Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay
- Thread starter Retreater
- Start date
@FrogReaver - Mostly not, and certainly not necessarily, but sometimes. Even in cases where PCs can effect other PCs, with a persuade attempt for example, the target PC still generally narrates the outcome. PC narration of outcomes is a pretty separate mechanic or rule.
FrozenNorth
Hero
The OP did mention that the party had met with other factions seeking to oust the Baron due to his capricious rule and that the party had refused to ally with them.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
It depends on the game.
In most Powered By The Apocalypse games the social influence moves will function differently for the players' characters vs NPCs. You always have control of what your character does, but if one players character successfully uses a social influence move you might get experience if you go along or face mechanical penalties or conditions going forward if you do not go along. It's also generally assumed that if a character has Strings on you in Monsterhearts or influence over you in Masks that should affect the decisions you make for your character.
In Sorcerer it is fairly similar. In any social conflict the person who wins applies a penalty to going against them or a bonus for going along with them based on how much they won the conflict by.
Some games like Dogs in the Vineyard and Exalted do have binding social conflicts. The player is always in control of their PC, but may be bound to honor their character being convinced of something or to do something.
Last edited:
Wow.
You say this:
And then you say this:
Which. Is. Exactly. What. I. Mean.
So, which is it? Do you understand? Do you not understand? Do you understand but you don't know you understand? If you're playing stupid, please stop; I know you're not stupid.
I, as DM, author the starting states, which are used as exactly that--starting states, as a large part of the framing for a given adventure. As the game is played, more fiction emerges, which is used as further framing for further adventures. From time to time, I author new starting states, which I endeavor to keep consistent with previous events. In prior conversations, I have referred to this as "instigating" and you have professed to understand what I meant, then.
I am not presuming the players won't have agency. Something being impossible doesn't negate player agency. The fact you have a player at your table who knows how tugboats operate kept that consistent with reality, but the fact that the operator couldn't (in the absurd) have the tugboat take off like a helicopter doesn't do change the options he has.
That sounds more like authorship than agency to me. It's cool that you're so flexible as a GM--I find it hard to maintain coherence in the game world when I allow players the ability to write much in it.
Sounds to me as though you're talking about being clear what the action is before resolving it. That's good play, I agree. Everyone should be clear on the stakes of an action.
There are games wherein arguably the players have less agency in the sense of authority over their characters, in exchange for greater ability to re-write the world by Fiat; so, it actually does vary, and it's a different thing from narrative authority.
I don't believe I have said anything to the contrary about player agency and action resolution; I have said that some of the mechanics described don't touch player agency.
As to the last paragraph, the players are more authors of the emergent stories than I am as DM. Their characters are busy changing the world--the shared fiction. That is the role of the players and their characters in the game.
You say this:
And then you say this:
Which. Is. Exactly. What. I. Mean.
So, which is it? Do you understand? Do you not understand? Do you understand but you don't know you understand? If you're playing stupid, please stop; I know you're not stupid.
I, as DM, author the starting states, which are used as exactly that--starting states, as a large part of the framing for a given adventure. As the game is played, more fiction emerges, which is used as further framing for further adventures. From time to time, I author new starting states, which I endeavor to keep consistent with previous events. In prior conversations, I have referred to this as "instigating" and you have professed to understand what I meant, then.
I am not presuming the players won't have agency. Something being impossible doesn't negate player agency. The fact you have a player at your table who knows how tugboats operate kept that consistent with reality, but the fact that the operator couldn't (in the absurd) have the tugboat take off like a helicopter doesn't do change the options he has.
That sounds more like authorship than agency to me. It's cool that you're so flexible as a GM--I find it hard to maintain coherence in the game world when I allow players the ability to write much in it.
Sounds to me as though you're talking about being clear what the action is before resolving it. That's good play, I agree. Everyone should be clear on the stakes of an action.
There are games wherein arguably the players have less agency in the sense of authority over their characters, in exchange for greater ability to re-write the world by Fiat; so, it actually does vary, and it's a different thing from narrative authority.
I don't believe I have said anything to the contrary about player agency and action resolution; I have said that some of the mechanics described don't touch player agency.
As to the last paragraph, the players are more authors of the emergent stories than I am as DM. Their characters are busy changing the world--the shared fiction. That is the role of the players and their characters in the game.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
@prabe
I do not understand what you mean by having agency negated. Agency is not something you either have or do not have. You have a certain amount of agency over a particular thing.
