Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Campbell]

@prabe

So I do not see it as the dice deciding. I see it as the game deciding what happens.

I think the impact this can often have on player agency is foreknowledge of what success looks like, what failure looks like, and often a decent idea of the odds. This means you can make more meaningful decisions about what your character will do.

This can be achieved somewhat in a refereed environment by a referee being open on how they are going to rule. It also helps to treat action declaration as a negotiation rather than like a chess piece you just let go of.

There are other reasons you might prefer to let game determine how things go. For me personally as a GM it is often more about having less agency so I can be more meaningfully surprised by how things go.

 

[prabe]

@prabe

So I do not see it as the dice deciding. I see it as the game deciding what happens.

I think the impact this can often have on player agency is foreknowledge of what success looks like, what failure looks like, and often a decent idea of the odds. This means you can make more meaningful decisions about what your character will do.

This can be achieved somewhat in a refereed environment by a referee being open on how they are going to rule. It also helps to treat action declaration as a negotiation rather than like a chess piece you just let go of.

There are other reasons you might prefer to let game determine how things go. For me personally as a GM it is often more about having less agency so I can be more meaningfully surprised by how things go.

That is mostly how I endeavor to GM. There are moments when it's more appropriate in-fiction for the characters to act without really good knowledge, but I try to make those as rare as possible. If the GM is being clear about the chances (or at least the situation, or at least what's impossible) something being impossible doesn't remove player agency any more than failing a die-roll does, the way I see it. (And I don't think failure negates player agency.)

 

[Manbearcat]

Player agency is always zero when GM decides.

Anyone bringing up ‘other rpgs’ should name them explicitly, so we can refer to the game texts.

Agency is the ability to change the fiction, usually through player-facing mechanics combined with established fiction which act as constraints.

Announcing an action isn’t agency - such a definition would be a nonsense. Of course, nonsense definitions suit the purposes of GMs wishing to conceal the lack of player agency in their games.

Going to use this post as a jumping off point to talk about this and I'm going to go about this in a roundabout way.

Agency, in anything, means the ability to put into effect one's will upon a thing.

Basketball players have agency during play of a game. Their opponent(s) also have agency. The referees also have agency.

Any member of the group above can arrest the agency of another member of the group. How does this happen? The following example hopefully does some work here:

* A wing player possesses the ball on the right elbow. He dribbles hard left to the middle, intent on (a) beating his man and either (b) scoring or (c) generating a scoring opportunity for a teammate.

All of (a - c) are component parts of that wing player's effort to effect his will upon that singular possession (and in-so-doing, effect the greater will of his team upon the game).

Now the defender manned up on that wing player opposes all of (a - c) above. If their will is done, none of those things will be realized (and what will be realized is a stifled possession leading to a bad shot or a Turnover).

Now, in a perfect world with a perfect referee, the ref has no agency. S/he is merely the rulebook given life. But we all know this isn't true, so the referee will invariably put into effect their will upon the game, even if its merely the unconscious will of "trying to call a fair and correct game." Unfortunately, they are human...and because they are human, something like "the Block vs Charge violation" paradigm (just to name one of many) is utterly beholden to their human inadequacies (cognitive biases, minor vision impairment, a flawed mental model of how two human bodies of differing velocities and angles of intercept interact). Or you could have more or less sinister or benign agency by a referee (willfully calling a play one way because of a bad relationship with a player or a coach or wanting the game to speed up so they can go get a drink after the game quicker).

All of agency (when it comes to games) is about authorship on the emerging work.

In a basketball game its about this possession and then about the game in total.

In roleplaying games its also about authorship. You can map the above exactly to TTRPG scenarios.

A player wants thing x to happen and works to cement its place in the unfolding situation before them. They do this by orienting themselves to the game's parameters (the authority distribution, the resolution mechanics, their thematic/tactical/strategic interests, the GM's ethos, the present gamestate and the possible future gamestates, etc) and then declaring an action for their PC.

All other participants are similarly positioned except, like the referee in the above scenario, the GM has the unique ability to declare the game's default orientation toward authority distribution as null and void (even if in so doing they're hoisted with their own petard and lose their game).

This conversation MUST orbit around the expected authority distribution and attendant play procedures that put it into effect which are inherent to play (and distinct to a particular system). That is how a TTRPG's gamestate is changed from gamestate 1 to gamestate 2 and that is how the shared fiction emerges.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean at least we all agree that Dragonlance ruined everything!

Hells yeah we do!

