RDU Neil

Part of this is the tone... not telling you how to play your character, but asking "Would your character really leave me to bleed out?" because hey, maybe you'd forgotten about he "owe me" thing... or maybe you had, and yes, this is clearly your character reneging on a debt, and dramatically we should understand that.
 
If a player describes a character's actions and it seems odd, out of character, or out of place for the scene, messes with expectations... it is totally legitimate for others to say, "Hold on... that seems odd. I wouldn't have expected you to leave him their to die. Am I reading this situation correctly?"
 
Then you can respond:
a) I wouldn't stop I have to get the... oh wait, crap, I just remembered I owed you... damn, right... I need to rethink this...
 
or
 
b) Yes, you see a momentary flicker of doubt, but the I steel my gaze and walk away, vengeance more important that a debt owed!"
 
or
 
c) "Yep... it is odd. You are reading it right. Let's play this out."
 
 
Or whatever else might be the situation. Half the time players misconstrue the situation, or have imagined the scenario out of whack with the others... and the communication is short, simple and gets everyone back on the same page. Or just reassuring the table "Hey... yeah, we are on the same page... this is a character moment, it should be straining expectations."  And cool, everyone is back in the groove.
 
No player perfectly plays their character in every situation. GMs don't make the best choices every time. Plenty of times my players have said,"Wait... are you sure X would do Y? What about that time when...?" and I'm like, "Oh crap... yeah... forgot that in the moment... you are right... let's pull back a bit, instead what happens is..."
 
That kind of thing keeps play groups on the level and working together... and avoids misunderstandings and over-reactions, etc. It's not about one player telling another how to role play, it is about communicating expectations and intent clearly, creating understanding and trust. After a while, weird or out of character moments can give rise to nothing more than a raised eyebrow from one player and a "trust me" nod from the other... because communication is built up and trust has been EARNED not just expected.

Interesting, because yeah, I'd totally disagree. The "Protect the Queen" scenario had ZERO "role" for me to play. Just a blank slate, and I "developed" the entire existence of the character, their arc, their raison d'etre, the motivation and symbolism, throughout the game. I did not speak once "in character."

Role play would be, "Here... you are the moody loner secretly in love with the cheerleader and looking for a way to fit in" now bring that to life... play a role. Talk "in character" and play out every excruciating moment of that awkward first date with the cheerleader... because that is what they character would do.

What I described was nothing like that.
 
Character development is the "why."   Why is the character moody? Why do they love the cheerleader? Why does it matter to them that they fit in?"  "Why is any of this dramatically relevant?" 

Role play is the "how"... how they act, how they speak, how they make decisions.

I'm much, much, MUCH more interested in the Why than the How.

I love this 3000.

Your "read a story" implies some big long monologue or something, which is not at all what I'm implying... but what I am saying is that everything that happens (nearly) should be all done up front with the rest of the players as audience. Something happens just to one player, off screen in their personal life, it still plays out in front of the entire group, so all the players enjoy the scene and understand that PCs story. Their characters might have no idea, but the players certainly do. Only occasionally, and usually to allow the player to really prepare a certain reveal or dramatic moment, would I be ok with GM and player going off to do their own thing. 
 
Same thing goes for whatever the players are introducing to the SIS. If a player is thinking, "Wow... BlastMan just wouldn't be ok with this, and he is terrible at expressing himself, so he's going to storm off in a rage," great... and the player can describe that... but intent is important. What does the player intend that scene to do? How will it move the drama/story/action forward? The player should explain that. "Ok... I'm storming off here because I really feel BlastMan is raging, unreliable and going to cause problems." Other players can ask questions, "Ok... so are we looking at playing out a group conflict here, or maybe you want BlastMan going rogue while the rest of the team tries their own approach?" Maybe the original player is like, "Oh yeah... I hadn't thought of that, but cool... yeah, can we do that? BlastMan will be trying to take out Destructo his way, while you guys are going in with an actual plan, and that will be a totally messed up situation. Fun!"   Or whatever. 
 
