Dealing with agency and retcon (in semi sandbox)

[CreamCloud0]

If the consequences of a player's declared actions are decided by someone else (eg the GM) by reference to stuff that is more-or-less outside the player's control (eg secret backstory that only the GM is privy to), then where is the agency?

In high player-agency RPGing, the players have a lot of capacity to establish what is at stake. In the OP, the players seem to have had almost no say over what is at stake.

Having agency is based on there being meaningful consequences of your actions, not being able to declare the consequences of your actions (not the same thing as declaring the intent of your actions) or not knowing the consequences of a choice with agency when you make it, are not the same as not making the choice with agency.

If I attempt to lockpick open a chest it is my agency to declare that i am trying to open it, it is not determined by the hypothetical contents of it, If it is trapped, If someone sees me doing it or even if i actually succeed the check but my ability to attempt to open it and the fiction following meaningful logical consequences from my attempts to do so.

edit: the contents of the chest may be significant to agency in the scenario that they should exist but don't purely for the point of denying the player any reward/consequence for successfully picking the lock.

 

[darkbard]

@darkbard and @chaochou are not suggesting alternatives to pen and paper. They're suggesting alternatives to PF2.

Given the sort of stuff you talk about in your OP, my first thought was Burning Wheel. Dungeon World might be another option, though perhaps it's not quite as robust for the intraparty conflict (others who know it better than me could comment on that).

To build on what @pemerton says here, many people come to RPGing through what is referred to as a "trad" approach to gaming, usually through D&D and its offshoots (like PF). It assumes a particular approach to play (a playstyle) with GM-authored secret backstory, map-and-key exploration, and things of that ilk. In addition, such play usually assumes group identity and scene/outcome desiderata over each player advocating for their PC's individual goals and beliefs. Yet that latter seems to be something your players are intrested in exploring. In any event, there are other playstyles and games that facilitate (through system mechanics, principles, and agenda) that kind (or other kinds!) of play experience.

 

[Krachek]

I think you done a good job.
Setup NPCs with motivations and make the world react the PCs action.

Maybe it is time for players to help, if they want to keep their current character and keep the party they will need to help doing so.
A redeem paladin and a Asmodeus cleric will have to make continual trade off and find solid motivation to continue cooperating. The DM can help but can’t do all the job.

The party is in jail, that is a Great start to being unite and cooperate.
As DM you just have to propose some way out and let the players choose.

 

[TheSword]

If you are deciding what will happen before any player actions you are explicitly being prescriptive.

I don’t think that is true at all.

I can write an agenda for an NPC that can then intersect with what the PCs choose to do. Just as PCs can react to player actions, so to can NPCs. It’s only a problem when PCs come up with reasonable things to prevent something and the DM forces it through regardless.

In other words, I can write the NPCs actions without putting limitations on the PCs choices. As long as I am adaptable.

 

[Baron Opal II]

If you are deciding what will happen before any player actions you are explicitly being prescriptive.

I disagree with this slightly. I always know what happens if the PCs do nothing. To the extent that the PCs act to interfere, disrupt, or even aid the antagonist of the moment is where the surprise comes from. Then you are reacting to PC's actions.

Concerning deep wells and garbage sifting, determining likely consequences for possible actions isn't constraining. Indeed, there may be mitigating circumstances depending on what details are present when the action is taken. A simple swan dive into a deep hole, well, hard to say much different than "you go splat with a sploosh". If it was a ranger with a makeshift rappelling line braced by the paladin that's a different story (so to speak). Garbage sifting? 1% chance of something valuable, 20% chance of something pertinent / useful. Where did those numbers come from? Just made them up with an eye to rewarding thinking outside the box and recognition of the fact that garbage sifting is a known police work technique.

 

[pointofyou]

I disagree with this slightly. I always know what happens if the PCs do nothing. To the extent that the PCs act to interfere, disrupt, or even aid the antagonist of the moment is where the surprise comes from. Then you are reacting to PC's actions.

Concerning deep wells and garbage sifting, determining likely consequences for possible actions isn't constraining. Indeed, there may be mitigating circumstances depending on what details are present when the action is taken. A simple swan dive into a deep hole, well, hard to say much different than "you go splat with a sploosh". If it was a ranger with a makeshift rappelling line braced by the paladin that's a different story (so to speak). Garbage sifting? 1% chance of something valuable, 20% chance of something pertinent / useful. Where did those numbers come from? Just made them up with an eye to rewarding thinking outside the box and recognition of the fact that garbage sifting is a known police work technique.

"Planning what will happen if the PCs do nothing" is not the same as "deciding what will happen before the PCs do anything." I don't think we disagree more than around the edges. The former is probably OK. The latter is probably not OK.

 

[Baron Opal II]

"Planning what will happen if the PCs do nothing" is not the same as "deciding what will happen before the PCs do anything." I don't think we disagree more than around the edges. The former is probably OK. The latter is probably not OK.

I concur.

 

[ZebraDruid]

If the consequences of a player's declared actions are decided by someone else (eg the GM) by reference to stuff that is more-or-less outside the player's control (eg secret backstory that only the GM is privy to), then where is the agency?

In high player-agency RPGing, the players have a lot of capacity to establish what is at stake. In the OP, the players seem to have had almost no say over what is at stake.

In my example earlier I described a deep dark hole, and how there are consequences to jumping into it. The consequences might seem obvious, but not always. Just like any NPCs motivations may seem obvious.

If what you say is true, then a player who jumps into a dark hole should be able to determine the consequences, not the DM. I realize there are delicate nuances that could change the interpretation of this rule, but that is why I think a DM should remain flexible in this kind of thinking.

