index a whole range of unstated notions about 'GM force'. Moreover, what you're describing happens in every game, not just ones that have explicit mechanics in place, the difference being that in games with less mechanics the conventions and expectations on the parts of both player and GM are far more unspoken. What's important is the extent to which the GM conforms to the expectations of the table when it comes to exerting what could be called GM force, not, I think, the extent to which that force might in certain circumstances be more or less constrained by the system.



I hear what you're saying.  The idea that the GM will bend the game in order to deliver a more potent dramatic experience is so imbedded in the gaming community at-large that it becomes an unspoken part of most tables' social contract.  A GM who follows a game's play agenda exactly might even be viewed as abdicating their responsibility to "make the game better" by following the game's stated play agenda.  

It really takes a GM and a group of players who are aware of these play considerations to bring out the best scenarios for these type of games.  No amount of "the game works best if you follow this play agenda" direction can correct for a table expectation of "tell us a story."


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 17, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I don't disagree with you in general. My point was more about how the presence of 'GM says' is only partially limited by system, and never entirely absent and that there are a whole bunch of levels at which a GM can interact with the notion of those limits that index a whole range of unstated notions about 'GM force'. Moreover, what you're describing happens in every game, not just ones that have explicit mechanics in place, the difference being that in games with less mechanics the conventions and expectations on the parts of both player and GM are far more unspoken. What's important is the extent to which the GM conforms to the expectations of the table when it comes to exerting what could be called GM force, not, I think, the extent to which that force might in certain circumstances be more or less constrained by the system.




I think here is what I would say is the overarching profile for "the extent to which the GM conforms to those expectations":

1)  How explicitly constraining is the rules text/play premise on the GM?

2)  How explicit is the authority distributed in play?

3)  Does the system have some equivalent tenet to "play by the rules" and "play to find out" or, conversely, does the system have some equivalent tenet to "the GM should change/alter/disregard the rules at their discretion in order to achieve some sort of storytelling or entertainment imperative?"

4)  Is the game particularly codified and player-facing?

5)  Does the aggregate of (1), (2), (3) (the first equivalent tenets), and (4) routinely produce the sort of play depicted as a trivial formality of just playing the game?


If 1-4 are answered in a certain way and the answer to 5 is "yes", then I would say that GMs become considerably more apt to conform to those expectations (as in nearing total adherence).


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 17, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I don't disagree with you in general. My point was more about how the presence of 'GM says' is only partially limited by system, and never entirely absent and that there are a whole bunch of levels at which a GM can interact with the notion of those limits that index a whole range of unstated notions about 'GM force'. Moreover, what you're describing happens in every game, not just ones that have explicit mechanics in place, the difference being that in games with less mechanics the conventions and expectations on the parts of both player and GM are far more unspoken. What's important is the extent to which the GM conforms to the expectations of the table when it comes to exerting what could be called GM force, not, I think, the extent to which that force might in certain circumstances be more or less constrained by the system.




I think a big part of this is about the outcome itself. The Pass/Fail state should not be subverted by GM Force. The roll determines success or failure. Sure, the GM then needs to determine the specific results;as you say this is present to varying degree in just about any game....but he doesn't get to decide if you succeed or fail at something (something significant, at least). That's what the dice are for. 

I think this is where game mechanics can come into it. In the absence of a rule system to determine success or failure, most games default to "then the GM decides". Whether this is good or not is the question, and of course it's subjective. Earlier in the thread, the topic of social encounters came up, and many advocated that no mechanics were needed for these; the players should simply say what their characters say or do (or paraphrase, at least) to convince the target of their way of thinking. Here, the Success or Failure of this task is entirely in the hands of the GM. 

Some folks may be fine with that. Others may not. Still others may be fine with it sometimes or in some games. But I think that in most instances, there's a pretty big difference between this mode of play and one which the success or failure is up to some kind of roll or check, and the form that the success or failure takes is then up to the GM (and even those may have more constraint from game mechanics).


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Earlier in the thread, the topic of social encounters came up, and many advocated that no mechanics were needed for these; the players should simply say what their characters say or do (or paraphrase, at least) to convince the target of their way of thinking. Here, the Success or Failure of this task is entirely in the hands of the GM.
> 
> Some folks may be fine with that. Others may not. Still others may be fine with it sometimes or in some games. But I think that in most instances, there's a pretty big difference between this mode of play and one which the success or failure is up to some kind of roll or check, and the form that the success or failure takes is then up to the GM (and even those may have more constraint from game mechanics).




I think it *can* work well, which isn't the same thing as saying I think it *will* work well, and I have a strong preference for at least skills in the category, for reasons.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> I hear what you're saying.  The idea that the GM will bend the game in order to deliver a more potent dramatic experience is so imbedded in the gaming community at-large that it becomes an unspoken part of most tables' social contract.  A GM who follows a game's play agenda exactly might even be viewed as abdicating their responsibility to "make the game better" by following the game's stated play agenda.
> 
> It really takes a GM and a group of players who are aware of these play considerations to bring out the best scenarios for these type of games.  No amount of "the game works best if you follow this play agenda" direction can correct for a table expectation of "tell us a story."



I don't even really think that 'bending the game' is a bad thing in and of itself. As you say, the expectations of the table are a larger determining factor on the idea of acceptability than any grander ideas about GM force. Personally, I think the most important factor is the extent to which the GM and players agree about what's acceptable, and the extent to which both sides abide by that contract, spoken or unspoken, during actual play. What that sets aside is the idea that any variant of GM force can in a vacuum be said to be better or worse than any other. If the level of GM force meets the expectations of the table then it is, by default, good, regardless of what any particular player or GM might prefer about what their individual table looks like.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 17, 2020)

I think this conversation has continued without anyone asking and answer the obvious question:

"Under what circumstances and for what reasons would a GM use Force?"

There are corner cases, but broadly, I would say the answer to the question becomes:

"Because simply adhering to the rules and/or authority distribution of the game doesn't provide the desired experience."

But....

What about the case when it does?

Why would a GM use Force then?