More seriously when running old school games and newer offshoots (Mothership, Nightmares Underneath, Stars Without Number) I view myself as a war gaming referee. I build these challenges because I want to see how players handle them. The fun for me is enabling their play. Disciplined GMing a big part of that.

I take a similar referee-like attitude most often when designing adventures - the challenges are what they are irrespective of which PCs are brought to bear by which players when (or if!) the adventure ever ends up getting run.

One of the ways to parse RPGs is to examine the way a given game apportions authority over the diegetic frame. This usually means unpacking how that authority is split between players, more specifically the GM role and the player role. The diegetic frame is the frame within which narrated events occur, so for ease, the narrative frame, although thats a less precise term. Player agency refers to the portion of authority given to the player role to establish fact or exert change on the frame state. This includes both declaring actions that will change the frame and narrative control over the outcome of those actions, among other things. Those aren't mutually exclusive or even particularly separate. A given game will use various rules and mechanics to describe and delineate this authority for all players. The phrase player agency covers a lot of ground, and looks different depending on the game in question, but always comes back to authority over the diegetic frame.

Fine as far as it goes but there's a whole other factor involved IMO: player agency also involves, in normal situations, how much control one has over one's PC and its (attempted) actions both in the fiction and at the meta-level.

Banning me from playing an Evil character - or worse, taking a previously-Good PC away from me and calling it an NPC if it gets turned Evil - is a hit to my player agency at the meta-level; Evil people of my allowable PC's race exist in the setting and thus banning me from playing one hits my agency. But - note how this is different than saying I can't play an Elf because there's no Elves in the setting to be played: I can't play what doesn't exist, and that's cool.

Ditto turning my retired PCs into NPCs in an ongoing campaign, as per a recent discussion I had in here with (I forget who).

Banning obviously impossible action declarations is a hit to my player agency in the fiction; I can't have my PC try impossible things just for kicks. Note, however, that allowing the declaration and then resolving it by simply saying that such an action is impossible (and if necessary figuring out any ramifications of my attempt) is just fine.

It's a small difference, but a very significant one, between a) saying I'm not even allowed to declare the action of shooting an arrow at the moon and b) allowing the declaration and then no-roll resolving it by flat-out saying I miss the moon and now let's figure out if that arrow hit anyone when it landed. Option a) denies my player agency; option b) preserves it.

 

[prabe]

Banning me from playing an Evil character - or worse, taking a previously-Good PC away from me and calling it an NPC if it gets turned Evil - is a hit to my player agency at the meta-level; Evil people of my allowable PC's race exist in the setting and thus banning me from playing one hits my agency. But - note how this is different than saying I can't play an Elf because there's no Elves in the setting to be played: I can't play what doesn't exist, and that's cool.

I don't disagree with anything else in this post (or even really with this) but one of the differences between your campaigns and mine is that I have a "no evil" policy. (Actually, it's a "willing to be heroes" policy, which isn't exactly the same thing.) It's not to say there's anything wrong with people who don't have that policy; it's primarily about what the people at my tables are comfortable with (and that's reason enough, IMO). I don't feel that a limitation such as that, which the players know about ahead of time, is a horrible negation of player agency.

 

[Campbell]

I don't disagree with anything else in this post (or even really with this) but one of the differences between your campaigns and mine is that I have a "no evil" policy. (Actually, it's a "willing to be heroes" policy, which isn't exactly the same thing.) It's not to say there's anything wrong with people who don't have that policy; it's primarily about what the people at my tables are comfortable with (and that's reason enough, IMO). I don't feel that a limitation such as that, which the players know about ahead of time, is a horrible negation of player agency.

More agency is not always better. The indie game club I am involved in just started play testing Power Beyond Doubt, a Powered By The Apocalypse game where we play adult super heroes dealing with adult problems (fighting the good fight even when you are dealing with personal doubts or are not seen as a hero). As part of the initial session we had a discussion about the things we wanted to see and agreed:

• We want to strike a tone close to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (some humor but take serious stuff seriously)
• Superheroes should be integrated into the larger world (political systems, economies)
• Heroes should be flawed, but still heroic.
• Villains should be relatable, but still like wrong.
• On screen death should be rare.
• On screen romance should be rare.
• No on screen death of children.
• No on screen mind control or similar behavior manipulation through powers.
• Personal stories are great, but try to get other players involved as much as possible.

This is kind of like a charter for the game that impacts the kind of actions we can take, how things will be narrated, and what conflicts get framed. As an example the character I am playing, Bloodsworn, is a mercenary with a strong code of honor that normally works for the other side except now he is basically working for SHIELD (called Vanguard in our setting). He utilizes some very violent tools (sword, gun, shuriken, explosives). It would be out of bounds for me to have Bloodworn start wantonly slaughtering his enemies. If I think Bloodsworn might kill a particularly heinous villain that might be up for grabs.

