Dealing with agency and retcon (in semi sandbox)

[Manbearcat]

Agency is about my capacity to curate my experience toward a desired state and how my facility to realize my capabilities is marginalized or elevated by the relevant inputs of the endeavor in question. So when I go to the climbing gym, my agency is reduced by any of the following:

* The selection of boulders or faces to climb is preselected for me toward a reduced, undesirable array because any/all of traffic, infrastructure issues, poor route-setting, or an ongoing event.

* The person I'm climbing with brings a poor mental state or a mindset that is averse to being structured or goal-directed such that the scope of the outing is fundamentally changed.

* The obstacles are obscured from the ground such that I cannot assess and develop pre-climb beta (the route/sequence of moves and holds to top the climb).

* Someone, or a group of someones, is overtly directing people on beta (a major faux pas) unsolicited. This is basically "playing the game for you" at the all-important cognitive layer aspect of climbing.

* The hand and footholds are slippery and/or difficult to negotiate (particularly those that are inherently delicate propositions to start with) because they've been up too long and not cleaned.

* The route-setting was poor or mis-graded so normative techniques, distance management, sequencing are a cluster and the very important pre and in-situ cognitive layer of the climb becomes complicated/harmed.

* I'm injured, not recovered from last session, unslept, distracted, stressed or otherwise limited physically or mentally going into the session.

---

This assessment can be analogized pretty well to TTRPGing.

Forget whatever immersionist priorities one has for a moment. Look at the actual game layer of the game that you're running and playing. If the facility of your players to decide on premise of play, understand what best practices entail and operationalize them, set goals and play goal-forward, assess > orient > act with clarity and confidence is borne out in the experience of play (during play...not in the post-hoc rationalization of or reflection upon play), then you're good. If those things aren't borne out, then something is wrong with (i) GMing responsibilities, (ii) system's role and say in things, (iii) player responsibilities, (iv) the communication paradigm, or (v) the collective onboarding of the culture of play that is supposed to be the undertaking at the table.

If players didn't choose the play or didn't understand how the trajectory of play was realized, then the conversation needs to be had with them about those four things above, starting with that fourth bit. If everyone doesn't know the collective agenda for play ("what exactly are we doing and why?"), that is a good place to start. In these scenarios it seems to be very often the case that some participants aren't on the same page (and that includes the GM!) as to what it is you're all doing here. Then I'd work backwards to the communication paradigm. As a GM, is what you think you're communicating what the players are actually hearing and vice versa players to GM? Clarity of concepts in the gaming conversation are paramount (and that starts with the participants being on the same page with rules and concepts like "intent/goal" vs "action declaration" and how the game engine/resolution procedure in question interacts with such concepts). Are you (GM and players) procedurally saying enough...or too little...or the right things? Is the metachannel sufficiently open so people can engage with the game layer, can sufficiently acquaint themselves with what is happening to move the gamestate from here to there so that there isn't a misunderstanding and bad feels.

TLDR: Players choosing premise, players selecting their goals and playing goal-forward, and players understanding win cons/loss cons and how the gamestate works and moves will create maximal agency. The GM choosing premise for them, making it anywhere between arduous to impossible to play goal-forward, veiling or obscuring the gamestate machinery such that the cognitive loop of assess > orient > act is harmed....well that is going to deliver some plays firmly into "feels bad" territory.

Some players it won't. Some players are happy to have the premise of play chosen for them, they're happy to not have to play goal-forward and be responsible for the propulsion of play, and they don't care about how the gamestate moves. Passive consumption of a story, a tour of a compelling setting, some curated power fantasy while they engage in performative theatrics and self-insert, various ephemera like visuals, maps, some dice rolled...they're good.

Some players don't know the rules, don't know or observe best practices, don't listen well, don't play well others, or perhaps they even violate social expectations. And they might not take responsibility.

So make sure you know what kind of game you're promoting and playing and make sure the players know that as well. And everyone takes responsibility for their part. From the sounds of it, 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. The only way to resolve that is by brutal self (self here meaning every participant and the game itself) assessment and confrontation with the shortcomings that led to the "bad feels." Again, my recommendation when performing the assessment is to remove immersionist priorities from the dynamics of play because they'll only cloud the post-mortem. Where did things go wrong when it comes to expectation mismatch, where did things go wrong when it comes to the question of "why was the gamestate here in the first place and how did it move from to this undesirable state later," where did the talkey-talk go wrong to facilitate this mismatch and misunderstanding in the first place, did the system fail us or did we fail it (because either it isn't fit for purpose or we didn't apply it correctly)?

 

[TheSword]

Agency is about my capacity to curate my experience toward a desired state and how my facility to realize my capabilities is marginalized or elevated by the relevant inputs of the endeavor in question. So when I go to the climbing gym, my agency is reduced by any of the following:

* The selection of boulders or faces to climb is preselected for me toward a reduced, undesirable array because any/all of traffic, infrastructure issues, poor route-setting, or an ongoing event.