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> I think this conversation has continued without anyone asking and answer the obvious question:
> 
> "Under what circumstances and for what reasons would a GM use Force?"
> 
> ...




Seems like the obvious answer is that there's a difference in "the desired game experience." Obvious case is the GM wants one experience, the players want another.

This possibly includes cases where party solves problem before GM got to bring out some marvelously constructed Big Bad Thing, so the GM uses Force to bring out that Big Bad Thing, to show it off. Or maybe this is a different answer.

I wouldn't call a GM who used Force or either of those reasons a GM I'd prefer to play with.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> I think this conversation has continued without anyone asking and answer the obvious question:
> 
> "Under what circumstances and for what reasons would a GM use Force?"
> 
> ...



Because he's a jerkwad that thinks his enjoyment of the game is more important that anyone else's? It's not really any different that the kind of player who will insist on going off-piste simply because he wants to be in charge of the fiction. In both cases the individual isn't (probably isn't) adhering to the social contract of the table. I do think that a GM, in any system, has more choices where "desired experience" is a major component of his heuristic, and GMs generally have more opportunities to upset the apple cart by not conforming to table expectations.

it's possible that we also have subtly (or not so) differences in how we're using the term 'GM force'.


----------



## Numidius (Feb 17, 2020)

Fear of improvising
Lazyness
One true wayness


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 17, 2020)

@prabe and @Fenris-77 

I would say both of those cases fall under:

"Because simply adhering to the rules and/or authority distribution of the game doesn't yield the desired experience.”

In prabe’s case, there is no table consensus on the desired experience (therefore the game doesn’t yield the desired experience.).

In Fenris’s case, the GM is unhappy with the game’s hardwired authority distribution and wants more power over narrative trajectory (therefore the game doesn’t yield the desired experience.).


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 17, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> I think this conversation has continued without anyone asking and answer the obvious question:
> 
> "Under what circumstances and for what reasons would a GM use Force?"
> 
> ...




I know I've used it when, for whatever reason, the gaming session is just not all that fun for everyone. When that happens, I've "stepped in" to make sure things move in what I hope will be a more interesting direction. Preferably, the players would be the ones to instigate this shift, but if not, then I've done it.

I used to do it in my early days to keep the game focused on the material I had prepared and/or wanted to run. I was less comfortable with coming up with things on the fly than I am now, or with relinquishing authorial control.



Manbearcat said:


> But....
> 
> What about the case when it does?
> 
> Why would a GM use Force then?




It's hard to say for me. The absence of relevant mechanics to determine an outcome that's in question, maybe?

Barring any kind of broken play that needs correcting (bad players, bad GM, bad match of the two, or similar), I'm really not sure. If things are going according to plan, then it's hard to justify forcing them back on track. Why would there be a need?


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> @prabe and @Fenris-77
> 
> I would say both of those cases fall under:
> 
> ...




So, your answer to why the GM uses Force in the case where adhering to the rules and/or authority distribution of the game is "Because simply adhering to the rules and/or authority distribution of the game doesn't yield the desired experience.” That seems about as helpful as an infinite loop.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 17, 2020)

prabe said:


> So, your answer to why the GM uses Force in the case where adhering to the rules and/or authority distribution of the game is "Because simply adhering to the rules and/or authority distribution of the game doesn't yield the desired experience.” That seems about as helpful as an infinite loop.




I think you've got appraisal of the situation slightly off.  Its not really a tautology.  What we have is this arrangement:

"Stuff works.  Why do something else?"

The response cannot then be to say:

"Stuff doesn't work, that's why."

If you're saying that stuff *cannot *work, then that is another conversation.

However, I agree with both of you that those two cases you've cited are archetypal cases where GM's use Force (because the desired experience hasn't been met through simply playing the game by the rules.).  There is a huge amount of utility in figuring out all the use cases of that (which we can certainly do now!), but that isn't what I was asking.


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> I think you've got appraisal of the situation slightly off.  Its not really a tautology.  What we have is this arrangement:
> 
> "Stuff works.  Why do something else?"
> 
> ...




Fair enough. I think, then, that the only reason would be some misunderstanding on the GM's part. Either the GM misunderstands the rules, or the GM misunderstands the desired experience. That's still bad GMing, but it's not willfully bad GMing (which both @Fenris-77 and I were thinking likely, I think).

I'm guessing you'll say this is still a case of stuff not working, but I'd say it's a case of someone not knowing something is working.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 17, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I know I've used it when, for whatever reason, the gaming session is just not all that fun for everyone. When that happens, I've "stepped in" to make sure things move in what I hope will be a more interesting direction. Preferably, the players would be the ones to instigate this shift, but if not, then I've done it.
> 
> I used to do it in my early days to keep the game focused on the material I had prepared and/or wanted to run. I was less comfortable with coming up with things on the fly than I am now, or with relinquishing authorial control.




In this case above, were you nullifying one or more player's input in order to wrest control of the gamestate and the overall trajectory of play toward your preferred gamestate/trajectory?



> It's hard to say for me. The absence of relevant mechanics to determine an outcome that's in question, maybe?




I may need t know more, but this doesn't sound like a case of Force to me.  So long as a participant's input isn't being willfully nullified in order for the GM to maintain control of the gamestate/trajectory of play, then this just sounds like bog-standardm, corner-case adjudication that happens in most all games.  



> Barring any kind of broken play that needs correcting (bad players, bad GM, bad match of the two, or similar), I'm really not sure. If things are going according to plan, then it's hard to justify forcing them back on track. Why would there be a need?




Agreed.  This is where I'm at.  If we can agree that this state is attainable, then why, if this state has been attained sans-Force, would there be a need for Force?


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 17, 2020)

prabe said:


> Fair enough. I think, then, that the only reason would be some misunderstanding on the GM's part. Either the GM misunderstands the rules, or the GM misunderstands the desired experience. That's still bad GMing, but it's not willfully bad GMing (which both @Fenris-77 and I were thinking likely, I think).
> 
> I'm guessing you'll say this is still a case of stuff not working, but I'd say it's a case of someone not knowing something is working.