Wow... I take this VERY differently. Everybody sees every character sheet, and players will specifically do things like, "Oh... doesn't this trigger your enraged by Magic thing!" or point at their own sheet saying, "Oh yeah, this is totally a moment where I'm leaning into my "In love with the cheerleader" psych lim."   All whether or not the other characters know about it... it is about the players all having input to how things play out. It is one of the things I love about a lot of the PbtA games or Blades hacks... the PCs all have built in personality triggers and relationships and such on them... but not just in a generic way like Disads in Champs... but things that act as actual role playing compells and even like stats, where you get game effects by pulling the strings of your character. Like in a game of Cartel I just played, at the beginning every character had a relationship of some kind set with two other PCs. My PC 'had a debt' to another, which I determined because he patched her up, no questions asked, when she stumbled into his store with a bullet in her leg. Near the end of the game, my character came across his, who had been shot in the throat and was bleeding out. I was pursuing the Narco boss, but we as players both stopped at that moment, "Oh man... I owe you/you owe me!" as we both recognized this was a moment where that established relationship had to affect the game dramatically. My character totally stopped her initial pursuit, dropped everything to get this guy she really barely knew, to a hospital, and it changed the ending of the game significantly. Did that character or any of the others really know why she did that? It probably seemed like a random, out of character act to the PCs, but  the PLAYERS knew exactly why it happened and it had that very satisfying moment of "Oh yeah... this is cool drama..." that only comes from that audience/meta POV of grasping the dramatic cause and effect and thematic shifts that are happening. 

 
 
You act like no one ever has their own personality and ego wrapped up in the character they are playing? That even the best players get emotionally carried away by the pressure of the action or drama? There is a reason people say, "I do X" and "I say Y instead of "My character does X or says Y". It happens all the time, and in moments of conflict and heightened emotion, it is incredibly important that players take that moment to step out of character and reassure people, "Hey, I'm not really angry now, even though I just spent five minutes calling you all every name in the book!" I've had players who have known each other for decades nearly come to blows because a bad day or difference of opinion was affecting game play and character decisions that were really two players very angry at each other. I realized this because they were both getting really shitty to each other IN CHARACTER without breaking out to reassure "hey, this isn't real, this is role playing". 
 
In my experience, players get very emotionally invested in the success of their character, or that the story plays out in a way that they imagine... and when things go against them or the story takes a turn they aren't expecting or don't particularly like, it is much better that we are all comfortable "going meta" and discussing this instead of everyone "staying in character" and trying to show their frustration through the unexplained actions of their characters. I've been playing for 40 years now and that shit happens WAY too often.

There is ALWAYS doubt perceived at the table, IMO, when a character is going through a particularly difficult scenario or stress or complication... and unless the player steps out and smiles and says, "Oh I'm having fun here... really... my character is miserable, but not me... bring the emotional pain... this is cool..." I'll be very attuned to the fact that the PLAYER might be feeling the stress and expressing the emotions, not just the character.
 
 
Oh, this is part of the social contract for sure... and usually expressed right up front, but as you note, not all players are attuned to it. A mature response from a player might be, "I really do want to play the anti-social angry loner type, but I want to figure out how that character can be part of the story and add to the fun of the play group." Then the group can meta discuss "OK, how do we make the game work with one character always on the outs with everyone else?" And the group can come up with a way to shift perspectives between the group and the outsider or whatever.  Maybe scenes where the loner has information that he needs the others to act on, and he is like the terrible arrogant Batman type, where the other characters are like, "What a douche canoe... but he has good intel, so we'll keep working with him." But the players are all smiling and laughing because the scenes are enjoyable drama.

The likely issue here is similar to what I stated above, it wasn't just about the character... the PLAYER was emotionally invested in being the brooding, anti-social loner. The player enjoyed being a douche canoe "in character" and wasn't really concerned with how it affected the game or the others. 

In what way did I even imply reading a story? Never. But if your character is acting all moody and grumpy, cool... but the player better be quite open about "Hey... understand that my character is really angry and defensive, but that is not me, the player... I'm totally cool with how this is playing out." 