* The person I'm climbing with brings a poor mental state or a mindset that is averse to being structured or goal-directed such that the scope of the outing is fundamentally changed.

* The obstacles are obscured from the ground such that I cannot assess and develop pre-climb beta (the route/sequence of moves and holds to top the climb).

* Someone, or a group of someones, is overtly directing people on beta (a major faux pas) unsolicited. This is basically "playing the game for you" at the all-important cognitive layer aspect of climbing.

* The hand and footholds are slippery and/or difficult to negotiate (particularly those that are inherently delicate propositions to start with) because they've been up too long and not cleaned.

* The route-setting was poor or mis-graded so normative techniques, distance management, sequencing are a cluster and the very important pre and in-situ cognitive layer of the climb becomes complicated/harmed.

* I'm injured, not recovered from last session, unslept, distracted, stressed or otherwise limited physically or mentally going into the session.

---

This assessment can be analogized pretty well to TTRPGing.

Forget whatever immersionist priorities one has for a moment. Look at the actual game layer of the game that you're running and playing. If the facility of your players to decide on premise of play, understand what best practices entail and operationalize them, set goals and play goal-forward, assess > orient > act with clarity and confidence is borne out in the experience of play (during play...not in the post-hoc rationalization of or reflection upon play), then you're good. If those things aren't borne out, then something is wrong with (i) GMing responsibilities, (ii) system's role and say in things, (iii) player responsibilities, (iv) the communication paradigm, or (v) the collective onboarding of the culture of play that is supposed to be the undertaking at the table.

If players didn't choose the play or didn't understand how the trajectory of play was realized, then the conversation needs to be had with them about those four things above, starting with that fourth bit. If everyone doesn't know the collective agenda for play ("what exactly are we doing and why?"), that is a good place to start. In these scenarios it seems to be very often the case that some participants aren't on the same page (and that includes the GM!) as to what it is you're all doing here. Then I'd work backwards to the communication paradigm. As a GM, is what you think you're communicating what the players are actually hearing and vice versa players to GM? Clarity of concepts in the gaming conversation are paramount (and that starts with the participants being on the same page with rules and concepts like "intent/goal" vs "action declaration" and how the game engine/resolution procedure in question interacts with such concepts). Are you (GM and players) procedurally saying enough...or too little...or the right things? Is the metachannel sufficiently open so people can engage with the game layer, can sufficiently acquaint themselves with what is happening to move the gamestate from here to there so that there isn't a misunderstanding and bad feels.

TLDR: Players choosing premise, players selecting their goals and playing goal-forward, and players understanding win cons/loss cons and how the gamestate works and moves will create maximal agency. The GM choosing premise for them, making it anywhere between arduous to impossible to play goal-forward, veiling or obscuring the gamestate machinery such that the cognitive loop of assess > orient > act is harmed....well that is going to deliver some plays firmly into "feels bad" territory.

Some players it won't. Some players are happy to have the premise of play chosen for them, they're happy to not have to play goal-forward and be responsible for the propulsion of play, and they don't care about how the gamestate moves. Passive consumption of a story, a tour of a compelling setting, some curated power fantasy while they engage in performative theatrics and self-insert, various ephemera like visuals, maps, some dice rolled...they're good.

Some players don't know the rules, don't know or observe best practices, don't listen well, don't play well others, or perhaps they even violate social expectations. And they might not take responsibility.

So make sure you know what kind of game you're promoting and playing and make sure the players know that as well. And everyone takes responsibility for their part. From the sounds of it, 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. The only way to resolve that is by brutal self (self here meaning every participant and the game itself) assessment and confrontation with the shortcomings that led to the "bad feels." Again, my recommendation when performing the assessment is to remove immersionist priorities from the dynamics of play because they'll only cloud the post-mortem. Where did things go wrong when it comes to expectation mismatch, where did things go wrong when it comes to the question of "why was the gamestate here in the first place and how did it move from to this undesirable state later," where did the talkey-talk go wrong to facilitate this mismatch and misunderstanding in the first place, did the system fail us or did we fail it (because either it isn't fit for purpose or we didn't apply it correctly)?

I’ve liked the post because there are a lot of things you’ve said I really agree with and I like the tone.

There is so much jargon in there though, even in the TLDR, that it’s really hard to digest and will
be impenetrable to a lot of readers. Maybe I’m not your audience though.

 

[ZebraDruid]

Interesting is subjective. I'm saying that if you want player agency, then the players need to be informed. agency in and of itself is neither bad nor good... unless it's what one wants or doesn't want.

It is subjective, and I think perhaps being 'informed' is subjective as well.

Is knowing the exact AC of an enemy informed?
Or is knowing that the enemys AC is "high and hard to hit" enough?

I often will let my players roll a relative DC to see if they can gleam information about a monster.

Oh is that a zombie? I'll roll a religion check to see more information (or perhaps arcana, it just depends).
Ah theres an ice golem, yes I've studied arcana and know a bit about golem construction, roll a DC to recall/inspect specific information about the golem.