There you go!

That is the answer I was looking for.

"Stuff working but someone not knowing something is working."

Great post.  I felt like there was something out there just beyond my reach but I couldn't think of it.  That's it!

I think another thing may be "stuff is working, but the GM is afraid that this is a fluke and it won't continue to work."


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> Agreed.  This is where I'm at.  If we can agree that this state is attainable, then why, if this state has been attained sans-Force, would there be a need for Force?



I agree with this and @prabe 's response. Both that the state is attainable and also that the use of force in a situation where it has been attained is questionable and likely indexes either poor intentions toward the social contract or a lack of understanding of the state. Setting aside cases of willfully bad GMing I think we have something interesting to talk about.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 17, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> In this case above, were you nullifying one or more player's input in order to wrest control of the gamestate and the overall trajectory of play toward your preferred gamestate/trajectory?




In some cases, probably, yeah. Most of those cases would have likely been to apply Force to end one player's overindulgence in roleplaying mundane encounters in order to allow things to move along for everyone else. 

I'm sure I could try and come up with more egregious examples if I gave it some thought. But this is years ago.

More recently, when running a prepared adventure for 5E (and likely my last time doing so) I totally narrated the results of a path that the PCs had set upon. To summarize quickly, the archvillain of the story is the Lich Acererak, and the PCs need to brave his dungeon, the Tomb of Annihilation, in order to break a curse that he's set upon the land. The dungeon is filled with all manner of traps and monsters and so on. There is one part of the Tomb that is actually an extradimensional testing ground for the traps. Almost a "beta" version of the tomb. Kind of an interesting concept, I thought. 

But I don't know if it was an interesting concept for play. My players wandered into the beta version but with no understanding of what it was. The book suggests that it is an exact duplicate of the Tomb, except with no inhabitants. I realized that this was going to cause more frustration than fun as they tried to (a)figure this out, (b)put this knowledge to meaningful use, and (c)require me to track positions of the party across two identical dungeons, and what had been uncovered in which location, and what had not. 

So when this all dawned on me, I simply narrated "You realize that you've wandered into a demiplane that is a duplicate of the tomb, likely a testing ground for the traps and hazards Acererak has used" and called it a day. 

I don't know if this counts as nullifying their decision, but I certainly altered the outcome to be different than it would have if we played it out as the book suggested.



Manbearcat said:


> I may need t know more, but this doesn't sound like a case of Force to me.  So long as a participant's input isn't being willfully nullified in order for the GM to maintain control of the gamestate/trajectory of play, then this just sounds like bog-standardm, corner-case adjudication that happens in most all games.




So I suppose GM Fiat isn't always the same as GM Force.....that if the system in place says "The Gm Decides" is the method of adjudication, then that is not a case of Force. 




Manbearcat said:


> Agreed.  This is where I'm at.  If we can agree that this state is attainable, then why, if this state has been attained sans-Force, would there be a need for Force?




This would seem to imply that it must be a breach of process, whether willing or unwilling. 

But I'm not sure if that jibes with some earlier talking points in the thread.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I think the BitD example falls of the rails a little when you take a closer look at what 'no agenda' means set next to what actually happens at the table. If the GM is making choices about what limited success looks like, or deciding what the cost of failure looks like, he is making those decision based on, to use the term above, an 'agenda'. The GM can't GM without doing this because the nature of that role at the table means constant decision making, and decisions are made on the basis of some criteria set or heuristic. Whatever that heuristic is, it's the GMs, not the players'. This is made even clearer when you look at the notion of fictional framing. It might indeed be the players who set the initial frame, but it's the GM who fills the frame so that the players can play. That filling of the initial frame is also a series of decisions, which are also made by the GM using some sort of heuristic. A third example is the one of consequences on a larger scale. To continue with the BitD example, iot is the GM, not the players, who largely decides what the broader implication of the player's actions will be - the reaction of other factions etc, and so again, we have decisions based on heuristic of some kind. In all three cases that heuristic will necessarily include value judgments about good and bad, better or worse, interesting and not interesting, and in all those cases based on the GMs idea about the fiction present at the table.
> 
> BitD might involve more back and forth when it comes to control over the fiction, but it's still a back and forth



I think this says many good things, but still misses the mark. Force is about overriding player input to acheive the GM's desured result.  If the GM is just participating in creating the fiction according to their role on the game, Force isn't present.  Of course the GM will have input into the fiction!


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I think this says many good things, but still misses the mark. Force is about overriding player input to acheive the GM's desured result.  If the GM is just participating in creating the fiction according to their role on the game, Force isn't present.  Of course the GM will have input into the fiction!



All I was getting at is that the idea of force is a lot more nuanced than just pertaining to obvious and overt instances of "overriding player input". There is always a tension between the player's and GM's various inputs into the fiction and the GM always has a desired result, and his choices as GM generally index that desired result. I think it's missing the mark to try and make the distinction you're trying to make. I might be suborning the common usage of 'GM force' here, but I'm doing it on purpose. The GMs whole job is to use his input into the fiction, whatever that is, to try and help create the best version of whatever the social contract at the table has decided is the optimal play experience (ideally anyway). With multiple players there are enough competing inputs at the table that even a good GM with honorable intentions is going to have to pick and choose and occasionally override individual player input just to keep the ball rolling. I'm not suggesting that this is a bad thing, rather the opposite in fact, what's important though is that the definition of GM force that gets bandied around would also apply to my example.

Specifically, I feel like we need to move beyond the notion that the idea of 'players' is monolithic at the table. That admission allows us to press the discussion past the rather tired notion of 'sides' into the realm of the actually descriptive when it comes to parsing what actually happens at the table.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 18, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Specifically, I feel like we need to move beyond the notion that the idea of 'players' is monolithic at the table. That admission allows us to press the discussion past the rather tired notion of 'sides' into the realm of the actually descriptive when it comes to parsing what actually happens at the table.




Can you clarify the usage of "monolithic" in the first sentence here, please?

Are you using this to say "at any given moment of play, there will be competing interests among the participants as to how the gamestate will progress from _here _to _there_?"