Also, if the backstory is discoverable before the consequences manifest themselves, but the players choose not to, do not find, or otherwise ignore that information, are they still being robbed of agency? Is player knowledge of consequences required to respect the players agency?

If I use my trap metaphor. If they walk down a hall without doing a perception check, and spring a trap, and get hurt, are they robbed of agency? The nuance, and question here, is when does it become not the same as a hallway with a trap.

During the ritual the villain had a dialogue with his resurrected father, explaining to the people in the room of the curse/pact with Asmodeus, and how they were going to fulfill it fully. (One could infer this meant raising the rest of the bodies seen in the crypt)

I don’t think that is true at all.

I can write an agenda for an NPC that can then intersect with what the PCs choose to do. Just as PCs can react to player actions, so to can NPCs. It’s only a problem when PCs come up with reasonable things to prevent something and the DM forces it through regardless.

In other words, I can write the NPCs actions without putting limitations on the PCs choices. As long as I am adaptable.

I agree, if I had forced the ritual to be completed even if the paladin was present and trying to stop it, without any kind of rolls or response to the players actions, that would be an issue.

"Planning what will happen if the PCs do nothing" is not the same as "deciding what will happen before the PCs do anything." I don't think we disagree more than around the edges. The former is probably OK. The latter is probably not OK.

True, but in this circumstance it is more akin to "Deciding what will happen before the PCs do anything, and changing it if they do something."

I'm deciding that a tree will fall in 30 minutes due to wind. If the PCs come and brace it, it won't fall (possibly based on a roll). I'm not taking away their agency to stop the tree from falling, especially if they know it is a windy day. If they choose not to inspect the tree to see its' weak roots, or that it is swaying in the wind and it falls. And choose to do nothing as it starts to tip. I can't control that, nor would I want to.

Otherwise, at its core I could only determine a tree would fall if the players observe it, and act to make it fall.
Or I think, if I'm purely creating situations based on the moment without context, arbitrarily make a tree start to fall as they pass just to give the players a chance to stop it. Which I don't think is very interesting or complex.

Having agency is based on there being meaningful consequences of your actions, not being able to declare the consequences of your actions (not the same thing as declaring the intent of your actions) or not knowing the consequences of a choice with agency when you make it, are not the same as not making the choice with agency.

If I attempt to lockpick open a chest it is my agency to declare that i am trying to open it, it is not determined by the hypothetical contents of it or if it is trapped or is someone sees me doing it, but my ability to attempt to open it and the meaningful logical consequences from my actions from doing so.

edit: the contents of the chest may be significant to agency in the scenario that they should exist but don't purely for the point of denying the player any reward/consequence for successfully picking the lock.

Thanks, I agree with all points.

To build on what @pemerton says here, many people come to RPGing through what is referred to as a "trad" approach to gaming, usually through D&D and its offshoots (like PF). It assumes a particular approach to play (a playstyle) with GM-authored secret backstory, map-and-key exploration, and things of that ilk. In addition, such play usually assumes group identity and scene/outcome desiderata over each player advocating for their PC's individual goals and beliefs. Yet that latter seems to be something your players are intrested in exploring. In any event, there are other playstyles and games that facilitate (through system mechanics, principles, and agenda) that kind (or other kinds!) of play experience.

I'll take a look at those other systems. We're enjoying PFE2 currently, but if it falls through maybe I'll suggest those.

I think you done a good job.
Setup NPCs with motivations and make the world react the PCs action.

Maybe it is time for players to help, if they want to keep their current character and keep the party they will need to help doing so.
A redeem paladin and a Asmodeus cleric will have to make continual trade off and find solid motivation to continue cooperating. The DM can help but can’t do all the job.

The party is in jail, that is a Great start to being unite and cooperate.
As DM you just have to propose some way out and let the players choose.

Thank you. I am trying to create small stories without resolved endings for the PCs to discover (With a neutral outcome if they don't, typically), overtime the combination of those stories culminate to a larger outcome.

My cleric came to me and said much the same, and thought that the ranger and paladin needed more experience in roleplaying before things would run more smoothly.

 

[Krachek]

Designing NPCs or intelligent monster I’m seeking for:
Motivations.
Ressources.
Conduct.

With those set, I can make react NPCs to most situation provide by the PCs.

 

[billd91]

In my example earlier I described a deep dark hole, and how there are consequences to jumping into it. The consequences might seem obvious, but not always. Just like any NPCs motivations may seem obvious.

If what you say is true, then a player who jumps into a dark hole should be able to determine the consequences, not the DM. I realize there are delicate nuances that could change the interpretation of this rule, but that is why I think a DM should remain flexible in this kind of thinking.

Also, if the backstory is discoverable before the consequences manifest themselves, but the players choose not to, do not find, or otherwise ignore that information, are they still being robbed of agency? Is player knowledge of consequences required to respect the players agency?

If I use my trap metaphor. If they walk down a hall without doing a perception check, and spring a trap, and get hurt, are they robbed of agency? The nuance, and question here, is when does it become not the same as a hallway with a trap.

I think it's safe to say that there's a lot of contention over what constitutes making a meaningful decision (vs fateful) and things like player agency. Jumping into a dark hole is probably fateful, but a lot of people would say it's not meaningful because it offers no sense of what the consequence will be so the apparent meaning of the decision to jump in is obscured. Thus the character doesn't really have full agency despite being in control of their PC the whole time.

That said, I'm in the camp that player agency does not require a full understanding of the implications of any decision being taken. In the OP case, the PCs knew that without intervention there would be a ritual performed over a dead body to raise him and that it would have some negative consequences for the dead guy's heir (delay of inheritance if nothing else) and were suspicious of the whole affair. I don't know why, if I were a player in that game, I would need more to make a decision in which I felt I was in full control of my PC, whether I decided to intervene or not.