This gives players with more mental based skills a chance to feel important and useful.

Absolutely. I'm trying to avoid value judgments like that. I don't think that player agency is always appropriate. It depends on the game and the preferences and expectation of the participants.

It seems to be, I asked my group, and asked if it would have been better that I told them no to going to the necromancer crypt. And two of them said yes, they would have preferred I kept it rail roaded.

Remember, the fact that they went to the necromancer at all is the result of giving them agency

I didn't plan it. I reacted.

My comments have all been about when player agency is desired.

No, failure isn't taking away agency. I mean, it may be, but it's not inherently.

I think I'm finding out that agency should be taken away sometimes, by my players as well. But to what degree I'm still figuring out.

snippity

Hiding gameplay information from the players is antithetical to agency.

Somewhat agree.

Hiding obvious information like. "The bridge in front of you seems rickety and unstable*

I totally agree. It's obvious, and it's something they'd notice right away.

Hiding.
"Theres a trap in this hallway and it's a DC check of 25 to disarm, only Jibs can disable it by rolling a 17 or higher, the trap is a fire burst trap that will explode in a 5' radius dealing 4d8 fire damage. The guards that you're unaware of in the next room will also roll a d20 with a bonus of + 9 against a DC of 15 perception check to hear you. The guards are level 4 with 21 AC, +9 to hit carrying longswords that deal 1d8, and armed with shie---" Etc etc.

Sometimes these details are better left to be discovered, or undiscovered entirely. It doesn't really add much to their decision making besides adding a lot of risk factor analysis, which I think can be fine, but let them discover it through actions and RP. Inspect the trap, and get an idea of how tough it is. Inspect the walls, maybe they're charred? Listen quietly, do you hear voices through the wall, perhaps guards?

I'm not so sure. I know many call it a spectrum, and I understand why, but I don't know if that's the case. The more games I play that make an effort to actually provide agency, the more clear it is to me when a game lacks it.

I think it is a spectrum, but I tend not to like absolutes in general.

Total complete agency can't exist in anything but a infinitely adaptive simulation, and players should realize a person has to actually create and think up all the content that goes on in a game.

So in that sense I think you could say...

A video game like Skyrim has a good deal of agency
But less agency than pen and paper sandbox
But pen and paper sandbox has less agency than a quantum computer generated simulation.

If you think that isn't a kind of spectrum to some degree, then I kind of wonder if we even have agency, or you can ever truly have it at all.

And again, I don't make any value judgment about games that lack it. I have played and will continue to play those games as well. The only problem is when I expect a game of one type, and get another.

I get that point. I agree.

But if they've agreed not to climb the mountains in the next kingdom, then how can you claim they have agency? They're limited in what's allowed. They need to stay away from the mountains and near the GM's plot. These two bits seem to be at odds.

I agree with @TheSword on this. There is definitely a kind of social contract when it comes to agency.

Case example. In my first dungeon, my bard jumped into that deep dark hole. He had...

8/8 healing potions
1/1 lockpick sets
1/1 healers kits
2/3 torches
A powerful magical sword (the only magical weapon in the party)
The best armor in the group
The only backpack (One of those rough it dungeons)

He dropped all this stuff into the pit with him, broke his legs at the bottom, and was eaten by zombies. He then left his party of 2 (3 - 1) to try to beat a dungeon designed for a party of 3, with none of the resources provided to make it easier.

Was that his agency to jump into the pit with all the resources and die? Yes, but wouldn't it be in the realm of social contract for the game/friends sake not to?

To my point about not being able to 'make the paladin' do the 'good thing'. I'd also say that I can't stop the whole party from doing the boring/useless thing.

Hey guys, do you want to maybe go adventure instead of sitting in the tavern drinking like the last 3 sessions? N..No? Ah okay...

That's their agency to do after all...

Whether or not this goal of play is achieved has zero to do with player agency. Many players find railroaded play quite satisfying. That does not mean that they exercised agency. But generally, in successful railroaded play, the players know what they need to do because the GM sends the appropriate signals.

How are the players meant to know that they have to look for this information? Or to put it another way, how are the players meant to know that you are running a scenario which has the basic structure of a Call of Cthulhu scenario, rather than (say) Keep on the Borderlands or some other basic D&D-ish structure?

The players ask if there was a will, and the older noble said yes but they couldn't see it. They seen a study down the hall with bookshelves. When they returned during the night they seen the same study again, but didn't see any chests in it, so deemed it useless. The mage went upstairs and seen a bunch of papers and books on a table, and instead went for the chests in the room that had loot.

The crypt had bloody skulls, necromantic runes, etc. I've already repeated all this before.

I let them know the two brothers were both lying.

The 'quest' ended when they exited the manor with the body.

Their agency was exercised when they went to the necromancers ritual.

Not only was this not part of my plan, but they didn't even have the information that would have keyed them in to go to the ritual in the first place.

A simple quest was made complex by their agency.

