Guest wrote: So many of the things mentioned on this thread are just two different roleplaying styles:

1) one player basically has a complete storyline prepared for his character, even to the dramatic end -- roleplaying out the game is incidental to this; this is someone who wants a certain story arc played out,

or

2) other players prefer the surprise, the mystery that they [don't] know what will happen to the character; they've got this seed of a character and would like it developed in-game.

Me, I'm the number 2 type. But there are plenty of number 1's running around.

(The above is taken from from the 4th page of Valamir's RPG.NET detailed character background rant.)

I was really struck when I read this. In my group's current TROS campaign, I made a character focused on seeking revenge for the death of his beloved. In developing my SA's, I formulated a plan to crush my nemesis.



• Conspire with pirates to acquire the wealth of a ship or two from the Piccotti Trade Line.
• Befriend Piccotti the Younger (PTY) by betraying the pirates to him; pocket the profits from their spoils.
• Seduce his wife.
• Reveal her infidelity while remaining anonymous.
• Encourage PTY to cast her out.
• Deny her sanctuary and encourage her to commit suicide.
• Befriend and console PTY’s son.
• Arrange an accident or hazard; display PTY’s impotence; rescue his son.
• Encourage PTY to carouse with women and imbibe spirits to reassert his manhood.
• Arrange for PTY’s son to witness his drunk father screwing whores.
• Console PTY’s son and suggest that he stay at my Summer home until his mood softens.
• Implicate the Younger in acts of embezzlement; reveal these to the Elder; have him cast out.
• Comfort him with alcohol and addictive medicines.
• Withdraw support and leave him to die as a beggar.
• Offer to chaperon the Elder’s grandson in exchange for a stipend.



I realize now that my expectations for play were to enact this sequence. And I imagine that my Seneschal is similiarly motivated by his own blueprint (which he slowly reveals through a process of exploration and discovery, which is his play-demonstrated agenda). And here I thought that by getting at current character motivations (in which I, as a player, am heavily invested) we'd end up playing like a pinball machine, freely reacting to each other in the moment:) It's much more like, pick the right door, and something cool happens.

As I'm writing this, I recall asking for something relevant to my character to react to during play. But I was probably just asking for a situation-driven style and truly wanting to follow the plan. My plan. It seems we were trying to box each other into railcars of separate, established lines.

I thought I was struggling to encourage a shift in play style, which I assumed would offer a new quality of game experience (certainly has me inspired, anyway), but I was really following the same model and vying for director authority (from the player's seat). I thought that by giving TROS a try (i.e. a change in system) we would be seeking a different aim (i.e. a change in agenda). (We adore TROS, btw. Except Chuck, who's waiting this campaign out.)

But that's not how it worked out. Variation in techniques aside, our collective experience has ingrained us to explore the setting, find the pre-laid thread and follow it to the next place of interest. (Optionally, you can scene frame straight to finding the thread.) That's how we make story. And it's fun. There's nothing wrong with it. It's just not #2.

The mold is set for this campaign. Maybe for this group? Play reveals a style of exploration by discovering a pre-set chain of events and reserving director authority for the Seneschal. I accept. Specifically, we will use SA's to inspire planned authorship and not as a focus for improvizing situation.

So ends my epiphany.

My question: in another campaign, with another group, on some future date, let's say I wanted, in spite of my demonstrated instincts (to the point of self delusion), to break new ground and attempt situation-driven play. Is it really as straight forward as "save your decisions for play?"

[] = Added for clarity.