Player or Character driven - is there a difference?

[Jeffrey Miller]

Caution - slight GNS content follows, but feel free to expand.

In a seperate thread, Alan Barclay posted:

Player-driven. ( I believe there's no difference, but I don't want to shift the discussion.) I highly recommend trying InSpectres, Trollbabe, or OctaNe for an introduction to this.

I see a difference - character-driven is when the story/plot/events is/are prompted forward by decisions based upon the directive/knowledge/desires of the characters, while player-driven is based upon the directive/knowledge/desires of the players, which can be quite different (and more harmonious *grin*)

[Andrew Martin]

I see a difference - character-driven is when the story/plot/events is/are prompted forward by decisions based upon the directive/knowledge/desires of the characters, while player-driven is based upon the directive/knowledge/desires of the players, which can be quite different (and more harmonious *grin*)

I don't know about being more harmonious for players. I'd think that a character-driven plot by a sane character (as roleplayed by the player) would tend to be harmonius, and that player-driven plot would be more "interesting" in the chinese sense. :)

[Jeffrey Miller]

I see a difference - character-driven is when the story/plot/events is/are prompted forward by decisions based upon the directive/knowledge/desires of the characters, while player-driven is based upon the directive/knowledge/desires of the players, which can be quite different (and more harmonious *grin*)

I don't know about being more harmonious for players. I'd think that a character-driven plot by a sane character (as roleplayed by the player) would tend to be harmonius, and that player-driven plot would be more "interesting" in the chinese sense. :)

Hmm, I should expand and see if you still think so. I'll going to use a recent situation that cropped up in Dust Devils to illustrate, not to disect the situation in specific. Everyone made their character, but there was no meta/social-agreement on who's devil was at what "setting" (FYI: you set the level of impact your devil is to have on the session on a scale of 1-3)  Every devil that I became aware of during the game was an antisocial one, forcing players apart.

Character-driven perspective demands that players play to the devil's insistence against interaction, creating 5 stories out of, say, 2 or 3.  Fine for short or small groups, I don't think a group of 5 can maintain interest if there isn't reward for all the players at the table with some level of importance or "play time".  Playing bit parts and extras in either a narrative, troupe, or jamming sense has never seemed to satisfy people for extended periods, IME.

A player-driven perspective would push more towards coordination of the narrative (little 'n') in such a fashion that may reduce the importance of the narrative drive within the character in respect to the desire or need for a coordinated, synergistic narrative thread.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I'm thinking that maybe some dichotomous-pairing of terms might help. The main thing for me is that I don't see Player and Character as existing as opposing ends of any kind of spectrum.

Character exists, I think, in the same "realm" as Setting, Situation, Color, and System - it's something that we are all imagining together. When the character does something, and when that something makes us all go "Oooh!", then we can talk about that something being character-driven. Same goes for Setting, etc.

A player is a human, and when we talk about something being player-driven, I think, anyway, that the "something" can be expressed in any of the terms above: Character, Setting, Situation, Color, System. It can also be expressed just socially, from Bob to Jane, without game-stuff, but I'm pretty sure that's out of the range of the thread-topic.

So if something isn't player-driven, then what drives it? GM? But I guess I was figuring "the GM is another player" for purposes of this discussion. My point is that I have a hard time imagining how anything is driven, in role-playing, except the direct action of a real human agency.

And how is that something expressed, in-play? Through one or more of the five things I listed; that seems easy to me.

Damn. I fear that I just muddied things rather than clarifying them. If so, please ignore.

Best,
Ron

[Jason Lee]

I see a difference - character-driven is when the story/plot/events is/are prompted forward by decisions based upon the directive/knowledge/desires of the characters, while player-driven is based upon the directive/knowledge/desires of the players, which can be quite different (and more harmonious *grin*)

I must be missing something...is the question: are Actor and Author stance different?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Yeah, good point, Cruciel. As laid out in the passage you quoted, that's pretty much Actor and Author stance right there.

Thing is, as I see it, stance isn't a hugely-important, driving element of "stuff in play." It contributes, it's not trivial, but it's not overwhelming. So my sense, anyway, is that Eogan is talking about something "bigger," even though how he's describing it does sound, pretty precisely, like stance.

Or I might be totally all wet about that. Awaiting further clarification.

Best,
Ron

[Andrew Martin]

Actor and Author stance is what I was thinking of.

[Alan]

In a seperate thread, Alan Barclay posted:

Player-driven. ( I believe there's no difference, but I don't want to shift the discussion.)

I see a difference - character-driven is when the story/plot/events is/are prompted forward by decisions based upon the directive/knowledge/desires of the characters, while player-driven is based upon the directive/knowledge/desires of the players, which can be quite different (and more harmonious *grin*)

I was thinking that the character only exists in the mind of the player. The player chooses his method of deciding what action to describe for his character.  He may attempt to restrict his decision to information, drives, and goals of his imaginary character, or he may take the needs of the real world into account, the needs of the game system, what sort of story he wants, etc.

As a result, any action the character takes is action the player conceives of.  I think this is important to keep in mind, because it is the player's enthusiasm for whatever he's doing that drives his play.

[M. J. Young]

I'm wondering whether this is an effort to distinguish between character and player agendae.

In an egregious example, the Psychology Today article which first introduced me to D&D decades ago mentioned that one teenage boy's character was attempting in game to seduce his girlfriend's character. The referee (a psychologist) expressed the view that this was also happening in their relationship. Now, perhaps it could be argued that the character was written with the notion that one of his drives was to sleep with the elf-maid; but it seems more likely to me that this was a player desire expressed through the character.

