Character Beats and Arcs

Theory
1

I’ve been thinking about games like The Between. The characters in this game have implied character arcs through the main playbook moves (in conjunction with the flashbacks in my opinion) I know there are other games out there like Heart with character beats, but I’m not familiar enough with those to really talk about them.

Take the American, a runaway from a prominent family afflicted with a curse called the quickening. Through the flashback mechanic, there’s a set sequence of events. The American runs away, finds freedom in the West, gets the quickening, hurts someone, and then runs away again to London. The trajectory of the American is that they will probably burn through their metacurrency called Masks in order to prevent going “full werewolf”. At some point along that path, if they haven’t succumbed to the curse, they will be confronted by a ghost from their past, the Pinkerton hired to drag them back to the US.

All the playbooks are like this. They lay out a past in broad strokes, and then there’s an implied direction. This seems like there isn’t the most room for character creativity and expression. However, when I hear people talk about their actual experiences playing the game and their characters, they do have meaningful differences. So I know this is personal preference, but where do people stand on this? Do you like having guidance? Or does it feel like a straightjacket? Is that always the case, or does it depend on the game/genre? I’m not a player super often, so I’m not sure where I’m at.

2 Likes
2

I personally enjoy it, for the most part. I like having prompts or hints or foreshadowing for what lies in a character’s future, and I like folding that (player? mostly?) knowledge into making narrative decisions during the game. I think in most (or at least many) games, there’s at least some implied character direction, if for no other reason than advancement mechanics and stuff like that. So, for sure it varies from game to game, but I’ve found that playing characters with more explicit story elements baked in helps me play thinking more about “what will this story be like” as opposed to “what would my character do in this moment.” Not that those are opposed concerns, necessarily, but I think it’s a different mindset of roleplaying. And maybe not for everyone, for sure! That’s probably where the “feeling straightjackety” comes in. But for me, I enjoy a nice narrative-driven game. :smile: I’m not personally of the opinion that it stifles creativity or expression, but I can see how folks could feel that way, especially if they’re looking for a different kind of story! Like if I’m monster hunting in Monster of the Week, maybe I want to become a powerful and famous hunter stalking the underworld and feared by creatures everywhere. If I’m monster hunting in The Between, it’s probably not going to go that way. :laughing:

4 Likes
3

It’s very much “to taste”, yes, in my experience. Back in the day, when I wanted to run a pbta game of monster hunters, the big choices were Urban Shadows and MoTW, both of which had strong built-in character arcs and/or inherent dooms. It was the primarily impetus for “writing my own”, in fact. When you’re playing to find out, what question you’re asking is vital, and I felt like the questions being asked (“how and when will I succumb to corruption”, for example) were too specific for my tastes.

Having those strong arcs keeps everyone on the same page tonally, and gives you an immediate thing to hook your character on-- as long as you know the source material. And I think in the long run most people are going to follow well-trod paths anyway for many supernatural tropes. I think it’s no surprise that strongly arced pbta dominates; it allows you to focus on the actual play. But it’s not my taste.

2 Likes
4

I personally like it when there are hints, tips, or recommendations of story elements to call upon in games.

Much like random tables, a list of options stimulates the creative juices and so I could use one of the options, by choice or chance, and if inspired, I may even think of some option not on the table. These tables can be a lot but are random options intended to be there if you want em. I like that because it provides for both the player who doesn’t want to spend energy on the matter as well as the player who has that energy as they can pick & choose or create more.

I’ve yet to play The Between, but I also like this idea that you choose to have a character with background that matters and helps influence events to come. It provides limitations or complications in the story to be made so we can have conflicts and challenges to work through. I think that’s a plus. Esp. in all our RPGs because if these provide some constraints to help make a meaningful story, rather than leave it all up to ourselves in the story telling process, which can be tiring.

Wanderhome does similarly with its playbooks. You get to choose the kind of character you’re playing which paints in broad strokes their focus or experiences and the kind of internal problems they will be working through.

I think of em ingredients to use in making the story as a meal. We can always choose to ignore them or reshape them how we want. So I’m a fan!

1 Like
5

“some implied character direction…advancement mechanics and stuff like that

You make a good point Flatvurm! A typical D&D 5e character has so many features that shape the direction of the character. And as a baseline, they are going to basically become gods (if they can get to level 20).

Your example at the end about Monster of the Week verses The Between has me thinking that genre expectations have a place in this conversation. Tam, you are further cementing this in my opinion. Having an arc mapped out does help keep tone and reinforces tropes. I think you voiced something that resonates with me:

gives you an immediate thing to hook your character on

I mostly GM because I find I take a long time to really get into a groove when being a player. I have a hard time “hooking my character” onto something. I have found that being a player in PbtA games is a bit easier for me, and I think this is why. There is more structure for me to go off of. Interestingly, I also don’t mind rolling up a random Cairn character. Maybe I just don’t like making a lot of choices at character creation. :thinking:

Errant, I’m super interested in Wanderhome! The idea that what playbook you choose reflects the internal problems you want to explore with your character sounds really different in a good way. I feel like a lot of games define characters by their external things- abilities, attributes, inventory, etc. So thinking about the opposite is interesting to me.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts so far :blush:

2 Likes
6

I’ve got some more thoughts on character beats and things now, esp. from a game design perspective.