And to your initial experience... "My charaxter dismisses your character becuase he is a brooding moody secrative loner..." is a legitimate response. The rest is a misplay because the player is allowing the character to know things they wouldn't. But if your character has been anti-social and unwilling to cooperate... even if we the players know why... it is actually quite acceptable for the characters to react negatively to this. That is the drama that plays out. What is important about the meta-conversation is making sure the PLAYERS are ok with is. If you are ok with your character being ostracized and dismissed because that is a likely outcome of their anti-social behavior... cool. Good drama can come out of a character being written out for a while because he's an asshole and the player is like, "Yeah... he is an asshole and kicking him out seems right." Later, a plot might arise where that character comes back, when it is dramatically interesting to force characters to work together AND THE PLAYERS ARE ALL COOL WITH THIS DRAMA BEING EXPLORED. 
 
What is not acceptable is the moody PC player expecting everyone to accept this and somehow allow that behavior and keep him around even though it is sucking the fun right out of everyone else's play. If BlastMan storms out of the conference room, breaking the doorframe with his casual strength, angry because the rest of the team won't just go into Destructo's HQ guns blazing... ok... that's a legit reaction. What comes next is important... if the PLAYER just sits there, says nothing, just "He storms out," without offering any meta-explanation, that's unfair to the rest of the group who aren't sure if the PLAYER is all upset, or if just BlastMan is? How is the rest of the table supposed to react? 

Now, if the player says, "Going meta for a moment, yeah, BlastMan is acting a bit unhinged. The idea that his mom might still be alive is clearly causing him to crack a bit, and I'm cool with however the team reacts. If BlastMan gets benched for the actual attack, ok, that can be some cool interpersonal drama there to explore."   Whatever... that isn't "reading a book" but it is incumbent on each player to let the other players know what they are thinking. Clarifying situations and avoiding misinterpretations. It is a group dynamic creating a shared imaginary space, so what is going into that space needs to be shared.
 
Now, if GhostGirl's player says, "Do we have any idea why he's half-cocked like this? Do we have any clue about this mother stuff, because if not, GhostGirl would probably read him the riot act?"  And BlastMan's player can say, "Oh no, she wouldn't know... that could be cool... let's play that out," and bam, you are back into the role-playing and having a good time as characters scream and yell at each other, but the players are having fun. 

Without a very short meta discussion instead the whole thing degenerates, as players fail to communicate because their characters fail to communicate. No way no how is that good for play.

It’s funny you guys bring this up, because I had a friend create a noire-type anti-social asshole character for a globe-trotting Pulp HERO group. He kept trying to say, in character (not as the player), “I’m antisocial and I don’t really like people,” or “I don’t really care or need anyone else.” They were all a bit over the top and a bit too obvious. Everyone rolled with it in game, but I felt compelled to pull him to the side afterwards and remind him that his character is in a group in the game, and he should think of a really good reason why he’d even be in a group, and why that group would even want him in it in the first place. A little conflict could actually be fun, but it had to make sense. If that didn’t fit his character, I suggested he save that character for another time and rethink a different character for this particular in-game group. 
 
I don't want to force my players to do things they don’t want, but I think it’s only fair that they at least have some kind of reason for playing with the group of characters. As players, they’re all cool with each other. It’s just that this particular character conception needed some tweaking. 

Dude, I'm out of rep for today, 
 
but I wanted to say "thanks."
 
 
Thanks.
 
 
Duke
 

So, very much yes... your many descriptions of "character development" being "the way the character changes over the course of play"... I totally agree with that.

I think that character development starts in character creation... but I'd argue often too much is done there. Often, like Cancer's comment about having such a top-down simulationist leaving no room for PCs and play... the same can be said of too much character development during creation. The player with the three novel set of background for their character, who brings them fully formed and fulfilled and just wants to "be" their idealized character...
 
I agree that development in play is what we usually want, and I still think that can happen in a single game session.