Let me clarify If it was truly railroad. They wouldn't have been able to go to the necromancer until they had the information from the house.

This circles my point about preventing them from doing things that can cause them trouble. I can't.

The 'real' consequences that the group is mad about, is that the paladin ratted. They don't really care about the noble families death, it bummed the paladin, but he is much more upset about the fact that the group (IC) hates his paladin for ratting on him.

But I as a DM can't stop him from tattling on the other players.

If play will become aimless or pointless unless the players follow the GM's quest, that's a good sign that the play is low on player agency. Which then puts a significant onus on the GM to tell the players what they are meant to be doing.

In this respect, the quest is not like a dungeon, because a dungeon in D&D (or similar RPGS) establishes a whole series of default expectations and possible action declarations: inspecting the architecture, inspecting the furniture, looking for treasure guarded by denizens, etc.

The quest does not generate a comparable context for default action declarations. As your OP demonstrates.

They actually didn't follow the quest. Which is what put them in trouble. The quest wasn't to go partake in the ritual, then tattle on the group for necromancy.

yeah no, hard disagree with this, knowing gameplay stats/information is entirely tangential to having player agency, knowing 'this action requires an athletics check of 18' has no influence on making your players actions matter and having meaningful consequences.

As I said before I sometimes let my players do rolls to check for a creatures statistics. Roll arcana to see the slimes AC/possible weakness. (Failure tells nothing or little) And I'll give them a vague idea of the DC of an action. "That gap looks really far." "This lock looks almost impossible to pick."

But yeah, I totally agree telling them the exact number adds nothing to making their actions meaningful. It only allows them to make calculations. It actually ends up slowing the game down as well.

This would be more relevant if the risks I was taking were more than a rounding error, and I knew that.

The problem with the examples you were using is that they're either well beyond a rounding error, or they're effectively zero, and the person doing them has no way to know which.

I don't think the actual numbers matter.

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 such, again, they're a black box with no way to assess the risk involved.

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.

Where it would be a violation of the players agency, as I said some ways up

Real violation of agency is based on the relative degree of consequences/rewards caused by their actions/inactions, and further relative to a reasonable level of knowledge of consequence obtainable by the player prior.

If the player existed in a theoretical void with nothing to win or lose, I'd say there could be no violation of agency no matter what the consequence/reward was to opening the box.

They have nothing to gain or lose.

If they existed in a typical world, and opening it destroyed the universe, and they didn't know. Then that could be considered a violation of agency. In my opinion


----------------
The risk assessment they took, was that they were breaking into a home (Illegal) stealing things (Illegal) dealing with a feuding family (suspicious, and perhaps dangerous) and resurrecting bodys (Magical casters involved)

In this instance, not investigating the details of the story, and not stopping the necromancer. The consequences was a family they weren't related to, and didn't know, would get killed.

Keep it in mind that I have written nothing else as to whether this even matters in the long term. Does a powerful necromancer cult arise because of this? That might actually be a 'good thing' because then it gives them another quest.

The consequences of their actions were relatively banal.

Actually, if something I can't assess harms or helps me, I consider my agency in it effectively irrelevant too. Essentially, my decision making matter not at all. That's not agency in any meaningful way.

A deeper examination into the nature of existence.

Depends on whether its completely deterministic or not. If it is, that destroys any meaningful agency just as much. If, on the other hand, it gives probabilities, that increase my agency; I can make assessment of value-to-risk that actually means something.

Its not the presence of risk that's the issue. Its the fact the risk is, effectively, blind, or at best, so broad strokes that there's no useful way to assess it beyond "there's some degree of indeterminate risk to gain here".

I suppose I'd say then. If you were given a choice of two hands by someone you 'trust'. And one hand had a relative reward, and one a relative consequence.

Perhaps you had to eat what was in their hand. One being a piece of candy, the other an old dirty walnut. (Or something.)

You trust them that the reward or consequence isn't going to be disproportionate to the information you have, or the effort you put into choosing.

Is that agency to choose to pick a hand or not?

Again. I don’t believe a good level of agency is the ability to go anywhere and do anything. See No Man’s Sky to see just how hollow that kind of experience can be.

If I’m playing a game with other people part of the social contract is that I at least attempt to play reasonably with them. That is in itself a limitation but because it’s for the good of everyone we accept it. The same applies to players who agree to be interested the world and the things going on in it.

Agreed. Walk in a straight line in minecraft. Lots of agency. Nothing interesting or unique going on.

We wouldn’t accept one player deciding that they want to use the adventure gaming session to model what it’s like to run their real world dog grooming business, but we might allow them to run around with a mastiff henchman. That’s also a limitation but another reasonable and practical one.


Boundaries are good. Focusing in allows greater depth and detail.

Players agree to adventure in the parameters set by the DM, with an understanding that if they want to step outside of that then they need the DM to be willing and they need to give them time to prepare. That’s just respectful.

The players agree to stay in the Kingdom but the DM agrees to fill that area with engaging, interesting stuff to see and do… social contract.