If so, I completely agree with that (and I damn sure hope so...play would be unbelievably static without that!).

However, I wonder if you're also saying something else alongside that (and you can correct me if I'm wrong):

1)  Because of these competing micro-interests there can't be table consensus on macro issues (most importantly to this discussion "how authority is distributed and how to resolve the way _gamestate a _evolves to _gamestate b)._

2)  Because of the premise of (1), the big macro questions cannot be offloaded onto system, but rather must be either (a) handled by a "lead participant" (GM-type) or (b) achieved via consensus-building on a case-by-case basis.

That I don't agree with.



Take the following Dungeon World move from The Dashing Hero playbook.

*A Lover In Every Port (CHA)*
When you enter a town that you’ve been to before (your call), roll +CHA. On a 10+, there’s an old flame of yours who is willing to assist you somehow. On a 7-9, they’re willing to help you, for a price. On a miss, your romantic misadventures make life more complicated for the party.

You might have 4 different participants at the table (GM and 3 players.

Upon disembarking to Blacksalt Flats from the ship they hired, they may each have diverging ideas about what they want to do right now (Sally wants to Resupply, Jack wants to hit the inn to Rest and Recover before things go pear-shaped, Burglenurp wants to Consult the Oracle about an omen of ill portent that they were hit with on the journey...while the GM is most excited about a complication from the possible A Lover In Every Port move but is playing Dungeon World because it lets them "play to find out what happens").

However, everyone can agree:

1)  If whomever is playing The Dashing Hero in the group decides that they've been to Blacksalt Flats before, that triggers the move above and we have to find out what happens.

2)  Then they can agree that if The Dashing Hero player rolls a 6 or less that the GM is obliged to create some sort of significant, "romantic misadventure" problem for them that either manifests right now or they're about to be "put on notice" that something thematically relevant is looming and must be dealt with (meaning it follows the GM Move format).  So there is no opting out of this content generation procedure by any participant.  We're all beholden to the system's mandate, agenda, and our particular roles that will keep precipitate play snowballing with dangerous adventure where we all get to play to find out what happens.



Thoughts?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 18, 2020)

My usage of monolithic there was pointed at the way participants in discussions like this one tend to refer to 'player' agency, for example, as if all the players are identical or identically aligned, or that 'players' somehow defines one side of a binary opposition (GM/Players). My contention is very much your first example - that there will always be multiple and competing interests from the participants as to the development of the gamestate. Exactly how those multiple and potentially competing interests get resolved has an enormous range of possibilities depending on system, table contract, and the individuals involved. My personal preference is to play games where as much as possible can be offloaded onto system, both by rules design, and by mutual accord among the individuals.

I don't have any issues with your example, and I agree with both points one and two.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 18, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> More recently, when running a prepared adventure for 5E (and likely my last time doing so) I totally narrated the results of a path that the PCs had set upon. ... There is one part of the Tomb that is actually an extradimensional testing ground for the traps. Almost a "beta" version of the tomb. Kind of an interesting concept, I thought.
> 
> But I don't know if it was an interesting concept for play. My players wandered into the beta version but with no understanding of what it was. The book suggests that it is an exact duplicate of the Tomb, except with no inhabitants. I realized that this was going to cause more frustration than fun as they tried to (a)figure this out, (b)put this knowledge to meaningful use, and (c)require me to track positions of the party across two identical dungeons, and what had been uncovered in which location, and what had not.
> 
> So when this all dawned on me, I simply narrated "You realize that you've wandered into a demiplane that is a duplicate of the tomb, likely a testing ground for the traps and hazards Acererak has used" and called it a day.



Yeah, given this info I'd call this Force.

Unfortunately, there'll now be no way of knowing whether it was justified or not, in that you were kinda guessing how your players would react to the bits you skipped (unless there's more you haven't said).  Further, you admit to having your own bias in point c), in not looking forward to the work you'd have to do.

It's possible your players might have enjoyed the sub-dungeon, for all I know. 



> I don't know if this counts as nullifying their decision, but I certainly altered the outcome to be different than it would have if we played it out as the book suggested.



You also altered the course of play in that whatever resources they'd have used in the sub-dungeon didn't get used, whatever knowledge and-or treasure they might have gained there they didn't get, and so forth.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 18, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> Can you clarify the usage of "monolithic" in the first sentence here, please?
> 
> Are you using this to say "at any given moment of play, there will be competing interests among the participants as to how the gamestate will progress from _here _to _there_?"
> 
> ...



Macro interests are nothing more than accumulated micro-interests (or flipped around, lots of micro-interests add up to macro-interests).

Before play begins there can be consensus on all sorts of meta-issues and interests, but once play gets going and the characters start doing their thing then progress from _here_ to _there_ is the same thing as progress from _gamestate a_ to _gamestate b_, only on a different scale.



> 2)  Because of the premise of (1), the big macro questions cannot be offloaded onto system, but rather must be either (a) handled by a "lead participant" (GM-type) or (b) achieved via consensus-building on a case-by-case basis.



Or c) left as open disagreements, resulting in a roleplayed split of the party as two groups go off to do two things.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 18, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Yeah, given this info I'd call this Force.
> 
> Unfortunately, there'll now be no way of knowing whether it was justified or not, in that you were kinda guessing how your players would react to the bits you skipped (unless there's more you haven't said).  Further, you admit to having your own bias in point c), in not looking forward to the work you'd have to do.
> 
> ...




This is all accurate, except that I know it was justified!  

I realized the problem when two party members went down the looping hallway that led to the demiplane, and I realized there’d now be two groups and it would all be a nightmare. 

If I had to do it all again, the only thing I’d do different is not run a pre-written adventure!


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 18, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> This is all accurate, except that I know it was justified!
> 
> I realized the problem when two party members went down the looping hallway that led to the demiplane, and I realized there’d now be two groups and it would all be a nightmare.



Different strokes, I guess: what you call a DM nightmare I'd see as a DM challenge, to see if I could pull it off. 



> If I had to do it all again, the only thing I’d do different is not run a pre-written adventure!