Part of our agreement is that no one owns the fiction and that we need to share it well.

 

[prabe]

@Campbell

I guess I don't see anything you mention as negating player agency. Y'all agreed to all that before you started playing. It's really no different to me from deciding that you're not allowed to bring a GURPS character (as-is) to a D&D game. Also, that sounds like a campaign with some thought in it, which is good.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't really understand what you think is at stake here, or why you find this point is an important one to make.

Well I don't really think I should be left guessing about what you don't understand about it. Maybe elaborate a bit on what doesn't make sense to you about the stance?

The distinction that is important to me, which the rulesets I referred to bring out, is between the following two things:

(i) enforcing genre contraints and fictional positioning when a player is making a decision as to what it is that his/her PC tries to do;

(ii) invoking the action resolution mechanics, which may include elements of GM adjudication, in order to find out what happens in the fiction.

It's very possible I don't know enough about those other games, but I'm not seeing any such distinction from the examples of them you have given. Every example I read sounded like it was saying "use auto failure to keep the game in genre, etc.

The first is mostly about negotiation and consensus among the participants. The GM has a special responsibiility, but isn't the sole arbiter of what can be done within the constraints of genre and fictional positioning. For instance, in my 4e game it was the player of the invoker/wizard who would often take the lead in deciding what was or wasn't possible as far as magical effects were concerned.

That a GM may delegate authority doesn't negate the fact that it was his authority to delegate. In fact our fiction gives us a great proxy example of this, when one goes about to do something on the kings authority.

The second is not about negotiation at all: in all the games I mentioned it's the player's job to declare actions for his/her PC and its the GM's job to apply and adjudicate the action resolution mechanics, in order to find out what happens.

Even when the mechanic (aka the process of determining success or failure) is "GM Decides" it's always the GM's job to apply and abjudicate the action resolution mechanics.

The only poster I've seen link the Burgomaster's reacttion to genre is me - I said that Gothic Horrors + Renaissance doesn't seem to necessitate off-with-their-heads rulers and does seem to invite mad rulers having their mansions burn down with them inside it.

You may have been the first but it wasn't like you were the only one that commented on that idea, and if I recall it did face some minority opposition.

I've seen people say that the Burgomaster's reaction is established by the GM's notes (or, in this case, the module text) but I haven't seen anyone say that it followed from the established fiction - and that seems right, because only the OP could know that and the OP hasn't really chimed in on this particular issue.

I know I have seen the argument that it followed from established fiction. That's part of what the comments about foreshadowing to the players that he would treat any who insulted him harshly was meant to show that the outcome was proper due to established fiction. It's not an argument I fully buy into - but it was an argument made nonetheless.

 

[chaochou]

My point is that "DM Decides" allows for as much player agency as "The Dice Decide."

Except this is a false equivalence, and a rhetorical con.

The correct equivalence in the simple mechanic I described is “the DM decides” vs “either the DM decides or the Player decides”.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think this addresses @chaochou's point.

(1) He is not talking about what happens to the PCs in the fiction. He is talking about what happens at the table.

I don't believe a chess player's agency is taken away because he can't move his knight as a queen. I believe the agency of a player is defined by the moves they can make inside the game and that those moves cause unique feedback inside the game. Losing player agency occurs either when that feedback loop gets temporarily turned off or when a legal move is not permitted. The first can happen in the "GM Decides" style but isn't required to. I don't believe it can happen games where a mechanic other than "person Decides" is being used. The second only happens when a referee makes an incorrect ruling and can occur in any game with a referee.

(2) At the table, he is not talking about the agency of the players to speak words like I try such-and-such. He is talking about the agency of the players to actually change the shared fiction by having their PCs do things. If the GM decrees that a change can't take place because such-and-such is impossible, the player has not exercised any agency. Their attempt at the exercise of agency has been blocked/negated by the GM.

All styles allow players to change the shared fiction by having their PCs do things. This even occurs in an instance of auto-failure. Player had PC attempt to do something -> auto-failure -> shared fiction changes. Thus, from the definition provided in this quote it doesn't follow that a GM ruling auto failure takes away player agency. It's not that their attempt at agency has been blocked/negated - it's that they did have their character make a move and that move resulted in a change in the shared fiction.

The more I read of your position the more I think you aren't using a very good definition of player agency.