The game and the system play into that, but even something as much as "Cocky hard-ass cop in big shoot-out scenario, has a moment where he can be the kick ass dude but instead chooses to protect the bystanders and get them out of the building. Both the character and the player realizing in that moment that this is who this guy really is... wants to be... " etc.  Straightforward, but to me that moment is what makes the shoot-out scenario resonate and come alive. 

 
 
Responding directly to this... I also think that it is important to realize that RPGs are a unique experience. Where seeing a movie or reading a book or playing a video game is consumption, and filming a movie and writing a book and coding a video game are production... RPGs are both, at the same time. The players (including the GM) are creating the game/experience/story, but they are also the audience of the game/experience/story. 

While the characters may never know why he did it, the PLAYERS absolutely should. If you as the player are so wrapped up in your own head and motivations, etc., but fail to bring the rest of the audience (play group) along with you... you have failed, hands down. That kind of thing is solipsistic and detrimental to group dynamics. My character Jimmy may be utterly stunned and confused at Kyle's sudden sacrifice, but Neil the player and audience member should be emotionally on that journey with Kyle just as much as Kyle's player. Character development is that journey.

This is also why I tend to be down on "role play" (acting) because it is often solipsistic... the player so focused on inhabiting the PC that they fail to involve the audience and be the creator of a entertaining experience. It also tends to allow for the asshole player with the asshole Wolverine clone to be a complete asshole in play, and excuse it with, "It's what my character would do!" Completely unacceptable to a workable social contract at the table. 

For character development, it not just my job to allow for it during play, but to push for it in such a way as the moments where these changes comes up and are demonstrated in play are dramatic and entertaining and interesting for the player audience. Character development, to me, serves this very meta requirement of good play.

I would define Character Development is the change in the characters story over several role playing sessions; while small shifts in development happen in single sessions full Character Development Arcs play out over the long term.
 
Role Play just being in character. I expect that at a con-game. Otherwise it's just rollplay and while I can play monopoly, it's boring.

Role play is acting. The voice, the mannerisms, The predilections, that define the character. Character development is what happens over time. Felix 9 was a very rigid character, and changed slowly if at all. ( might be interesting to look at him in the 30 years since the end of the Cold War). Thunderbird changed quite a bit over time as he integrated more into the community. He went from a somewhat untrusting military know it all, to a smooth talking and confident spokesman for the team. The other team mates went from co-workers and colleagues, to friends. 

Part of the issue is that we all define various terms differently.
 
I would consider RDU Neil's story from Protect the Queen to be background, personality design and role playing, not character development.  I would classify "character development" as the character growing, evolving and changing through his experiences, which typically does require time as a baseline must first be established, events occur which challenge that baseline, etc.
 
So, to revisit that example:
 
Interesting, because yeah, I'd totally disagree. The "Protect the Queen" scenario had ZERO "role" for me to play. Just a blank slate, and I "developed" the entire existence of the character, their arc, their raison d'etre, the motivation and symbolism, throughout the game. I did not speak once "in character."

Role play would be, "Here... you are the moody loner secretly in love with the cheerleader and looking for a way to fit in" now bring that to life... play a role.
 
To me, that is "personality design" - the only difference between the typical character here being that you did not design the personality of your character.  Playing the role you designed is also role playing.
 
Talk "in character" and play out every excruciating moment of that awkward first date with the cheerleader... because that is what they character would do.
 
That's largely gameplay, in my view.  The game could play out that awkward first date, or the characters could be trying to escape from undead hordes which have inexplicably descended on their school, or any of a number of scenarios, influenced to a greater or lesser extent by the moody loner's secret love and desire to fit in .Some gamers will take on the character's "voice" and others will describe his actions.  Both are role playing that character in the decisions they make, guided by that character's personality.
 
I don't find "acting out the character's actions" to be role playing either.  I don't think you need to do a Kirk shoulder roll in the GM's basement to role play an acrobatic character, make a great speech to role play an orator or seduce the GM's sister to role play Casanova.

Character development is the "why."   Why is the character moody? Why do they love the cheerleader? Why does it matter to them that they fit in?"  "Why is any of this dramatically relevant?" 
 