Stuff like this can just as easily happen in a homebrew adventure...all it needs is the party to a) disagree over which way to go next, b) dig in their heels, and then c) split up.....


----------



## pemerton (Feb 18, 2020)

Sadras said:


> If I had to summarise this rather crudely, player rolls for a desired location (presumably to learn more about/find Evard) which becomes true in the fiction. DM introduces combat encounter at new location. Search ensues (unknown if successful or failure), which results in DM introducing content. I'm not convinced, from this example, that this idea wasn't prethought by the DM - whether it was Evard or someone else doesn't matter since all they needed to be established was that your mother's father was a demon summoner - that is it.



Evard appeared in the fiction because I (playing my character's offsider) successfully conjectured about his tower being nearby (the offsider has a Belief that _I'm not going to finish my career with no spellbooks and an empty purse!)_. But for that, I don't think there would have been a demon summoner.

There's little doubt that the GM was going to do something with my PC's family - I have two Relationships, with my offsider and my mother, and the Belief that _Harm and infamy will befall Auxol_ [my family's estate, fallen on hard times] _no more! _So it would be remiss of him not to apply pressure there.

But what form it was going to take - it seems to me far more likely that that was decided either on the spot, or he came up with an idea between sessions - after we had got to Evard's tower but before we looked around it.

In any event, it's not GM force. _GM force _isn't a synonym for GM exercising authority to introduce content. In most more-or-less traditional RPGs (of which BW is one) the GM has an obligation to introduce content _all the time_. (In a system like Apocalypse World that's practically all that the GM does; in BW the GM also has to declare actions and roll dice for NPCs/creatures.)

@Manbearcat has charcterised _GM force _as_ Manipulation of the gamestate (typically covert) by a GM which nullifies (or in slightly more benign cases; modifies) player input in order to form or maintain a narrative that conforms to the GM's vision. _The example of play I've described doesn't involve any "manipulation of the gamestate", covert or otherwise, that nullifies or modifies player inpute - there's GM narration of consequences that respond to actions declared by me for my character(s, if you include the offsider) and, as per the rules of the game, pay attention to PC Beliefs, Relationships etc.



Sadras said:


> How does the _unhappy truth_ change your character mechanically?



At this point it doesn't change my PC sheet. It changes my character's place in the fiction, and that might in due course change things on my sheet (eg I have the authority to change my character's Beliefs; Relationships can be lost as a consequence of failed action resolution if that would make sense in the fiction). This is not too different from the NIghcrawler arc that I described upthread - the mechanics of action resolution produce the arc; the arc creates a context where it makes sense for the player, given the situation, to change the character (in that case, one of Nightcrawler's Distinctions was changed - I think _Devout Catholic _became something like _The Devil Within_).

Given the rules that govern a Burning Wheel GM, the unhappy truth also works in much the same way that a "soft move" does in a PbtA game: it's the GM's job to build on it and see how it snowballs. As a player I have strong incentives to engage with it, because engaging my Beliefs (which doesn't necessarily mean sticking to them or pursuing them - it might mean dramatically changing or abandoning them), which in the fiction now means engaging this unwelcome truth, is how I earn the Fate and Persona points I need if my PC is going to succeed at challenging checks.

To go back to the issue of GM pre-scripting - as a Burning Wheel GM, there's no need. _GM force_ as @Manbearcat characterises it - which I would tend to call "illusionism" - was a technique developed primarily to deliver story in spite of the mechanics/system because the latter, being essentially wargame/exploration rules, wouldn't do it on their own. Burning Wheel has some rules that resemble wargame rules (eg its combat minigames). But it has crucial rules that don't resemble wargame rules - for instance, PC build rules that contain elements like Beliefs and Relationships; and GM-directing rules around how to set up situations and narrate consequences having regard to, and putting pressure, on those things. (Ie no neutral refereeing!)

Force would just be a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 18, 2020)

Maybe I already posted this - some of these threads are blurring together in my mind - but in any event it bears reiterating: _GM force _is not the same thing as _GM narration _or _the GM establishing consequences_. In every traditional RPG - every one that has a distinct "GM" role - the GM adds to the fiction, and often (even typically) more than any single other participant at the table.

The notion of _force _is trying to get at a particular way of doing that - as @Manbearcat has described it, by ignoring or modifying player input. Or as I would typically describe it, by overriding or manipulating the (notional) action resolution mechanics. Although not synonymous descriptions, mine and Manbearcat's will mostly if not always overlap in the actual phenomena that they capture.

Something that has not come up much directly in this thread, but is a very big deal for me (in part because it explains basically every unsatisfactory RPGIng experience I've ever had), is when the GM determines the outcomes of action resolution not by reference to the scene as framed, but by reference to off-screen elements that are not known to the players. It's mostly to cover this phenomenon that I include "manipulating" in my description - because it's not necessarily an _overriding_ of action resolution in the strictest sense.


----------



## prabe (Feb 18, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Something that has not come up much directly in this thread, but is a very big deal for me (in part because it explains basically every unsatisfactory RPGIng experience I've ever had), is when the GM determines the outcomes of action resolution not by reference to the scene as framed, but by reference to off-screen elements that are not known to the players. It's mostly to cover this phenomenon that I include "manipulating" in my description - because it's not necessarily an _overriding_ of action resolution in the strictest sense.




Um. Wouldn't the to-hit tables in 1E AD&D have technically been an off-screen element not known to the players? Or are you meaning something other than mechanics here (I suspect you are)?


----------



## Numidius (Feb 18, 2020)

"Because reasons!"


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> No amount of "the game works best if you follow this play agenda" direction can correct for a table expectation of "tell us a story."



That seems plausible. But then why would such a group waste their time with (say) BitD or Apocalypse World or even Fate? Basic Roleplaying in some appropriate variant would seem the right system for them!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2020)

prabe said:


> Um. Wouldn't the to-hit tables in 1E AD&D have technically been an off-screen element not known to the players? Or are you meaning something other than mechanics here (I suspect you are)?