@FrogReaver
When I talk about the fiction I mean something specific. Not a fiction or a fictional construct. I mean the fiction - this shared understanding of the situation our characters find themselves in.
When I speak to player agency over the fiction I am specifically referring to the ability of a player to make decisions for their character that will have a material impact on the shared narrative. In most cases this means the ability to meaningfully obtain information my character can depend on, utilize fictional positioning, and declare actions while standing on firm ground that for weal or woe will have a significant impact on the way the situation unfolds. It may come from the rules of game, disciplined GMing, or the ability of a player to declare how things go.
I am not really fond of that last one personally. When it occurs I prefer significant limitations.
I agree that player agency over the actions they are allowed to select for their character can be an important thing to discuss, but that is not generally what player agency tends to be intended to mean.
I do not understand what you mean by having agency negated. Agency is not something you either have or do not have. You have a certain amount of agency over a particular thing.
@FrogReaver
When I talk about the fiction I mean something specific. Not a fiction or a fictional construct. I mean the fiction - this shared understanding of the situation our characters find themselves in.
When I speak to player agency over the fiction I am specifically referring to the ability of a player to make decisions for their character that will have a material impact on the shared narrative. In most cases this means the ability to meaningfully obtain information my character can depend on, utilize fictional positioning, and declare actions while standing on firm ground that for weal or woe will have a significant impact on the way the situation unfolds. It may come from the rules of game, disciplined GMing, or the ability of a player to declare how things go.
I am not really fond of that last one personally. When it occurs I prefer significant limitations.
I agree that player agency over the actions they are allowed to select for their character can be an important thing to discuss, but that is not generally what player agency tends to be intended to mean.
When I say something like "Something being impossible doesn't negate player agency?" It doesn't reduce it, it doesn't mean you don't have it. Just because something is impossible doesn't mean the player doesn't have agency; it doesn't mean the player has less agency.
I hope that's clear.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
I think part of what is going here is that you are viewing agency through the prism of having more agency over the fiction as being intrinsically good. A certain amount of agency over the fiction is good. Too much or too little in the hands of one participant is not good at all.
There are all sorts of limits to our agency over the fiction. First and foremost is our fictional positioning which the ability my character has in the fiction to impact change to the setting or other characters. Often elements that limit our agency are placed into the fiction for us to overcome. Attempting to change this is the core skill of playing role playing games. Then there are rules limitations (action economies, listed options, mechanics like daily rages that do not correspond to the fiction). There are also social limitations (spotlight issues, GM addressing a different player). All of these things affect our ability to make a material impact on the shared fiction.
Here's an example. In most games a player is only allowed to declare what their character is doing here and now. Any preparation needs to be done prior to setting out. In Blades in the Dark a player has a limited ability to declare actions that were done to prepare for the current situation. So if the players' characters get arrested right after they steal something important a player might declare a a flashback scene where they attempt to setup the arrest and work out a deal with cops prior to the events of the score.
Blades in the Dark removes a common limitation on player agency in a limited fashion (you have to pay for it and you still need the right fictional positioning).
@Campbell
Agency over your character is intrinsically good--it is, at least in more-traditional TRPGs like D&D, what the players can control directly, the only (or at least primary) way they have to shape the fiction. Player agency over the fiction is not exactly the same thing, at least not how I see it.
Speaking primarily about D&D--specifically 5E--because, as I've said before, it's the game at the top of my head at the moment (I know other games operate differently; neither rebuts the other): The players have agency over their characters, and thereby over the fiction. The players' agency over the characters is approximately absolute--barring magical effects like charm spells or draconic presence, the players get to decide what the characters do; their agency over the fiction is limited to what the characters can accomplish.
Looking at that second paragraph, I don't know that it's a hill I'd die on, but I think it's not too bad for something I'm pulling out of my head. Call it a draft, I guess.
I guess, looking at that, I maybe understand why I was so underwhelmed by the flashback mechanic in BitD. (To be clear, I wanted pretty badly to like BitD, and I bounced off it pretty hard.)