I would classify the first two as backstory - the explanation for the chjaracter's personality.  The third is part of plot development taking the characters' personalities into account. Are they dramatically relevant at all?  Do they impact game play?  Maybe, and maybe they do not.  We can flee the zombie horde without that moodiness or unrequited love ever becoming relevant, or our loner might find the opportunity to confess his love while hiding from the undead, or he might throw himself at a zombie to save the cheerleader, dying for his unexpressed love, with the rest of the characters and players never knowing why he sacrificed himself.
 
"Character development"?  That would be actual growth during the story.  Perhaps, seeing the vacuous and selfish cheerleader's true colours come to the fore as she calllously manipulates the other characters to save her own skin causes him to fall out of love with her.  Maybe, working with the jock, the cheerleader and the nerd, our moody loner actually fits in to the group, and opens up to them, losing both his moodiness and his loner outlook. 
 
"Hates thieves" is personality.
 
"Family was left to die, penniless, by heartless thieves" is backstory that explains why he hates thieves
 
Game play where another character, a thief, saves his life, perhaps repeatedly, and shows himself a valuable team player, is an opportunity for character development.  Or an opportunity to work with that thief over a period of years, repeatedly saving each other's lives, only to continue referring to him as a "no-good thief" because I wrote "hates thieves" in his background, and in his complications, at the start of the campaign, and  nothing can ever change his views.

I like when there's a modest amount of role playing at the table.  I like my players to play characters and not character sheets.
 
A personality in a story - not a complex array of statistics and powers.
 
Additionally, experienced role players will keep their bits VERY short so they don't slow the game to the crawl acting out each moment of combat in painful detail.  It takes some skill and empathy for your fellow players to do this well.

Now this... THIS is "role playing" and something I am very much NOT into at all. I don't mind a bit of it, but being at the mercy of the theater majors putting on a play is not really enjoyable to me. I'm a story teller... I think like the written word... theater of the mind evoked by words kind of thing. I'm the very opposite of the method actor. Living "in the skin" of the character is not what I'm about... but positioning that character with a cold, dispassionate eye of a writer who needs that character to be and do a certain thing, in order to evoke a certain pathos or drive a thematic arc.
 
I guess that could be called role playing in a generic way... fulfilling a role, rather than playing a role... but I still see them as very different things.

Mileage will vary.  I recall one convention where I ran into members of an acting troupe that I had gamed with previously.  Our chosen characters had already met so they continued on like old adventuring veterans who had run into a fondly remembered ally of yesteryear.
 
The acting nerds were as much into acting out their actions as they were the combat.
 
I recall one got mind controlled to attack his ally - dropped him with a sneak attack and with his off-hand strike (D&D 5th ed) acted out cutting his throat for a double-death-save failure.  Even the guy getting his throat cut was into it.
 
Gamers vary wildly in what they enjoy - even with one-shots.

Interesting, because yeah, I'd totally disagree. The "Protect the Queen" scenario had ZERO "role" for me to play. Just a blank slate, and I "developed" the entire existence of the character, their arc, their raison d'etre, the motivation and symbolism, throughout the game. I did not speak once "in character."

Role play would be, "Here... you are the moody loner secretly in love with the cheerleader and looking for a way to fit in" now bring that to life... play a role. Talk "in character" and play out every excruciating moment of that awkward first date with the cheerleader... because that is what they character would do.

What I described was nothing like that.
 
Character development is the "why."   Why is the character moody? Why do they love the cheerleader? Why does it matter to them that they fit in?"  "Why is any of this dramatically relevant?" 

Role play is the "how"... how they act, how they speak, how they make decisions.

I'm much, much, MUCH more interested in the Why than the How.

I always paraphrased this as "When in doubt, kick open the door and spray the room," but yeah! One of the things I really like about PbtA in particular and games like it (Blades, etc.) is that it is hard crafted into the game "Make your characters lives interesting" and the whole idea of "hard moves" by the GM... initiated because of how a player rolled/failed a roll... is just great. The GM doesn't have to be a master paragon of directorial timing and imagination... the dice provide the impetus... "oh... rolled a 4 on your Infiltraion move? ok then... as you are hiding behind the desk, you hear a flurry of running feet, an "In here!" and the office door flies open and two of Bronski' men start spraying the room with sub-machine guns!"
 