Agreed, yeah. I wanted to keep them safe for awhile, while they figured out their characters. Because I was afraid something like this would happen.

I know my group and they like to do dangerous brazen stuff.

 

[Manbearcat]

I’ve liked the post because there are a lot of things you’ve said I really agree with and I like the tone.

There is so much jargon in there though, even in the TLDR, that it’s really hard to digest and will
be impenetrable to a lot of readers. Maybe I’m not your audience though.

Its for whomever wants to read it, ask questions about it for clarification (feel free to do so), or challenge it (feel free to do so).

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.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You say this isn’t a game with agency. I say that relies on a very narrow interpretation of what agency means. 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)

I think all of these can feature fine in a scenario with GM plots if by that you mean the locations, NPcs, hooks and Events that exist in the world created by by a GM.

They absolutely can fit into a scenario with GM plots.

But if you want to fit them into a scenario with player agency, then you need to add the key aspect of information for the players. That's the essential piece you're missing above.

The players need to be aware of their options, some sense of the odds for each option, and the likely outcomes of success or failure. Meaningful decision is not about the outcome... it's about the point of the decision. I have to have information when I decide in order for that decision to be informed and therefore meaningful.

I think too many people are looking at the outcome alone and then declaring any decision that led to it as "meaningful". But I think it's a mistake to look at it that way.

My preferred approach is the pitch. Followed by Q&A discussion. I say, I’d like to run an investigation based game at a time of political unrest in the city of Ubersreik using the WFRP. Is this interesting to you? What kind of characters do you want to run? I then go away and prepare a campaign that fits that.

Once they agree part of the assumption is that they will create a character that has a reason to adventure in Ubersreik and that they won’t create a character with a burning desire to travel to Altdorf!

So you come up with the idea, then ask the players if they're interested, and then prepare a campaign that fits that? What input do the players have on this? Do the characters they make have any impact on what you will prepare?

What you've described sounds like the answer to all the questions I asked is "it's up to the GM'. I don't know how you see that as a recipe for player agency.

I see adventuring as doing adventurous things. I.e not running a bakery or picking flowers on the verge. Raising your head above the parapet in a way that most most denizens of the world won’t. I don’t think you need to be a travelling mercenary - you can be a baker or a herbalist - but you’ll be stepping out of that hun drum space to do something extraordinary.

The three examples I gave were soldiers trying to make their way home from behind enemy lines, a group of criminals, and a group of spies... none of these are not adventurous. No one is talking about one player deciding to take on some mundane goal to the exclusion of all else. That's not anything that's being suggested.

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

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

Sure, in a certain kind of play, it's absolutely vital. I just don't think that kind of play has much to do with player agency.

In a player directed game, the players will be involved in generating the direction of play... they'll help determine the "hooks" (such as they are in that kind of game).

Mysteries are fun. Otherwise why not give them an open map of the dungeon complex with a brief description of each room at the same time as giving the AC?

Why would you conflate sharing the AC of an opponent in full plate with revealing the entirety of the dungeon? These are not both mysteries.

If my character sees an orc in plate and with a shield, my character doesn't think "I wonder what his AC is". The character has the information he needs already... the orc has plate and a shield.

Now, for the player of a game to be informed, he should know what that means mechanically. Chances are, he'll have a good idea already as you've suggested, but if so, then why not just say it? The player should know what that means mechanically if he is to have agency. Saying "the orc has an AC of 18" doesn't spoil anything. There's no mystery that's ruined by just giving this information out.

This reluctance to share information is a sign that player agency is not a high priority. It's unnecessary, and opens the door to fudging and force and other things that I would expect anyone interested in player agency would want to avoid.

 

[kenada]

(PF E2 although it hardly matters)

I've started DMing for a group of 4 close friends. I'm fairly new to it, but most have experience with TTRPG or at least CRPGs.

We did a goofy one off dungeon (it lasted a few sessions since we were all learning) to get a general grasp of the game. One character jumped into a deep dark hole and essentially died for 80% of the game. (He was fine with it but realized actions have consequences)

A month or so later we're starting a fresh new campaign that is basically a sandbox with an end goal that will eventually shape itself into the game based on their actions.

To not overwhelm them I locked them in a safe orderly large city (Almas) with the intent to give them some quests to help build up their characters personality, wealth, and level up a little, before I let them go all the way to Mwangi Expanse if they wanted to, and die to a tyrannosaur.

It was going decently well, and we were shaping the world details we wanted to see. The exact map of towns, organizations, npcs etc. People were having fun, figuring out more in depth with how the game functions.

I gave them a quest, given to them by a noble to steal the body of his father from a family crypt. He lied and said he was resurrecting his father from his evil brothers clutches who just wanted the inheritance. The young noble was a necromancer whose family had a curse/pact with Asmodeus that basically bound them to him if they were ever resurrected. (A poorly worded deal with a contract devil that the dealer wanted his family lineage to be immortal.) The curse would break if no living members were alive who were still pact bound/resurrected. The younger brother wanted to force his entire family into the deal, and the older brother was trying to abide by his fathers wish to break the curse, without harming his brother and just letting him be.