By _element_ I intended "element of the fiction". By _off-screen_ I mean not established in the shared fiction of the situation currently unfolding at the table.

Secret mechanical processes were regarded as desirable by Gygax for whatever reasons, but I think the history of RPGing has shown that that is not really practical. Even in 1st ed AD&D, notionally secret processes about finding secret doors end up being presented to players via the racial write-ups for elves and half-elves. Moldvay Basic completely abandons this particular conceit.

I don't know enough about the wargaming of the period to know whether and to what extent it influenced this particular aspect of Gygax's presentation. Oddly enough it wasn't part of OD&D (where any player can read Men & Magic and/or Chainmail and see the to-hit matrices).


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think a big part of this is about the outcome itself. The Pass/Fail state should not be subverted by GM Force. The roll determines success or failure.



This is where framing and "secret backstory" (ie elements of the fiction as understood by the GM that are not shared by the players) become crucial.

If a player declares _I seem to recall Evard's tower is somewhere around here, isn't it? _and then suggests a knowldege check to resolve the matter, what are the ranges of permitted GM response? (And let's assume that the player's suggestion is consistent with general tone, genre and established fiction, so there isn't a need for the GM or other participants to police it from a coherence/appropriateness perspective.)

Is there a difference between the GM saying (for instance), and without a roll, _You don't know_ and _No, we're not doing Evard's tower at this point_? I think there is.

The second is upfront assertion of GM control over backstory and situation. Of course, if the system being played allows for knowledge checks to be used by a player to control, or at least influence, backstory and situation then the second, while upfront, is still clear force contrary to the rules of the game. (And I take the actual example from the Burning Wheel game where I'm a player, and I declared the action for my PC's offsider, and then made a Great Masters-wise check, and succeeded - with the result that we made our way to Evard's tower! It would have been flat-out wrong for the GM to exercise force in lieu of allowing the check.)

The first to me smacks of an illusionistic version of the second. (The more extreme illusionism would be to allow the check but give the same answer regardless of the result.) The GM is controlling the shared fiction but presenting that control in "in-fiction" terms. Do this enough for various sorts of action declaration and the result becomes something like a railroad. On the other hand, I think it's in this thread that @Manbearcat flagged the fact that some players/participants are perturbed by clear procedures and upfront answers. They may not want the (immersion-breaking?) response W_e're not doing Evard's tower_. For those groups GM force I think is inevitably going to figure prominently in resolution.

There have been posts saying that force might be used when the rules themselves don't give the experience desired, or when it's not appreciated that they do. But if the experience desired includes never knowing the actual reason why the GM makes decisions (like _we're not doing Evard's tower tonight_) then there may be no way out of force for that group. For my part, the only satisfactory RPG experiences I think I've had using such an approach are CoC one-shots.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Most of those cases would have likely been to apply Force to end one player's overindulgence in roleplaying mundane encounters in order to allow things to move along for everyone else.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Both these cases are strong assertions of GM authority over scene-framing. I don't necessarily see that they're force because in neither case does there seem to be any action resolution going on.

That second claim might be contentious - but if we say that _action resolution_ means some meaningful change in either the mechanical situation, or the fictional situation, or both, then I think it's plausible. Your mundane encounters (I'm assuming this is talking-to-shopkeepers stuff) seem (if I may be so bold) mere time-wasting colour. The second one maybe is meant to involve resource consumption? But it's also a safe place where they can rest and get back their spells and hp? And at least as you present it no actions had really been declared. (In my Illusionism thread I mentioned Roger Musson's union meeting of ogres, to stop the players going down a corridor that the GM hasn't written up yet. The line between that, and what you did, might be fine but I think it's worth noting. You didn't leave the players' action declarations on foot and narrate further content and consequences. You just reframed the whole situation.)

This goes back to something I think I posted upthread (again, I've got thread-merging-confusion) - if all GM decisions about the fiction are equated with force than the latter concept becomes analytically unhelpful.

There is a widespread view that the GM framing scenes is railroading unless they're scenes with a "quest-giver" in a tavern so that the players have the (at least notional choice) of taking the quest or keeping on chatting with the barmaid. But I think you only have to state the view plainly to see it's pretty implausible. Of course strong scene-framing might be contrary to some agreed point of a game - say dungeon-crawling or hex-crawling - but that doesn't make it force. Not all bad GMing, or poorly-judged narration, is force.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> There is always a tension between the player's and GM's various inputs into the fiction and the GM always has a desired result, and his choices as GM generally index that desired result.



This claim is pretty controversial. And I think it's false.

The last session I played, a week and a half ago, was my Cortex+ LotR Hack. I still haven't written it up, but one thing that happened was that Gandalf defeated a Nazgul. I didn't have a desired result as to whether or not that would happen.

Our session before that was Classic Traveller. One PC got knocked unconscious twice by Aliens (deliberate capitalisation there). I didn't desire that that happen, nor that it not. It was just how things played out from the framing.

Of course I have desires around the framing - I introduced Nazgul, and Aliens. So I want these to be part of the shared fiction, and want to see the PCs engage with them in some way. But what happens as a result is up for grabs.

An intriguing aspect of the Traveller session was that the PCs kept splitting up and going to different floors of the abandoned vessel they were exploring. I didn't set out to achieve that. I didn't desire it (nor not desire it) at the outset, and didn't manipulate things to produce it  - it emerged from the players' own play of the characters, having regard to their various capabilities (eg the weakling computer technician stayed on the bridge working on the ship's computer, while the buff soldier-types stayed guarding the spot that the aliens were emerging from). I don't know if Marc Miller is just that good as a RPG designer, or if this emergence was a coincidental outcome of our mix of PC builds and framed situation. But it was pretty cool that it happened!


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 19, 2020)

pemerton said:


> This claim is pretty controversial. And I think it's false.