Interesting, because yeah, I'd totally disagree. The "Protect the Queen" scenario had ZERO "role" for me to play. Just a blank slate, and I "developed" the entire existence of the character, their arc, their raison d'etre, the motivation and symbolism, throughout the game. I did not speak once "in character."

Role play would be, "Here... you are the moody loner secretly in love with the cheerleader and looking for a way to fit in" now bring that to life... play a role. Talk "in character" and play out every excruciating moment of that awkward first date with the cheerleader... because that is what they character would do.

What I described was nothing like that.
 
Character development is the "why."   Why is the character moody? Why do they love the cheerleader? Why does it matter to them that they fit in?"  "Why is any of this dramatically relevant?" 

Role play is the "how"... how they act, how they speak, how they make decisions.

I'm much, much, MUCH more interested in the Why than the How.

You called it Character Development and the gave a paragraph describing Role Play.
Which are two distinctly different parts of the game. 
 
We'll just have to disagree 😜

If it works for Raymond Chandler...
 
"When in doubt have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand."
 
 

Understood. Upthread I was really just responding to your confessed simulationist tendencies. But I’m totally with you on this. Storytelling is the point, otherwise we’d be playing tabletop war games. 

I actually disagree with this. I can tell a novel worth of character development in a short gaming session, while combat and guns are blazing. The problem is, people think "character development" is some drawn out thing that "happens over time" like just trying to live inside the skin in some simulated way. Character development is really about demonstrating some core, fascinating aspects of a character within a narrative arch, and can be done in ten sentences spread out across a game. Hell... in ten minutes of a demo of Protect the Queen, I created a character out of thing air who went from "some guy accompanying the queen" to "the tragically fated hunchback gardner who died for the queen after years of psychological torture, knowing only the love of her cold touch" and had people going "oh my god!" in his final scene... and that was like six sentences in four quick scenes in ten minutes (with three other people doing their thing as well in that time.)
 
Character development is critical, or it is all pointless.
 
This kind of thing is not at all what I'm talking about. This is about arguing stat blocks and such, and if you want this, you need to do systems programming to actually create such a simulation.

What I did with my Harvey Storm Shoot-out... had three PCs and two NPCs, and by the end, everyone, including the dead ones, had stories and personalities and moments of pathos... even though 95% of the evening was rolling dice and shooting and stabbing stuff. When one PC got his hand nearly chopped off and had to hold it together with duct tape while gutting it out and trying to cover his friends... when another got shot through the kidney and was bleeding out, and the third had to make a desperate play to finish off the badguy before he died, it was tense and felt emotionally immediate.
 
I had not desire for "simulation" as an objective program... I want to know who that samurai is and why he is fighting the knight, and what will it cost him to win or lose... AND at the same time, the clash of swords is detailed and unique and intense... because when one of those blades bites deep, everyone at the table cares what happens.
 
Without that... without pathos... none of it matters.
 

I think more people ought to put in their convention description: “This is about combat, not character development.” It would help people know what to expect, and then you could get right down to the dice rolling. 

I actually did that for one session of my ongoing Secret Worlds game (action conspiracy game using HERO). I gave the players three generic Deputry U.S. Marshall's (allowed them to spend a few points to make them individual) that were part of an elite operations squad. I ran an adventure where they had tracked three escaped Bosnian gangsters to a bad neighborhood in Houston on Aug 25th of 2017... the day Harvey made landfall. They were cut off from support and had to hit the house as the storm came beating down, while running into more than they bargained for.
 
It honestly was a brilliant rain-lashed, storm battered shoot out, with a bloody fight with a juiced up psychopath, bullets ripping through walls and doors, blood and death and bodies everywhere. Too much fun. 

I'm not so sure I'd have the same luck at a convention doing something so generic, but if the players were in the right kind of groove...