The party consists of a:
Good Sarenrae redeemer paladin
Evil Asmodeus Cleric (converted from norgerber)
Neutral Wizard
and Chaotic good Ranger

The overall party story is a struggle between good and evil characters trying to convert each other. Naturally it's a bit chaotic.

They went to the older brother and failed their diplomacy checks to gleam information, so they broke into the family crypt to steal the body, believing the younger brother had good intentions (he lied to them, they could have stolen information from the house and found wills etc, reported it to the guards, so on)

They brought the body to a graveyard late at night as instructed, and the evil cleric and the neutral wizard were curious about how exactly this resurrection ritual of theirs was going to go. The whole group was suspicious of the noble, and his intentions. The cleric tried to convince the group to stay out (because he was pretty sure something evil was about to transpire and didn't want the paladin interfering)

The paladin stayed outside, and at the time I couldn't figure out why (There wasn't even any diplo check to influence it and they knew this), but I figured he had his reasons. I didn't want to force him into anything he didn't want to do. So the necromancers performed the ritual, pact bound the father to Asmodeus through the contract, and once they exited the crypt, paid the group for their efforts, and went off into the night. (To then go to the older brothers home and murder his entire family, resurrecting the older brother and son to also be in the necromantic circle.)

The paladin was not happy about this, especially after finding out the family had been killed, went to his church, and the guard, and the lets call them 'magical FBI' as the group has coined them. And essentially ratted out the entire group to being complicit in the crime of grave robbing, necromancy, theft (the cleric and wizard robbed the home on the way out) and accomplices to murder.

I had intended the paladin to go in with the group and stop the necromancers, but he didn't think that was an option and I wasn't respecting his agency, and that his actions didn't matter. Where as it was actually the exact opposite. I respected his agency as a player so much, that I didn't make the very obvious suggestion that he should go investigate the crypt some shady people just took a body into and find out what they were up to. Thus, evil basically won, and the bad guys triumphed without a fight. The family could have been kept from harm, and he was more or less one of the people who could have stopped it.

Bare in mind. I let a player 'jump into a dark pit to his death' in the last campaign. It was a joke we all laughed about ever since.


Now as a result, everyone is going to prison for various amounts of time (the cleric took part in the ritual and fully devoted himself to Asmodeus). (Also earlier in the campaign they had 'tracker spells' put on them to keep them in the city, so they basically can't hide without literally cutting off their hand, or finding some way to dispel it which just seems a bit convoluted and cheap as a level 2 party.)


I suppose the question is, how much should I be guiding my party, even though I have let them know ahead of time, and many times before, and given them examples and situations where they can do what they want. Do I in this situation say "No, you can't stay out here because it will mess up the story, now get inside and stop the ritual. Why even give them free will and choice at all? Is it really agency if I just direct the story to what 'they' want to have happen, even if it isn't actually their choice? How do I balance agency between good and evil characters motives and goals, especially if one of them refuses to fight back when it matters most?

I've noticed that if I make a suggestion, the player will often do it as if I'm telling them to do it, but other times they will ignore me entirely even if it's good advice, so I realize they have minds of their own, and also do take suggestions, but not always...So often, I just wait to "Yes, And..." "Yes, But..." them

'Yes, you can decide to wait outside and let an evil ritual be performed by suspicious people on a dead body in a graveyard at 1am, but they're going to go kill an innocent family afterwards if you don't stop them.'

Your campaign is conflicted about its nature. You call it a sandbox, but the play you describe is more like a traditional, curated, story-based campaign. The PCs can make some choices, but they’re still doing tasks for NPCs, and you have intentions for how certain situations should be approached. There’s also the issue that not only are they bound to their location, but the binding effectively prevents them from hiding from the authorities when they get into trouble.

It’s okay if you want to do a story-based campaign. Those are very popular, and people have a lot of fun doing them. However, I think it’s important to step back and understand what’s actually being done in the campaign and reconcile it with what it’s supposed to be about. That seems to be the source of conflict. There’s a lot of talk about story and what the NPCs are doing but nothing about the PCs’ goals and what they’re trying to accomplish (beyond the job that was given to them). Sandbox play should be driven by the PCs and the goals they’ve decided. If the intent is a sandbox (versus story-driven), then find out what the PCs want to accomplish and orient play around that.

-should we just retcon the ratting out of the group that has basically resulted in a TPK of sorts,
-do they roll with the prison time, (The cleric is effectively PK'd because he'll be in wizard prison for a decade)
-do we retcon the entire session so that they can 'do the good thing' and set a precedent that says : "Will anything I do matter this session? Not sure... cause it might get retconned...meh w/e I'll just do some dumb crap and we can retcon it later if so."
-Remake new characters and learn from the experience.