I’m not as experienced in playing PbtA games, but from reading design about it, I think some character “moves” are intended to emphasize an action that your character does and those could trigger things related to one’s story. I can’t speak on that concept further, but it comes to mind given my experience with bonds in His Majesty the Worm and Arc DOOM.

I have been reading the book for His Majesty the Worm (HMtW), which is very NSR with emphasis on the OSR gameplay, as its about dungeon crawling. Notably, there are multiple phases and the camp phase is very important for replenishing your meta resources used during the actual crawl. During the camp phase you are encouraged to roleplay with the other players by the mechanics in order to recover those meta resources.

My game master for HMtW during session zero said, “You roleplay, or you die.” I find it amusing and it really hits the point of “is this mechanic constricting or useful?”. Every player character has a bond with other player characters. If you trigger a mechanics corresponding to your bond, then you get to “charge that bond”. Charged bonds may be used to cure a wound, remove a negative status condition, or increase one’s resolve, which is the meta resource used during the dungeon crawl.

On first read, and given this book is written with inclusivity and flexibility in mind, I think HMtW’s bonds are excellent way to encourage roleplaying and reward the behavior for it.

I’ve been trying to think of a way to encourage roleplaying and provide resources that appropriately reward roleplaying, and I think HMtW is a good way of going about it.

Arc Doom also has bonds between characters and the idea is you get to spend your bond points to aid those players in their skill checks. The greater your bond, the greater your aid. Also you can spend a minor bond point to reroll a check. To gain bonds you have to +1 “accept an inconvenience for that ally”, +2 “accept harm or risk”, and +4 “permanent life changing, greatly difficult personal choice, or likely fatal sacrifice”.

I’m a fan of game mechanics when they serve the fiction well. In the end, it’s hard to get people to roleplay so freedom in acting is good, have some constraints or loose targets like in HMtW is nice as it adds direction in how to act, and Arc Doom rewards forming bonds as well with some mechanistic rewards. I think HMtW really leans into it as a central game mechanics.

1 Like
7

It seems like His Majesty the Worm has really taken off!

I’m not trying to sidestep what you are saying, but I do want to comment on the relationship it seems you see between character beats/arcs and bonds. When I originally wrote up this topic, I thought about the characters typically in isolation. What are their moves/abilities/motivations? Not about the characters’ relationships with each other. But…people and characters are in big part defined by relationships and how those change. There are even entire genres and tropes around that (romance, buddy cop…)

The bonds in those two games give you small mechanical benefits it sounds like? I’m not really familiar with either. Do you find that the reward of a meta resource or a bond point is enough to nudge you along certain arc or hit certain beats? It sounds like they are effective for you to engage in roleplaying (I’m assuming you mean acting in character, please correct me if not), but do they suggest a certain narrative destination?

1 Like
8

Yep I mean acting in character! Some tables may include “make decisions” as character, e.g., “My character does this because of his morals”. For me that doesn’t suit the mechanics’ intended purpose or how I want to play them at least. Tho, whatever suits the table for fun & time.

I need to play these games more before I can say to what degree I am satisfied with the game mechanics encouraging roleplaying.

On Mechanics as written:

HMtW has triggers for regaining the meta resource of bonds between players. These triggers vary between game (G) mechanics to roleplaying (RP) (acting). Examples:

  • G: Your rival/adversary succeeds/fails their test of fate.
  • G & RP: You both charge this when one of you aids the other in their weakest attribute
  • RP: Mentee asks Mentor / follows mentor’s advise
  • RP: Make your ally laugh both in and out of character

Resolve is akin to inspiration in DnD 5e or Edge in shadowrun 4e.

  • Prior to making a test, you decide to get +3 “favor” for advantage.
  • certain talents require spending Resolve

You spend charged Bonds to restore Resolve or heal Wounds/Conditions at Camp Phases. You get total of 4 Resolve. The healing conditions is biggest driving factor to get bonds.

Playing experience:

From the bit of playing HMtW, I find the bonds help direct the players’ characters actions. Of course I chose the “make laugh” trigger for a person I don’t think I can make laugh :laughing:

I’ve yet to play enough Arc Doom to really tell, but from initial setup of starting bonds, players were acting as their characters to suit those existing strengths of bonds. This is for a table that doesn’t roleplay too often, so I’d call that a win in itself.

So do they nudge us to roleplay?
Yes, in my limited experience they do so successfully.

Suggest a certain narrative destination?
Not like a whole story arc, the other mechanics in the games suit that purpose, mostly the ticking timer or loss of resources to ensure things keep moving and that something happens in the session.

I believe they encourage their intended relationships in HMtW. To some degree also in Arc, but its more about one’s strength in bond or favor from one character to another rather than flavoring it. Though in my experience people flavored the bonds in themselves for Arc Doom.

  • HMtW directs distinct relationships & acting. Strength of bonds are not game mechanized.
  • Arc Doom encourages building of strength of bonds, leaving direction of relationships/acting to the players

I’ve yet to play Wanderhome, tho from reading I see a direction in type of acting for different playbooks. Tho it also encourages actions between players too, just not as specific to one of the players. More like “Help someone find their way”. This is also due to it being able to be a GMless game so players can play multiple characters.

Great questions btw. You got me thinking. :]

1 Like