I think you're misreading my use of tension. The players and the GM are the push and pull that drives the narrative - that's the tension. Your examples are (I might be jealous) pretty ideal examples of how that tension drives great stories. The desired result in question, in your case, is completely aligned with the players', which is fine - tell a cool story and allow the characters' actions to be the plot engine. In other games at other tables it might not be perfectly aligned. Not necessarily because the general result is at issue, but because of system force or any number of other things. Even in dice-light or diceless games that directly index character over mechanics, the GM is still making choices about interesting ways to challenge or include characters, choices about what is interesting or cool from a frame perspective, choices about how to respond to player choices - choices are involved. Any time there are choices the person making those choices has some sort of heuristic to guide their decision making, that was my point.

What I wasn't saying is that the GM has to have his own agenda about the teleos of the action.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 19, 2020)

pemerton said:


> That seems plausible. But then why would such a group waste their time with (say) BitD or Apocalypse World or even Fate? Basic Roleplaying in some appropriate variant would seem the right system for them!



They probably shouldn't be playing those systems, you're right!  I just think it's handy to keep in mind that the utility of GM force is inversely correlated with the amount of player initiative in driving plot.  And the amount of "player initiative" in driving plot is only loosely correlated to system; it's primarily a function of player psychology and previously derived expectations of the role of the GM.

Depending on the group of players, even a table amenable to player driven systems like BitD or AW may need threads of GM force in the form of harder framings that demand a certain amount of reactivity.   Some players (or even a larger group of players who might be having an off-day) simply might not be engaged enough to help frame compelling fiction; using GM force to give them some GM driven fiction is no vice in these cases to get them to a point where they're better able to engage.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 19, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Both these cases are strong assertions of GM authority over scene-framing. I don't necessarily see that they're force because in neither case does there seem to be any action resolution going on.




Yeah, I'm not sure they quite reach the idea of Force as it had been presented, I was just trying to throw out a couple of examples that occurred to me.



pemerton said:


> That second claim might be contentious - but if we say that _action resolution_ means some meaningful change in either the mechanical situation, or the fictional situation, or both, then I think it's plausible. Your mundane encounters (I'm assuming this is talking-to-shopkeepers stuff) seem (if I may be so bold) mere time-wasting colour.




Yes, you got it. I am uninterested in banter between a shopkeeper and a PC, unless there's something potentially meaningful involved. Same with haggling about prices and so on....we don't need to act that all out. You want to talk the guy down in price a bit? Okay, make a check to see how successful that is. Luckily, our games have kind of moved past that resource management aspect to the point this rarely comes up anymore. But I used to have one or two players who would use every single NPC they met as a chance to act out an interaction of some sort. A little of that is fine to help establish a person's character.....but for me it quickly becomes self indulgence, and I move on.



pemerton said:


> The second one maybe is meant to involve resource consumption? But it's also a safe place where they can rest and get back their spells and hp? And at least as you present it no actions had really been declared. (In my Illusionism thread I mentioned Roger Musson's union meeting of ogres, to stop the players going down a corridor that the GM hasn't written up yet. The line between that, and what you did, might be fine but I think it's worth noting. You didn't leave the players' action declarations on foot and narrate further content and consequences. You just reframed the whole situation.)




Right, I just reframed it. Which is what I would have done had I realized all the implications in actual play of what I thought was a kind of interesting idea when reading through the book. Then we got to that point of actual play, and I realized we were going to spend potentially hours of the game on this, and I just didn't want to do that. Nor would I have expected my players to want to do that (which they later confirmed when I explained), so I simply narrated it, said that they spent a couple of hours on it, and that yes, they could use it as a potentially safe hiding space to rest and recover if needed.



pemerton said:


> This goes back to something I think I posted upthread (again, I've got thread-merging-confusion) - if all GM decisions about the fiction are equated with force than the latter concept becomes analytically unhelpful.
> 
> There is a widespread view that the GM framing scenes is railroading unless they're scenes with a "quest-giver" in a tavern so that the players have the (at least notional choice) of taking the quest or keeping on chatting with the barmaid. But I think you only have to state the view plainly to see it's pretty implausible. Of course strong scene-framing might be contrary to some agreed point of a game - say dungeon-crawling or hex-crawling - but that doesn't make it force. Not all bad GMing, or poorly-judged narration, is force.




Yeah. I know you and I have in the past had some discussions on this where we disagreed a bit, but I really don't think that we do. A GM will always have influence on the game via setting and scene framing and the like. As we've discussed further, I think we're very much of similar mind on this.


----------



## prabe (Feb 19, 2020)

pemerton said:


> There is a widespread view that the GM framing scenes is railroading unless they're scenes with a "quest-giver" in a tavern so that the players have the (at least notional choice) of taking the quest or keeping on chatting with the barmaid. But I think you only have to state the view plainly to see it's pretty implausible. Of course strong scene-framing might be contrary to some agreed point of a game - say dungeon-crawling or hex-crawling - but that doesn't make it force. Not all bad GMing, or poorly-judged narration, is force.




My own feeling is that the GM is allowed to drop in what I think of as instigating events, but other than whatever starts the campaign (or equivalent, don't get hung up on that) needs to be handled with thought and care (and if it ties to character backstories or previous campaign events, all the better).


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> the GM is still making choices about interesting ways to challenge or include characters, choices about what is interesting or cool from a frame perspective, choices about how to respond to player choices - choices are involved.



I think this is true. GMing involves authorship. Even in austere Gygaxian/Moldvay-ian dungeon crawling the GM still has to author stuff on the spot, like what the wandering monsters say if the PCs try and talk to them.

I personally wouldn't describe this as the GM having a "desired result". I mean, of course the GM wants his/her authorship to be interesting but that's (almost) inherent in the concept of authorship. (Maybe there are some avant garde RPGers who are exploring the edge case of deliberately unengaging authorship, but I don't think they're posting in this thread.)

But the _result_, to me, is the outcome of the interaction and tensions that you mentioned. And I don't think the GM has to have any particular desire about that.

I'm guessing you meant something different by _result_, but I haven't worked out what yet!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2020)

prabe said:


> My own feeling is that the GM is allowed to drop in what I think of as instigating events, but other than whatever starts the campaign (or equivalent, don't get hung up on that) needs to be handled with thought and care (and if it ties to character backstories or previous campaign events, all the better).