Play it. If the campaign is really a sandbox, it’s not about some particular story. Until the PCs are taken out of play, they can still try to pursue their goals. Even in prison, they can attempt to break out, take advantage of the situation, subvert their situation, etc. However, to get to that point, the game has to get there. They have to be arrested and processed. The authorities need to know what happened and act on it. There’s a lot that can happen between “the PCs made a mess of things” and “the PCs are imprisoned and out of play”. If I would retcon anything, it’s the tracker spells.

Things to consider:
-No one is shy. I try to interrupt people to let others speak if they've been overshadowed for too long. (But usually people let others speak on their own) everyone has known each other for at least a year, (The wizard is the paladins brother, I've known the cleric for 9 years)
-Everyone has a basic understanding of agency and character growth
-Everyone has experience in rpg style games
-Everyone has mutual respect for each other
-I asked OOC if anyone else wanted to go into the crypt
-We had a 4 hour discussion after session with open communication suggesting the above solutions
-I explained at the start there were at least 3 ways to complete the quest (that I could imagine at the time)

I run an exploration-driven sandbox campaign (and that’s what my homebrew system is designed to facilitate). I try to avoid prescribing a particular outcome or putting them in situations where there is an intended path. There have been times where they could have (and did) walk away from a situation. They recently killed one of their ally’s people. There will be consequences for those things, but they’ll be operationalized according to my system’s procedures. (In a game like PF2, I’d look at the VP subsystem to track something like that.) It takes time for consequences to be found out and then come to fruition.

Based on my experience, my advice if you do want to run a sandbox (versus a curated game) is to dial back on the quest-oriented play. Let the players establish goals. Sometimes that will involve going to people who can help them and doing a favor, but sometimes they’re just going to go out and do stuff. Worlds Without Number has some good, system-neutral advice for running a sandbox in an adventure-oriented framework (versus exploration-driven, which is what I like to do). One of the keys is to ask the players at the end of the session what their intent is for the next, so you can prepare something appropriate for them for the next session. You should only do as much prep as necessary (and that you enjoy doing, though overprepping comes with the risk of wasted prep).

 

[hawkeyefan]

It is subjective, and I think perhaps being 'informed' is subjective as well.

Is knowing the exact AC of an enemy informed?
Or is knowing that the enemys AC is "high and hard to hit" enough?

If you're going to tell them it's high and hard to hit, why not just say the number? The number is to the player as hard to hit is to the character.

There's nothing to be gained by not sharing that number.

Having said that, ACs aren't the important thing in the grand scheme of things, I don't think. But it shows an overall reluctance to share information. And information is the foundation of player agency.

I often will let my players roll a relative DC to see if they can gleam information about a monster.

Oh is that a zombie? I'll roll a religion check to see more information (or perhaps arcana, it just depends).
Ah theres an ice golem, yes I've studied arcana and know a bit about golem construction, roll a DC to recall/inspect specific information about the golem.

This gives players with more mental based skills a chance to feel important and useful.

That's all fine! Anything that can gain information for the players is good. Personally, I just tell them a lot of that stuff. In many cases, there's nothing to be gained by not identifying a monster or sharing information that may be relevant. The players are relying on me to the the full spectrum of what their characters can perceive and intuit from any situation... I'm never going to be able to do that job 100%, so why not make it easier by sharing information?

If something truly would be hidden, that's something different... but otherwise, I tend to try and over-inform my players. I want there to be an abundance of information.

It seems to be, I asked my group, and asked if it would have been better that I told them no to going to the necromancer crypt. And two of them said yes, they would have preferred I kept it rail roaded.

Remember, the fact that they went to the necromancer at all is the result of giving them agency

I didn't plan it. I reacted.

I honestly haven't really commented on your specific scenario from the OP because I think it's better to establish some foundational elements first. From the gist of it, I got the impression that some players took that to be something they were "supposed" to do.

I think I'm finding out that agency should be taken away sometimes, by my players as well. But to what degree I'm still figuring out.

It depends on what you want the play experience to be like. If you're going to play Alien or Call of Cthulhu, agency isn't going to be a priority.

Other types of games have different ways to allow agency.

I think the best thing you can do for the purpose of this conversation is to imagine player agency as it relates to chess. As a player, I have agency in chess. That doesn't mean there aren't limits on what I can do... each piece has its own moves and I have to stick to those, and I can make one move before my opponent goes, and so on.

What's key is that I know how the opponent's pieces work as well, and they're all visible to me. There is no hidden information. I don't move my knight in front of one of the opponent's pawns and watch as he moves forward and takes my knight, saying "That pawn was a rook in disguise... agency, son!"

The state of the game is set. I understand the rules. I know the risks, or can see them, before I make a move. I can act knowing that whatever happens as a result was knowable to me.

Now, apply this to RPGs. Think about how the GM keeping information or changing the process of play on a whim would translate to chess. O any other game.

Player agency requires that we consider the game. It's about the player taking part in the game.

I think it is a spectrum, but I tend not to like absolutes in general.

