Dealing with agency and retcon (in semi sandbox)

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think the actual numbers matter.

And I quite disagree with you.

It could be a .0000000000000001% chance of death by staying inside that day. It doesn't change the fact that there 'is' a risk. It's a non-zero factor.

As someone who very much had to consider my chance of surviving for five years not that long ago, I can tell you my willingness to make decisions absolutely changes based on probability.

I don't think the black box applies to this games situation.

Obviously an unknowable pandora's box is a bit of an issue.

But this doesn't stop the player from choosing to open it or not.

And I stand by the opinion that there's no meaningful agency when there's no ability to assess cost to benefit. If anything it turns it into a guessing game about your ability to assess the GM.

 

[TheSword]

I don't know what you have in mind regarding jargon (goal-directed....gamestate? I would hope those would be pretty clear?), but feel free to quote a sentence or a paragraph, and simply bold something or specifically ask what I'm getting at and I'll throw some different words out there.

I’m not asking for explanations, I have google. I’m just saying when you use this much jargon it doesn’t help to convey meaning. It’s just feedback from me. Take it or leave it.

Immersionist

game layer

premise of play

operationalize

goal-forward

assess > orient > act

communication paradigm

collective onboarding

culture of play

trajectory of play

agenda for play

gaming conversation

"intent/goal" vs "action declaration"

game engine

resolution procedure

metachannel

win cons

loss cons

gamestate

cognitive loop

"bad feels."

These were the things that stood out to me as jargon.

 

[TheSword]

And I stand by the opinion that there's no meaningful agency when there's no ability to assess cost to benefit. If anything it turns it into a guessing game about your ability to assess the GM.

There can be unforeseen costs. Particularly in the future. I don’t think anyone disagrees that DMs should provide information and clues to allow players to make decisions comparing cost to benefit, but that information about cost shouldn’t be omniscient.

 

[pemerton]

the excerpt in the lead post appears to be a very traditional game with traditional game problems stemming from (a) mismatch of expectations (of premise of play and of procedures to resolve gamestates) and (b) at least one player feeling like they're working from an information deficit while the GM feels like the game is an information-rich environment. Most laments (whether you're a new GM or an old GM) when running or playing a traditional game takes this shape.

This is why my repeated advice has been - make it clearer to the players what action declarations they should be making.

Secondarily, one could add think about decisions you as GM can make about the backstory, during the course of play, so as to get things back onto the rails.

 

[pemerton]

Essentially the ability to make meaningful choices which can be broken into four components

-Awareness: the player has to know that a choice can be made

-Consequences: the player’s choice has to be accurately represented in the game

-Reminders: the player has to be reminded of the choice after they make it

-Permanence: the player cannot go back and undo their choice (after seeing its effects)

These things are consistent with a total railroad!

Consider the following "event-based" scenario:

*The PCs come upon an assault in progress - NPC A is having at NPC B. The players know nothing about the identity of A or B.
*The players are aware a choice can be made - to have their PCs help A, help B or pass on by.
*The players decide to have their PCs help A.
*It turns out - unknown to the players, but established as part of the GM's backstory - that A is the tyrant's heir, and B is the revolutionary. By helping A, the PCs help consolidate the tyranny.
*The above-mentioned consequence is represented accurately in the game - the GM narrates rebels being rounded up, the heir appearing on the caste parapet with the tyrant, etc.
*The players are reminded of their choice: the tyrant awards the PCs with honours, the rebels then start seeking revenge on them, etc.
*The above is all permanent in the sense that the consolidation of the tyranny against the rebellion is "locked in" as part of the fiction - there are no easy takebacks or do-overs available.​

As per my bolding, this satisfies all your elements. But everything about the fiction has been decided by the GM. All the players did was push a button on a black box: that is, they chose, based on whatever prompt took their fancy or perhaps on a whim or a coin toss, to have their PCs help A against B.

This is low-player-agency RPGing, pretty close to zero-agency in my description of it. Yet it ticks all your boxes. Hence your boxes do not tell us about player agency.

Player agency is not we get to push buttons on the GM's black box that prompt the GM to say new things about the fiction. Player agency is we as players get to shape the shared fiction in accordance with our own vision and aspirations for it.

As @chaochou has said, this requires knowledge of the rules whereby such shaping takes place.

I see dangling hooks as one of a DMs most important duties. The more appetizing the better.

In high-player-agency RPGing, the players hook the GM, not vice versa.

 

[pemerton]

There can be unforeseen costs. Particularly in the future. I don’t think anyone disagrees that DMs should provide information and clues to allow players to make decisions comparing cost to benefit, but that information about cost shouldn’t be omniscient.

Why not? Why should the players not know what is at stake in their decision-making?

Also, by even framing this as "the DM should provide information and clues", you are pre-supposing low-player-agency RPGing.

In high-player-agency RPGing, the "information and clues" that provide the context for more local and particular consequences to be determined come from the players as much as from the GM.