I am not as much of a purist about players suggesting things as it might seem from the above. In the example @Fenris-77 posted about the balcony across the alley, I'd probably run it about the same way he would. I might think about where the PC is (which might determine whether there's even an alley in the first place) but if it's reasonable and there's no in-fiction reason to say no, I'd probably say yes. While I find that being the sole (ish) author of the broader world makes it easier for me to keep that world coherent (for my tastes), I see the value of player input, at least on the scene level.
Agency over your character is intrinsically good--it is, at least in more-traditional TRPGs like D&D, what the players can control directly, the only (or at least primary) way they have to shape the fiction. Player agency over the fiction is not exactly the same thing, at least not how I see it.
Speaking primarily about D&D--specifically 5E--because, as I've said before, it's the game at the top of my head at the moment (I know other games operate differently; neither rebuts the other): The players have agency over their characters, and thereby over the fiction. The players' agency over the characters is approximately absolute--barring magical effects like charm spells or draconic presence, the players get to decide what the characters do; their agency over the fiction is limited to what the characters can accomplish.
Looking at that second paragraph, I don't know that it's a hill I'd die on, but I think it's not too bad for something I'm pulling out of my head. Call it a draft, I guess.
I guess, looking at that, I maybe understand why I was so underwhelmed by the flashback mechanic in BitD. (To be clear, I wanted pretty badly to like BitD, and I bounced off it pretty hard.)
I am not as much of a purist about players suggesting things as it might seem from the above. In the example @Fenris-77 posted about the balcony across the alley, I'd probably run it about the same way he would. I might think about where the PC is (which might determine whether there's even an alley in the first place) but if it's reasonable and there's no in-fiction reason to say no, I'd probably say yes. While I find that being the sole (ish) author of the broader world makes it easier for me to keep that world coherent (for my tastes), I see the value of player input, at least on the scene level.
Manbearcat
Legend
I'm only skimming, but this conversation is diverging wildly onto many different subjects. I'm going to try to say a few things about two different play priorities and how they can diverge and create tension with respect to agency.
Say "Yes" or Roll the Dice and Play to Find Out
These are Vincent Baker's beautiful axioms from Dogs in the Vineyard and Apocalypse World. They're the pithiest way to cut to the heart of emergent, story now gaming.
The ideas are simple. Don't plan plot. Create conflict-charged obstacles and situations that provoke the PCs to action (the games' premise). In the crucible of these conflicts, the players will declare actions for their PCs. If they're even remotely feasible, either "say yes" or "roll the dice."
The games based on these are "challenging" in a great many ways, but they typically aren't challenging in the way that Classic D&D Dungeon Crawling (say, Moldvay or RC or 1e) is challenging. They definitely have elements of that and some decision-points and some games definitely have tactical and strategic decision-points at their core (Blades, not a derivative but an AW-offshoot, is chock full of them).
However, the machinery and the primary ethos is about all the participants at the table finding out what happens when thematically-laden PCs meet thematically-provocative obstacles. These games are nearly fully player-facing. As such, one of the primary aims of both the ethos and the mechanics is to create a gaming experience/table situation of diffuse authority. If the authority becomes too concentrated in one party (say, the GM), one or more aspects of these games' fundamental tenets ('play to find out', for instance) suffers or is rendered untenable. Consequently, GM latitude becomes constrained in comparison to other games (say, 5e D&D) while players' latitude, agency, and responsibility become proportionately increased.
Skilled-play, Challenge-based D&D
What happens if we adopt Vincent Baker's axioms fully into an old school dungeon crawl game without taking significant, system-spanning (meaning holistic) mechanical measures to ensure the retained coherency (if not primacy) of the primary play priority (like, say, Torchbearer amazingly does)?
The game falls apart.
You have to have a stocked (denizens, puzzles, treasure, theme) and keyed dungeon with map of sufficient resolution (the architecture and layout needs to be tight with heightened attention to creating navigational decision-points that are compelling and testing...not arbitrary).
The codified map + obstacles and the resolution mechanics (Wandering Monster Clock, Exploration Turns and related mechanics, Monster Reaction, etc) are the most fundamental components of play.
If they aren't codified and of sufficient resolution and/or the GM fudges things (either with respect to the layout of the dungeon or the resolution mechanics), then the competitive integrity of the primary play priority (testing player skill in overcoming the challenge of the delve) is rendered null.