In Eogan's brief example, I see something like this:
The players would like to play together; having some sort of unified game is more fun for all.
The characters they have created are inherently individualist and anti-social, and would rather not have anything to do with each other.
At this point, bringing them together is either going to require finesse of the highest order (to create a situation in which these characters are forced to cooperate) or an abandonment of the character values and prerogatives in favor of the player desires.

It is a bit like asking whether you can have a Paladin and an Assassin in the same D&D party. Technically, the Paladin can't associate with the Assassin, and would no doubt kill him if he knew the man's profession. But nine times out of ten, this is going to be overlooked by the players because Bob wants to play a Paladin and Bill wants to play an Assassin. Now, I've run some D&D games with this sort of problem (actually, Samurai/Ninja conflict), in which several of the characters conspired to keep the abilities of the one secret from the other. This is a case in which player priorities override character priorities. If character priorities were allowed sway, the party would rip itself apart.

Is that part of the question?

--M. J. Young

[Jeffrey Miller]

Yeah, good point, Cruciel. As laid out in the passage you quoted, that's pretty much Actor and Author stance right there.

Thing is, as I see it, stance isn't a hugely-important, driving element of "stuff in play." It contributes, it's not trivial, but it's not overwhelming. So my sense, anyway, is that Eogan is talking about something "bigger," even though how he's describing it does sound, pretty precisely, like stance.

Yes, I think that I'm basing my thought primarily on Stance, but stick with me in case I'm missing the correct terminology.  There's a classic conflict that often occurs in games; a player pulls some bonehead move that horks the rest of the PCs, and claims loudly "..but its what my character would do!"  

Now sometimes its just an excuse for poor social contract behavior, but sometimes it really honestly is that it is outside the character's motivation and personality to act in a party-/story-/plot-/group-supportive fashion.  That, to my mind, is a character-driven action, along with any action that specifically benefits the character.  Purposefully acting against the character's narrative drives in the interest of furthering a meta-level concern -- other player's plots, making someone else look good, party cohesion, anything that benefits other players and is possibly detrimental to the character being played -- is a player-driven concern.

I don't think this is solely a dichotomy either - I haven't really had the brainspace to come up with the remaining pieces.

[Alan]

In Eogan's brief example, I see something like this:
The players would like to play together; having some sort of unified game is more fun for all.
The characters they have created are inherently individualist and anti-social, and would rather not have anything to do with each other.
At this point, bringing them together is either going to require finesse of the highest order (to create a situation in which these characters are forced to cooperate) or an abandonment of the character values and prerogatives in favor of the player desires.

Or abandonment of the assumption that bringing them together is necessary.  Since DD doesn't reward clever tactics, or the number of monsters killed, or even survival, there's no meta-game reason for characters to work together.  The idea is just a hold-over.

[Jeffrey Miller]

Or abandonment of the assumption that bringing them together is necessary.  Since DD doesn't reward clever tactics, or the number of monsters killed, or even survival, there's no meta-game reason for characters to work together.  The idea is just a hold-over.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think that 4-5 unrelated, uninteracting storylines makes for an entertaining evening, but then I freely admit that much of my enjoyment comes from interaction with other PCs. YMMV

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Eogan,

I am very confused ... what is your question?

Actor stance = the character's decision or action originates with the player (the only place it can come from) with the proviso that the player uses only in-character knowledge, concerns, perceptions, etc.

Author stance = the character's decision action originates with the player (ditto), without the proviso.

I strongly suspect that many many people think they are using Actor stance when they aren't, mistaking "in-character role-playing" for Actor stance. Those are not the same things.

But anyway, given these two terms, what's the question? Yes, they are different phenomena. Is that all that you were saying?

If so, then I don't think anyone would disagree. The only thing to point out is that the player is still the source and end-all, no matter what. The only difference is that in Actor stance, the player is voluntarily limiting himself or herself to certain imagined options.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think that 4-5 unrelated, uninteracting storylines makes for an entertaining evening, but then I freely admit that much of my enjoyment comes from interaction with other PCs. YMMV

YMMV, very true. But you have to think of 4-5 unrelated, uninteracting storylines as like watching television, where during primetime, a person canwatch 4-5 shows easily. It can be a lot like that. If that still isn't what you want, then fine, but looking at it this way, you can at least see something of what others might seem in it?

[Alan]

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think that 4-5 unrelated, uninteracting storylines makes for an entertaining evening, but then I freely admit that much of my enjoyment comes from interaction with other PCs. YMMV

I'll try to clarify.  I meant to suggest that we might abandon the belief that bringing all the PCs into a single, cohesive group is necessary for successful play.  Even though I discard the necessity of something, doesn't mean I ban it from happening.  

This leaves many options: PCs in smaller groups, or groups with devisive motivations, or independant action, or independant action for most of the game, or various arrangments where the PCs oppose each other.

Also, we can take a more sophisticated approach to PC-PC relationships.  A relationship map can glue all the players together, so the actions they take independantly are all related.  The map itself is a group connected and related by social bonds.  When a PC gets involved with one NPC and another PC gets involved at some other point on the Rmap, they are still addressing a common concern.

Finally, we can enjoy watching other players taking their turn in the spotlight. We do this all the time anyway - what difference whether they are techically working together, or just interacting with some part of the same situation or theme?  Granted this last part is important - I think it's one of the key elements of RPG play.  Different GNS styles find different means to create a unity of player interest.