Character Driven or Plot/Setting Driven?

The age old of question which is better. The character driven roleplays or plot/setting driven? My thoughts on this are in the case of plot/setting driven, I don't feel so invested in the characters actions as they're often only on the quest/mission or whatever because the plot or setting demands it. Whereas character driven ones you find out the motives of them and they often have a reason selfish or selfless to do so. Often the case in 'roleplays' I've found that people concentrate on setting and plot, when it's my opinion characters create the intrique and reasoning for people to enjoy it.

These are just my thoughts, though.

What are yours?

Well, I was in a purely character-driven roleplay once on another board (though the setting did play an important role too). It was pretty fun for a while, seeing everyone's different interactions and personalities play off against each other, but it got boring quickly because without some actual plot hooks I just didn't feel like I had any reason to keep playing, or even knew where to go or what to do in the first place.

Not that I'm saying purely plot-driven is any better. By pulling the focus away from character analysis and development, not just as individuals but as a group, the whole roleplay feels kind of hollow and hard to invest in, no matter how involving or unique the plot is. Plus too much attention on the plot and not enough on the characters that shape it can easily lead to railroading.

I would also think that you could group setting with character-driven as well as plot, although either way it can be problematic for the reason mentioned above. Setting and character-driven screams 'sandbox' which is (usually) shorthand for 'lazy GM', while setting and plot-driven can only end up even more railraoding as it restricts where you can go.

However, I personally think that it is bad practice for GMs, or any other kind of storywriter as a matter of fact, to assume all these things are mutually exclusive. The ideal setting provides the plot, an ideal plot should affect the characters who in turn react and alter the plot, which should shape the setting. For all the really great RPGs, I believe all three are as equally important and vital, not to accuse anyone but you can't just pick favourites.

Marionette has said it all. I just like reiterating things. ;)

Personally, I'm more of a plot buff, so if it came down to it, I'd much rather have a plot centric roleplay than a character driven one, since character driven seems so much more apt to fall into ruts. However, as with most things, it's a balance. Too much setting leaves too much to fill out with character, too little and the world seems vague. Plot can also be an issue when it comes down to it. If the plot is too predictable, then (without some rather good roleplayers) many characters will predict what will happen without any way to know so. If it's too vague, you can leave the characters with no direction to go in, which usually ends up with conversation that goes in circles, before finally, interest is lost. When it comes down to characters though, it all depends on the roleplayer. So I can't really say anything there.

Quiite simply: You have to make sure that you balance all aspects of your roleplay, and if you manage everything correctly it should work out. Too many characters can lead to long periods of time posting, compared to relatively short times IC. Too much of anything is bad for a roleplay. :P

I've said my little piece, I would be interested to hear what everybody else has to say.

Sorry to make such a short post, but I am short on time.

However, this Saturday's RPG [LIVE] is all about Character Driven vs GM pushed role plays, the pros and cons of each; as well as how to do either of them correctly.

So if you want some help, or want more input, check us out live there ^^.

I actually think both have their place depending on the players, with some allowances for the setting as well. In a play-by-post forum, I'd imagine that there's much, much more time for character development as compared to, say, a chat RP. And some people are extreme plot/setting buffs (I've met someone who especially loved crafting settings, and did so with astounding detail) who generally prefer to pay more attention to it, with the reverse being true with those who lean more towards character development.

From an objective point of view, Marionette pretty much hit the nail on the head. But if you have a bunch of plot buffs gathering together, I doubt it'd be uncalled for if they decided to go all out on that side and choose to use cookie-cutter characters. :P

This really depends a lot on the given setting, but I think the ideal situation is when the roleplay is a combination of all the different options. There should be some kind of over-arching plot, but it shouldn't force the players to do anything specific. The setting itself has to be enough to provide plotting material, even if it's just for some simple things. And of course, characters should have the ability to affect the world around them regardless of the direction of the plot.

A good roleplay has a perfect blend. The setting sets up the plot with some possible conflict and a sequence of definite happenings. Characters have motive, characters react to the conflict and create more. A roleplay should start out more setting driven to get all of the characters situated. After a while, writers will better settle their characters into the environment. This allows the characters to accurately further the plot and alter their surroundings.

More freedom should be given later in an RP, because by then, all the characters are well-established and the crappy RPers have hopefully been weeded out. A certain amount of control should still be executed to stop the RP from becoming a complete sandbox, and how much control players start with and how much more they are given throughout the RP can vary widely. In addition, ANY "plot/setting" driving should be plot AND setting driven, NEVER just one alone. Often these go hand in hand.

Take, for example, an RP I am currently in. The setting is a futuristic cityscape controlled by an oppressive corporation. The conflict is fairly obvious- people are being oppressed by their corporate leaders. That is a good plot/setting drive. A bad plot/setting drive would be "a futuristic cityscape" by itself, or "you're controlled by an oppressive corporation" by itself. The first because there is no inherent conflict to help drive characters that are entering the RP, and the second, well, because we have no idea what the place is like. Lacking plot is understandably much more common than lacking setting, but either way you have an incomplete idea.

There are good exceptions to this, but this is my two cents on most roleplays.

I agree with the 'Blenders' of above, but once you start getting down to the order at which the priorities should be placed, it comes down to personal preference. Me, I think Plot is the most important and Setting the least, but like I said- it would be rare to find a really good roleplay that doesn't have at least average in all three categories.

The ideal roleplay (IMO) should have a setting that has enough thought put into it to be interesting and fitting for the plot, but isn't so set in stone that the GM or a player(with the GM's approval) can't add a few pieces of their own, as long as it fits the story and doesn't stand out. For example, in a roleplay I was in, the setting that was originally laid out for us did not include a graveyard, a location that later became a plot point that was very interesting and created a fair amount of interesting and dynamic character drama, even if it did turn out to have little relevance to the main plot other than things the characters learned about each other through the arguments the graveyard cause. (Okay, a bit convoluted there, but I hope you could follow it)

The plot, again, should have a 'planned' ending, where the GM would like it to go, but the GM should still have options for other things that can happen and other potential twists that could be added/removed based on how the characters act. Going back to the same RP I mentioned earlier, this plot had a murder mystery (a la And Then There Were None) where the players that were killed were almost directly chosen based on how interesting they were being. In fact, we learned at the end of the RP that the killer we ended up with wasn't even the same killer the GM had originally planned, because the way we had played the characters made it so there was a greater payoff and better psychology behind the whole plot- in fact, only 1 of the 3 surviving characters was the same between the final product and the original plan. (I am proud to say I was one of the characters who earned a survivor spot I did not originally have)

As far as characters, this is a harder topic to approach because it depends entirely on how the players achieve it. In the case of the RP I am just milking for examples, even a poorly-played character would have an impact on the plot, based purely on the skill with which they played (The same person kept re-joining the RP when others left for personal obligations, and was killed 3 times in a row before we whittled it down to the devoted cast). So, I feel a purely character-driven RP is unlikely to work, but an RP that doesn't have any malleability based on the characters is just as likely to fail.