Total complete agency can't exist in anything but a infinitely adaptive simulation, and players should realize a person has to actually create and think up all the content that goes on in a game.

So in that sense I think you could say...

A video game like Skyrim has a good deal of agency
But less agency than pen and paper sandbox
But pen and paper sandbox has less agency than a quantum computer generated simulation.

If you think that isn't a kind of spectrum to some degree, then I kind of wonder if we even have agency, or you can ever truly have it at all.

I think different games have different limits on agency, but I don't think that means that there's a spectrum in the sense of like 1 to 10.

I agree with @TheSword on this. There is definitely a kind of social contract when it comes to agency.

There can be a social contract about a lot of things.

Case example. In my first dungeon, my bard jumped into that deep dark hole. He had...

8/8 healing potions
1/1 lockpick sets
1/1 healers kits
2/3 torches
A powerful magical sword (the only magical weapon in the party)
The best armor in the group
The only backpack (One of those rough it dungeons)

He dropped all this stuff into the pit with him, broke his legs at the bottom, and was eaten by zombies. He then left his party of 2 (3 - 1) to try to beat a dungeon designed for a party of 3, with none of the resources provided to make it easier.

Was that his agency to jump into the pit with all the resources and die? Yes, but wouldn't it be in the realm of social contract for the game/friends sake not to?

To my point about not being able to 'make the paladin' do the 'good thing'. I'd also say that I can't stop the whole party from doing the boring/useless thing.

Hey guys, do you want to maybe go adventure instead of sitting in the tavern drinking like the last 3 sessions? N..No? Ah okay...

That's their agency to do after all...

I have no idea what the player of the bard knew or thought would happen, or why he thought it was reasonable to jump into the pit, or what other options may have existed to jumping in the pit, or if he was able to determine if there were zombies down there, or any other dangers, or if he tried to do so, or any number of other factors.

I cannot even begin to really assess that situation.

 

[kenada]

I agree, that's sort of my goal. And not just because it's often fun, but because making intricate stories takes a lot of time. Although I don't think they realize that fully, which is why they thought everything was pre-determined. Even the situation they brought themselves into (the ritual was supposed to be off screen entirely, and just in theory visit-able)


To add a little context to the Paladins actions, he first went to his church to have a confession. The high priest became curious and asked more questions. But was going to keep it confidential to protect the churches interest, and investigate it himself.

The paladin then went to the local garrison, who were investigating the murder at the home, but had no means to tie him to the crime specifically.

Afterwards he went to the wizards who were there in town still investigating the gnomish contraption incident, and showed them the ritual scene. Until then, they could have probably all skated by undetected, but he wanted to fully involve as many powerful NPCs as possible. The access to the ritual site let them know it was necromancy, and being diviner investigators were able to determine more potent details from the fresh casting of the ritual.

He essentially ratted them out 3 times in ramping up severity.

One issue with the cleric is he feels he didn't have much agency in him ratting, as he did it behind his back with no way of knowing.

The paladin acted according to his nature (and what the tenets, edicts, and anathema he is expected to follow demand). That strikes me as pretty reasonable, especially if the story is supposed to be a “ struggle between good and evil”. What is a struggle without conflict?

 

[kenada]

I agree, 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 than he would afford the other players.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well gathering that information in the method that the players choose can be part of the game.

If they're allowed to, and there's any suggestion its possible. Let's just say all evidence is neither of those is a given.

I don’t believe this stuff needs to be handed to the PCs on a plate. I also don’t think every choice needs to be meaningful for there to be a good degree of player agency. Arguably making an attack roll against a creature they know nothing about is not a meaningful choice.

I'm not a fan of "the only choice you make is whether to attack and what target" either. That that was about your options with an OD&D fighter was a big part of the reason I bailed out of D&D for many years.

After a round of combat they get an idea of how tough the creature is and how dangerous it is, deciding then to continue attacking or beat a hasty retreat is a meaningful choice. If that is a possibility then those characters have agency.

Your last sentence is pretty key here, however.

I get that. Elaborate back stories that never come to light, 2D foes, too many journey style adventures where you never actually learn anything about your surroundings. These are not my favorite things.

And none of that is exactly uncommon.

I agree totally. I am disheartened by the over reliance on fire and forget combat. Dozens of small and relatively unimportant combats designed to wear PCs down that individually mean little beyond filling rooms and levelling up. Paizo were a burger for doing that in their APs.

Usually in the post-2e period I've found they often at least tell you something more about the overall situation (and not doing that gives the sense to people that overall opposition is always stronger than them, which can be pretty disheartening).

Some of that is ok to set a scene but I’m far more interested in combat being more important, more meaningful and something that can, and should be broken off where necessary. I think that should be easier for both PCs and DMs. I quite like the idea of being able to switch to a chase mechanic that steps outside of the normal initiative structure once a creature decides to break for it.

Me too. I saw too many years of retreating being either unclear if it was likely to be a good idea, or it being all too clear it was a terrible one.