My preference these days is to get the players to start things off. This can be done via a "kicker", or in some more relaxed way, or via BW-style Beliefs etc, and probably other ways too.

Conversely, if I'm going to do it as GM I'd rather just frame hard into some action. Faffing around with hooks and unconnected "quest-givers" seems like a waste of time that doubles as a pathway to a railroad.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Depending on the group of players, even a table amenable to player driven systems like BitD or AW may need threads of GM force in the form of harder framings that demand a certain amount of reactivity.   Some players (or even a larger group of players who might be having an off-day) simply might not be engaged enough to help frame compelling fiction; using GM force to give them some GM driven fiction is no vice in these cases to get them to a point where they're better able to engage.



I don't tend to see hard framing as force per se. In @Manbearcat's terms, where's the negation of player input? (You're positing that that's exactly what's missing.) In my terms in the "illusionism" thread, where's the guidance/manipulation towards a fore-ordained goal? (You're positing production of a reaction, but not forcing a particular reaction.)

This goes back to the framing = railroading thing. I just don't see it. What choices are being blocked or negated or channelled in a particular direction?

(Sorry, this is a bit ranty. But hopefully not outrageously so.)


----------



## prabe (Feb 19, 2020)

pemerton said:


> My preference these days is to get the players to start things off. This can be done via a "kicker", or in some more relaxed way, or via BW-style Beliefs etc, and probably other ways too.
> 
> Conversely, if I'm going to do it as GM I'd rather just frame hard into some action. Faffing around with hooks and unconnected "quest-givers" seems like a waste of time that doubles as a pathway to a railroad.




Oh, an instigating event is a pretty hard thing. Party is all in same place and time. Stuff breaks out around them, which leads to other stuff, which leads to other stuff, by which point the players (and characters) are, inshallah, invested. First campaign the party was in [city] during [festival] and hordes of undead started attacking festivalgoers. Second campaign, party was at a caravanserai during [other festival], having all received letters telling them to be there and then; cultists of the Hunger Between Worlds showed up and started trying to convert and/or kill people in the caravanserai, which led to stuff, which led to other stuff, and the players and characters are, it seems, invested.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 19, 2020)

@pemerton - Hah, no, not the outcome itself, the 'desire' I'm talking about indexes that the session outcomes be, first, in line with the table expectations of framing and genre and the like, and two, that the outcomes be positive or good relative to the quality of experience at the table. In the second case I'm talking about the players enjoying themselves, not about positive outcomes for the characters. So the GM has desires about running a good campaign, for whatever value of good fits the system and players we're talking about. The result is the extent to which session outcomes match those desires - we can all tell when a session has been awesome or when one has dragged. We might not always be able to fix that, because we aren't the only one's making decisions, but that's generally the desire. 

Was it cool? Did I juggle all the balls well or drop some? Were the players engaged? Did I give the players some chances to add their own great ideas to the frame (bump and set baby, bump and set)? Etc Etc.

The above is framed about as generally as I can manage. Any particular table could be described far more specifically in the same terms, of course.


----------



## Arilyn (Feb 19, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Yeah, given this info I'd call this Force.
> 
> Unfortunately, there'll now be no way of knowing whether it was justified or not, in that you were kinda guessing how your players would react to the bits you skipped (unless there's more you haven't said).  Further, you admit to having your own bias in point c), in not looking forward to the work you'd have to do.
> 
> ...



As a player, I would have been very happy and relieved that this sub dungeon got narrated over. Sounds tedious to the extreme. 

I believe whether any force is justified really depends on your players. Know your players and make adjustments as needed has always worked well at my table.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Mar 6, 2020)

So I just happened to be reading this review of Chuubo's Marvelous Wish-Granting Engine, and thought maybe it would fit the bill.


----------



## miggyG777 (Dec 24, 2020)

deleted


----------



## nevin (Dec 24, 2020)

I  think character driven plots can work but In my experience you have to get the ball rolling.  Some players will come up with things all on thier own, some you have to lay out a couple of breadcrumb trails to get them there. But it can work.


miggyG777 said:


> Fundamentally, RPG players tend to play these games to ESCAPE reality. They don't want to be forced to reflect upon what would naturally be considered character evolvement.
> True character evolvement relates strongly to what we experience in real life. Finding the meaning in our existence. And that can be unpleasant, especially for people that are extremely averse to any kind of meaningful change.
> 
> In essence: An RPG is commonly used like a drug to numb the drive that would be necessary to create the experience that you are asking for.
> ...



I suggest you go read a few of the several studies that have been done since the 80's on role playing and the effects and kind of people that play.  In fact the majority of those studies indicate that role players are generally more mentally healthy and tend to avoid a lot of other unhealthy behaviors.     That and on the internet people say and do things they'd never say or do face to face.  I don't think any internet forum is a place to meet people and see who they really are.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 25, 2020)

miggyG777 said:


> Fundamentally, RPG players tend to play these games to ESCAPE reality. They don't want to be forced to reflect upon what would naturally be considered character evolvement.
> True character evolvement relates strongly to what we experience in real life. Finding the meaning in our existence. And that can be unpleasant, especially for people that are extremely averse to any kind of meaningful change.
> 
> <snip>
> ...



This doesn't really fit with my experience of RPGing. I have always found that players enjoy RPGs that centre the PCs and their "journey".


----------



## Fenris-77 (Dec 25, 2020)

Character development doesn't really intersect with 'real life' in any meaningful way IMO, nor does thinking about it somehow obviate the escapism inherent in the hobby. In fact, I might argue that the opposite is true, that the tangible teleos of an RPG character might be a soothing balm to someone looking to escape the _never-quite-sure_ of their daily life. To say that an RPG is a "drug that numbs" I think is to fundamentally misunderstand the stakes of the endeavor.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 26, 2020)

miggyG777 said:


> Fundamentally, RPG players tend to play these games to ESCAPE reality.




Fundamentally, RPG players come in many stripes, with many different reasons to play.  

Plus, "escape reality" can mean different things for different people.


----------