 

[pemerton]

he just feels it wasn't fair that while he was asleep the paladin ratted before he could even react.

That was the perfect time for the paladin to act. The cleric’s player seems to want more control over what happens then he would afford the other players.

This goes back to the following remark made by @chaochou:

If that's the foundational premise of the game - and it's not a bad one, per se - then you want a game in which the players themselves are able to make such conversions happen without the GM as an intermediary.

Complex character build, combat and magic systems are complete red herrings. You've got absolutely no resolution mechanics for 'trying to convert each other' to good or evil. Just freeform roleplay and GM fiat to decide the winner.

Does the cleric's sleeping period give the paladin time to act? Are there authorities around for the paladin to talk to before the cleric wakes up and notices the paladin is missing? Does Asmodeus notice what the paladin is doing and send the cleric a warning in the form of a dream or vision or omen that wakes them up?

In PF2, as I understand it, all these things are decided by the GM, which means - in effect - it is the GM deciding which of the cleric or the paladin gets their way.

Whereas there are RPG systems which would be able to resolve this PvP via a resolution framework which puts things back into the hands of the players, rather than forcing the GM to pick a winner.

 

[TheSword]

These things are consistent with a total railroad!

Consider the following "event-based" scenario:

*The PCs come upon an assault in progress - NPC A is having at NPC B. The players know nothing about the identity of A or B.​

*The players are aware a choice can be made - to have their PCs help A, help B or pass on by.​

*The players decide to have their PCs help A.​

*It turns out - unknown to the players, but established as part of the GM's backstory - that A is the tyrant's heir, and B is the revolutionary. By helping A, the PCs help consolidate the tyranny.​

*The above-mentioned consequence is represented accurately in the game - the GM narrates rebels being rounded up, the heir appearing on the caste parapet with the tyrant, etc.​

*The players are reminded of their choice: the tyrant awards the PCs with honours, the rebels then start seeking revenge on them, etc.​

*The above is all permanent in the sense that the consolidation of the tyranny against the rebellion is "locked in" as part of the fiction - there are no easy takebacks or do-overs available.​

As per my bolding, this satisfies all your elements. But everything about the fiction has been decided by the GM. All the players did was push a button on a black box: that is, they chose, based on whatever prompt took their fancy or perhaps on a whim or a coin toss, to have their PCs help A against B.

This is low-player-agency RPGing, pretty close to zero-agency in my description of it. Yet it ticks all your boxes. Hence your boxes do not tell us about player agency.

Player agency is not we get to push buttons on the GM's black box that prompt the GM to say new things about the fiction. Player agency is we as players get to shape the shared fiction in accordance with our own vision and aspirations for it.

As @chaochou has said, this requires knowledge of the rules whereby such shaping takes place.

In high-player-agency RPGing, the players hook the GM, not vice versa.

That’s because you’re looking at things in discreet individual choice rather than one of many choices that go on over time. What makes things interesting is what happens next. How do the PCs respond and act on the effect their actions had.

I’m all for informed choices - I just don’t think that all the ramifications of those choices need to be flipped out on the table. For instance I would probably have allowed some information to allow the party to make a more informed choice. Perhaps the heir was weaker physically or begging for his life. If the party do save the heir then while their decision might have weakened the rebel cause they will know something useful they didn’t before and potentially have leverage against the noble. They are then free to use that as they choose and not how the DM dictates.

Now if the party decides they don’t like the heir and want to change sides again but the DM forbids them because they ‘made their choice’ then that’s a railroad. I wouldn’t do that.

For the record these weren’t my elements they were from an article about good use of agency in the game. I didn’t say they were the only things relevant. Just 4 that I found interesting. Do you disagree that they are all part of allowing agency in decision making?

 

[pemerton]

"Adventurer" is just very vague. Vague enough for the GM to be able to throw just about anything he feels like at the players.

If the players have no more influence over the premise of the game than that their PCs are "adventurers", I think we are probably looking at low-player-agency RPGing.

 

[TheSword]

This goes back to the following remark made by @chaochou:

Does the cleric's sleeping period give the paladin time to act? Are there authorities around for the paladin to talk to before the cleric wakes up and notices the paladin is missing? Does Asmodeus notice what the paladin is doing and send the cleric a warning in the form of a dream or vision or omen that wakes them up?

In PF2, as I understand it, all these things are decided by the GM, which means - in effect - it is the GM deciding which of the cleric or the paladin gets their way.

Whereas there are RPG systems which would be able to resolve this PvP via a resolution framework which puts things back into the hands of the players, rather than forcing the GM to pick a winner.

A properly cautious and suspicious cleric of Asmodeus could have just said - I keep an eye on the Paladin in case their conscious gets the better of them. I don’t see any virtue in relying on dream visions. The cleric failed to take the threat of the Paladins conscious seriously and paid the price for it. Players should live with the consequences of both their actions and their inactions. That’s on the cleric not the DM or God.