(Player) Character Dimension in Pathfinder

[Ranishe]

There's always talk that characters need to roleplay, and that characters should be deep, interesting and complex rather than flat, one dimensional or otherwise trite. Indeed any story tends to be better remembered, more appreciated, when the characters, especially the protagonists, are multi-dimensional. And from what I can tell, the complexity of characters is determined by the contradictions in those characters. Woody in Toy Story is friendly and helpful until he's angry and vindictive (for not being the top toy). Ash in Fantastic Mr Fox is at core hopeful and friendly except when he's irritable and insulting (when he feels shown up and not respected). Aang (Avatar: The Last Airbender) is playful and carefree except when he's focused & serious (when dealing with the reality of the war). Or in similar fashion when a character changes from one characterization to the opposite: Han Solo (A New Hope) from selfish to selfless, Mr Fox (Fantastic Mr Fox) from arrogant to humble, Marlin (Finding Nemo) from controlling to trusting.

My problem is in a game like Pathfinder, how can a GM run a game for deep player characters (assuming the players create something of the sort) without heavily tailoring an adventure to the specific characters made for this iteration (if at all)? For example how can an adventure path be written to have a story with compelling protagonists if those protagonists aren't under the author's control? This is especially a concern because of the power granted to the presentation of character nuances by proper setup, good teasing of the potential other sides of characters, which is not possible (or at least far more difficult) when dealing with characters whose actions are uncertain.

So, how does one run complex player characters (and reveal their complex nature convincingly) without effectively custom building an adventure path for those specific characters? Does it matter? Would a more satisfying game be run with stronger presentation of character nuances? I believe so, which is why I want to tackle this.

[Neurophage]

What you're describing (which is to say, character depth and complexity) has less to do with contradictions and more to do with conflict. Story can often be described as "character in action." As the characters encounter situations which conflict with their view of the world or their view of themselves (Woody having his position of favorite toy upstaged by Buzz or Aang being forced to deal with the realities of the war, his responsibilities as Avatar and the consequences of being unable to fulfill those responsibilities while the war ravaged the world) that they are forced to reevaluate who they are and what they believe in. Throwing their world into confusion is what creates what looks like contradictions, but are really just the characters struggling to re-contextualize who they are in relation to what they now know or believe to be true. This is not to say that characters can't have any contradictions. Plenty of well-written characters make little exceptions or allowances to otherwise fiercely-held beliefs. But all of them rationalize that conflict one way or another. Ignoring that rationalization is a bad idea, because how someone justifies to themselves what they do is a big part of who they are and how they see the world.

RPGs do their best work in exploring character in action when the characters are largely in control of where they're going. That means loosening the control the GM has a little. Like, Mutants and Masterminds has Complications, a mechanic wherein the PCs have certain narrative weaknesses (not like Superman's weakness to Kryptonite. More like how important Lois Lane is to him, his sense of personal honor and his moral code) that give the PC an extra resource when coming into play. In that case, the players are telling the GM what elements of their character are going to invite those conflicts and force the character to reevaluate themselves and what they hold dear.

Exalted has Intimacies, a mechanic wherein the PCs decide what things matter most to their characters. One might have a Defining Principle of "Battle is Expression. Battle is Life." But they also have a Major Tie to their brother (Familial Love). These are both things that the character holds close their heart, parts of their life from which they draw strength and things to which others can appeal to get on their good side or convince them to do something. What happens to the character when their brother wants to help them run away to safety and abandon a bunch of innocent people that they've sworn to protect? How do they balance their love against their honor and morality? And what happens when their Intimacies conflict? What if the character really wants to convince their brother of something, but they only way they can communicate how important it is is through battle? Do they hold back, thus betraying their principles but preserving their family, or do they give their all and only allow their brother to see the error of his ways as his last act in life?

Does it require careful tailoring? Absolutely. This is why pre-written adventures are terrible for this kind of story. A pre-written adventure that does what you're suggesting is impossible because they are intrinsically written to tell one scenario. A character has to be allowed to make decisions, and those decisions have to be treated as valid, even if they're technically wrong. A lot of times, that means going off the rails. Character-driven works are character-driven for a reason.

[Qaianna]

Naturally, a GM can slightly tweak an adventure, even a pre-written one. And conflict can show up in those anyway. Look at any time the chaotic and lawful characters in your party get in an argument ... and then later on gang up on that smug TN little ... ahem.

Anyway, it also can depend on how big a scope such conflict needs to be. Some folks find enough fun when the barbarian and bard check their notes on NPCs slept with, and decide that the cleric's ahead of them. (Especially when they're wrong but said cleric never corrects them!) All the while interacting with the townsfolk and otherwise proceeding along. And sometimes that conflict and its drama ... never really arrives at shore despite the setup. Fun is still had regardless.

[Larkos]

Well hopefully the PC will be tailored to the AP and have some motivation to engage with the setting and plot. This can be used to create the conflict that drives character growth. It also helps if the PC starts with personality flaws that can be corrected over time.

[Ciaran Barnes]

It's not going to happen in every game because opportunities to peel back the layers of a character will not always occur as often as you would like. The best you can do during interactions with PCs and NPCs is to respond in authentic way. Hopefully you have a GM who can make use of part of a character background you write up. Don't blurt out at the first session of a campaign "I'm an escaped slave who fights oppression while searching for his family, and doesn't yet know that he's the heir to a lordship!" If your PC sees a slave he might have strong words with the master, or deliver a beating. Perhaps he mutters something about his past to indicate his past, and to give his allies a chance to respond before he starts a fight. Give it time and see how it develops. Some adventures won't have many opportunities to delve into a character. Sometimes it comes down to the play style of the group. The type of RP you might works best when all of the players are committed.

This isn't the kind of charcater building you are talking about, but I played a noble knight character years ago, and over the course of his 8 or so level career, he never once moved into a flanking position. Not with a move action, not with a charge, not with a 5-ft step. This pissed off the rogue's player to no end. He yelled about it a lot, and I can't blame him. The knight never moved out of a flank, he just wouldn't initiate it.