So, porting in the diffuse authority and emergent play of a game like Dogs and AW to Moldvay Basic is completely disastrous (without going to the extreme lengths that Torchbearer goes to)! Yes, Dogs and AW players have MUCH more authority and related agency...however, that authority/agency creep ported direclty into classic, dungeon-crawl D&D would render play incoherent because you're no longer testing player skill in overcoming the challenge of the delve!
Again, games like Torchbearer and Blades have amazingly managed to pull this off (delve/heist games that also manage emergent story now play)...but the design requirements are MASSIVE. You can't just adlib your way through it mechanically. So, failing the unbelievable mechanical rigor of those two games, you're better off understanding the focus of your play and the reasoning that your table's authority (and agency by proxy) is either diffuse or concentrated. Overwhelmingly in the TTRPG world, you can't have your cake and eat it too (except in the most rare cases like TB and Blades)...and if you think you are, you're almost surely fooling yourself because you're running afoul of either emergent story now or testing skilled-play via challenges...or running afoul of both at any given time.
Say "Yes" or Roll the Dice and Play to Find Out
These are Vincent Baker's beautiful axioms from Dogs in the Vineyard and Apocalypse World. They're the pithiest way to cut to the heart of emergent, story now gaming.
The ideas are simple. Don't plan plot. Create conflict-charged obstacles and situations that provoke the PCs to action (the games' premise). In the crucible of these conflicts, the players will declare actions for their PCs. If they're even remotely feasible, either "say yes" or "roll the dice."
The games based on these are "challenging" in a great many ways, but they typically aren't challenging in the way that Classic D&D Dungeon Crawling (say, Moldvay or RC or 1e) is challenging. They definitely have elements of that and some decision-points and some games definitely have tactical and strategic decision-points at their core (Blades, not a derivative but an AW-offshoot, is chock full of them).
However, the machinery and the primary ethos is about all the participants at the table finding out what happens when thematically-laden PCs meet thematically-provocative obstacles. These games are nearly fully player-facing. As such, one of the primary aims of both the ethos and the mechanics is to create a gaming experience/table situation of diffuse authority. If the authority becomes too concentrated in one party (say, the GM), one or more aspects of these games' fundamental tenets ('play to find out', for instance) suffers or is rendered untenable. Consequently, GM latitude becomes constrained in comparison to other games (say, 5e D&D) while players' latitude, agency, and responsibility become proportionately increased.
Skilled-play, Challenge-based D&D
What happens if we adopt Vincent Baker's axioms fully into an old school dungeon crawl game without taking significant, system-spanning (meaning holistic) mechanical measures to ensure the retained coherency (if not primacy) of the primary play priority (like, say, Torchbearer amazingly does)?
The game falls apart.
You have to have a stocked (denizens, puzzles, treasure, theme) and keyed dungeon with map of sufficient resolution (the architecture and layout needs to be tight with heightened attention to creating navigational decision-points that are compelling and testing...not arbitrary).
The codified map + obstacles and the resolution mechanics (Wandering Monster Clock, Exploration Turns and related mechanics, Monster Reaction, etc) are the most fundamental components of play.
If they aren't codified and of sufficient resolution and/or the GM fudges things (either with respect to the layout of the dungeon or the resolution mechanics), then the competitive integrity of the primary play priority (testing player skill in overcoming the challenge of the delve) is rendered null.
So, porting in the diffuse authority and emergent play of a game like Dogs and AW to Moldvay Basic is completely disastrous (without going to the extreme lengths that Torchbearer goes to)! Yes, Dogs and AW players have MUCH more authority and related agency...however, that authority/agency creep ported direclty into classic, dungeon-crawl D&D would render play incoherent because you're no longer testing player skill in overcoming the challenge of the delve!
Again, games like Torchbearer and Blades have amazingly managed to pull this off (delve/heist games that also manage emergent story now play)...but the design requirements are MASSIVE. You can't just adlib your way through it mechanically. So, failing the unbelievable mechanical rigor of those two games, you're better off understanding the focus of your play and the reasoning that your table's authority (and agency by proxy) is either diffuse or concentrated. Overwhelmingly in the TTRPG world, you can't have your cake and eat it too (except in the most rare cases like TB and Blades)...and if you think you are, you're almost surely fooling yourself because you're running afoul of either emergent story now or testing skilled-play via challenges...or running afoul of both at any given time.
Last edited:
