Edit: Switch 3rd and 1st person. Thanks to all that have clarified the meaning.

Dear Fellow Gamers,

While thinking about game design recently I came across a mechanical epiphany. RPGs are either geared towards 3rd person or 1st person play, and many mechanics leverage these perspectives. Some games have mechanics that encourage both styles of play, but every game must have a core that favors one or the other. I feel like this is a real point of contention among gamers, and many game masters may be unsatisfied with their roleplaying results due to the core structure of the game they are running. Here are some examples:

Primarily 3rd Person
D&D: The game has many versions, but in the modern 5th Edition game, the game focuses on 3rd person narrative while giving players incentives to add 1st person flair as a bonus. The Inspiration mechanic and modifier bonuses can be used to give players that add 1st person elements (in-character dialogue, ingenious player ideas) and stick to roleplaying out their 3rd person Bonds, Flaws, and Personality Traits. However, traditionally experience is not given for a foe unless they are slain. The core system without a lot of game master fiat is lacking in the non-combat resolution department. The idea of the Skill Challenge is generally regarded as a joke, and PC/NPC interactions can be awkward at times due to the lack of precision in the core system's way of handling out of combat situations.

Primarily 1st Person
Blades in the Dark: Since the core of the Forge system is all about creating a shared narrative, much of the game encourages 1st person elements in the frame of a mechanical Playbook and Crew Sheet. The group decides how well someone portrayed their chosen Playbook, Background, Heritage, and Crew Type, and experience is awarded for creating memorable moments where these elements were important. This system encourages players to stay in their lane when it comes to who does what, and also to stick with Scores (missions) that play to the crew's specialty. However, the Forge system lacks in the standardization department. Outside of the core frameworks great liberties can be taken with how the finer points of things like Sparkcraft, Alchemy, and the Ghost Field actually work. This is definitely a system that would call for a reference to be written and updated as the group decides how these details function. Without core mechanical standardization every game will have many house rules that will be a hill to climb for a new player to join a long running group.

I really feel like understanding what perspective you would want to focus on will give you a solid framework to aim for while furthering your games design. Personally I am working on a concept at the tabletop level to work into a video game. I want to create a puzzle around getting the characters to experience things in the world, and those experiences allow for the characters to work through complex missions or mysteries at the mechanical level instead of the player level. As a player you can just go look up a guide and efficiently get through the game, but these games are about the journey and not just the outcome, so creating mechanics that require some level of exploration to proceed through stories is the way my game would be different than others in the market. I know that Trail of Cthulhu works with clues, but I haven't ever played the game and hope someone that knows it will give me some insight.

These are the two systems that I am personally most familiar with. What do you think about other systems if you have some experience with them? Are those ideas contrary to mine? What do you think about aiming to create an experience that rewards exploration rather than how fast you can click through prompts? The game will still be optimized, but the optimization will hopefully be much more complicated and interesting than previous games.

When I play an RPG, I don't cease to exist as a person, nor am I physically interacting with the same environment that my character is.  Every game has to acknowledge that while much of the experience is intended to be viewed 'through the eyes of the character', that dichotomy cannot be resolved.  Nor should it.  When people can't tell the difference between their character and real life, we refer to that as a form of psychosis.  

Having players interact with their environment is going to be subject to both the descriptive input the GM provides (players are not there) and the limits of the player's own creativity and imagination.  A player who's character is a super-genius may struggle with a Myst style puzzle that the character probably would not.  Perhaps unintentionally, while trying to more directly engage the player with a 1st person narrative, you may be reinforcing that they are not their character.

Far out, man.

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1094486Far out, man.

"I ain't ever smoked no shit like that before, man."
Cheech

Disagree with the premise.  My usual experience is that people mix 1st and 3rd person in game.  Sometimes, player A uses 1st while player B uses 3rd.  Sometimes player A switches back and forth.  In my current groups (over 20 players), this is so common that some players occasionally switch from one sentence to the next.  In fact, there are multiple flavors of 3rd person, and people also switch between those.  (Not only do you have the usual distinctions between the traditional 3rd person narrative used in storytelling, but also sometimes in a casual game, deliberate ambiguity on character/player.)  When players are in a scene where they talk among themselves, I've even seen some 2nd person.

You can easily make any game work with a single voice, if so inclined.  If all the players are interested in maintaining a distinctive voice, then they'll do that.  It's more about the people than the game.

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1094479RPGs are either geared towards 3rd person or 1st person play, and many mechanics leverage these perspectives.

There's no absolutism here, and my examples clearly state elements of both. My point is that different systems have mechanics that mostly reinforce one or the other. DM/Player fiat can insert almost anything (this is an RPG after all) but it is usually not supported by the core mechanics, though D&D 5E attempts to bridge the gap a bit.

Isn't the decision to play a RPG in the first person or third person up to the Players and GM themselves? Doesn't that 1st/3rd perspective also change during the game based on the action of any given moment? I know it does in my games.

Quote from: jeff37923;1094501Isn't the decision to play a RPG in the first person or third person up to the Players and GM themselves? Doesn't that 1st/3rd perspective also change during the game based on the action of any given moment? I know it does in my games.

Again, this is about what the game's mechanics support and not Game Master/Player fiat. For example, speaking in character in a D&D 5E game may yield some GM fiat (a positive/negative modifier, adjusted DC, etc.) or Inspiration (an in-game mechanic.) This is an example of a 1st person mechanic having possible effects in a game that is designed primarily for 3rd person interaction.

In my experience, the more "crunchy" the system, the less immersive the gameplay.

AKA, if we have to stop frequently and wank about with rules, the PCs become more like game pawns on a game board.

However, if the gameplay is smooth without regular concerns about rules, the players get more into their PCs as characters in an unfolding narrative.

An interesting response, but I do agree that rules can get in the way of a good RPG session. Really this is about developing a process flow for more mechanically intense bits like combat, and teaching your players the rules so everyone isn't asking endless questions about them. The topic at hand is really about how mechanics are geared towards becoming your character or guiding a character, but point taken. Too many rules bad.

I really don't follow how any of the arguments you make have to do with "1st Person" or "3rd person".

You state these things - then you give arguments, but those arguments appear to be for something completely different.

As far as I can see 1st person generally regarded as what the Forge used to call "Actor stance'.  You play your character in the moment as in trad rpgs, while "author stance" was when you stand back like the author of a novel and direct your character (as is often found in narrative games).

Perhaps a better way of looking at the distinction is, as The Angry GM put it, in Traditional games the players goals and the characters goals are aligned (regardless of whether the player assumes a 1st or 3rd person attitude to role-playing characters, while in some narrative games this is not necessarily the case (a player might deliberately do something that undermines their characters goals because it makes for an interesting story or to get a metagame reward - however I would look to something like Fate as an example for this rather than Blades in the Dark).

So you used different words to describe what I've already described.

If you know Fate, it would be great to hear an example of what you're talking about instead of substanceless relabeling.

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1094541So you used different words to describe what I've already described.

If you know Fate, it would be great to hear an example of what you're talking about instead of substanceless relabeling.

Did I?  

I'm still not able to follow your OP.

Why is D&D "3rd Person"?  In what sense do you mean this?  By the description I gave D&D would be, as a traditional game, closer to 1st Person - so it beats me how my post is a paraphrase as yours.

I didn't think I was paraphrasing you; I thought I was more likely disagreeing with you.
But as I said.  I don't follow your argument in your OP.

I'm pointing out these terms which already exist, because I thought they might help to make things clearer.

If we are talkng semantics, yeah I would have thought 1st Person correlates to 'Actor' stance, and 3rd Person to 'Author' stance
So more 'traditional rpgs' would be 1st Person, and more contemporary 'storygame rpgs' would be 3rd Person
Of course, many systems have elements of both - I would tend to think of D&D 5E as being primarily 1st Person  (Actor) with some 3rd Person (Author) dials, whereas Fate Core would be the other way around.

First person would be where you say I and identify with your PC? If so then D&D would be 1st person, Forge games more 3rd person since they encourage author stance.