Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[prabe]

And, that's cool. But, I question the location at which you've cited agency. Simply, if deciding is the location of the agency, then how do downstream things have the ability to negate it? If I decide to swim the river, you're saying that's where agency happens. But, you also say that if the fictional state doesn't change because of that decision and intervening action declaration to operationalize it, then agency isn't involved. I don't understand how I have agency at the moment of decision but then lose it if the follow-on action declaration is resolved in a way that doesn't change the fiction. Doesn't it seem that the actual action here, the real deciding point, is if the fiction changes?

Sticking with the river example, if you'll allow a slight modification: There's a McGuffin that you have come to believe is on the other side of the river; whether this is a conclusion you've drawn as a player or information you've obtained through other in-character actions doesn't seem super-relevant (though I'm not committed to its irrelevance). If the GM has decided, for whatever reason--this is a decision that can be made with good intentions--that you'll find the McGuffin whether or not you swim across the river, you haven't really changed the state of the fiction, so you haven't really exerted agency. If the GM decides after you fail to swim across the river that the McGuffin is on the side of the river you're on, the agency you exerted in the decision to swim across the river has been negated. There might be another way to find the McGuffin, but doing so requires the state of the fiction to change more, in different ways. I don't mind there being multiple paths to the McGuffin, but any path should require actual decisions and actual fiction-changes; and if there is an action resolution that fails--or if the player or character choose a path that doesn't lead to the McGuffin (as in, it goes away from where it has been established the McGuffin is)--that should matter.

I'm not trying to harp on your point, I'm trying to understand because it doesn't flow for me. I don't see how a downstream effect can render agency moot if it resides in the act of deciding. Oh, and then there's the question of if I change my mind after deciding and decide something else, do I double my agency (not a serious question, attempted joke)?

I get the joke, and I understand my viewpoint on this is ... strange. I quit a Call of Cthulhu campaign when we (the PCs) screwed up and the world didn't end, because it felt as though we hadn't been playing for any stakes, ever, so in spite of all the eldritch monstrosities it didn't matter; and that was worse than the world ending. That left enough of a bad taste in my mouth that I haven't wanted to play Call of Cthulhu since.

 

[pemerton]

I don't understand all this talk about players editing scenes.

GM: There's an orc in front of you!
Player: An orc? I draw my sword and stab it dead!
<dice are rolled and rules applied>
GM: OK, now there's a dead orc in front of you.​

Or how about this one (borrowed from @Ovinomancer):

GM: OK, so as you're hanging out in the bar a thug comes at you with a knife!
Player: Jeeprs, a knife? And me with nothing but my leathers and a mean attitude. I look around for something to defend myself with - maybe there's a spitoon nearby?
<dice are rolled and rules applied>
GM: OK, the spitoon you reach for is pretty slippery, but your leathers and attitidue come through for you: you suffer nothing worse than a cut across the ribs.​

If the player can't change the fiction, which means changing the scene, what are they playing for?

We can talk about what sort of action declarations are permissible given rules, genre, etc. We can talk about who gets to frame scenes ie who gest to decide which character is where with whom confronted by what. But I just don;t find the language of editing scenes to be very helpful at all. Because in basic structure - of framing and of resolution there's no difference between the two examples I posted.

 

[FrogReaver]

As written without utilizing techniques and agendas curbed from other games or other versions of Dungeons and Dragons I do not think Fifth Edition is focused on providing player agency over the fiction. I think it is focused on providing satisfying linear storytelling. The advice in the DMG, the assumption of DM driven pacing, the adventures they have released, mechanics that have no real teeth, and their organized play program all point towards a focus on storytelling over game play.

You do not have to run it or play it in that fashion, but the game is tuned for GM story in my opinion.

From accounts I know @S'mon runs a game that affords players a very high degree of agency over the fiction. I suspect @prabe does too. I do not think the Fifth Edition is a great asset in that regard.

I know I will get blowback for saying this, but I think Fifth Edition does a phenomenal job at enabling GM storytelling. The only mainstream game on the market that is better for that purpose is Numenera.

How does imaging the fictional lives of some fictional people tell us anything about the actual (not imaginary) degree of agency enjoyed by actual (not imaginary) people who in the real world are engaged in the real social activity of RPGing?

If I play a RPG in which every consequence of every action I declare for my PC is decided by the GM as s/he thinks is fun or reaslistic or <insert other decision-making criterion here> then that would fit your description: my PC can do nearly antying and follow through with that action or die trying.

But that would be a game in which players have virtually no agency. I would not want to play in it. It would suck.

Who controls the actions of the pc? Who is deciding what that pc is going to do in the game and follows through by actually having the pc take that action on the game?

imo character agency and player agency are linked. you can’t have character agency without player agency.

 

[prabe]

As written without utilizing techniques and agendas curbed from other games or other versions of Dungeons and Dragons I do not think Fifth Edition is focused on providing player agency over the fiction. I think it is focused on providing satisfying linear storytelling. The advice in the DMG, the assumption of DM driven pacing, the adventures they have released, mechanics that have no real teeth, and their organized play program all point towards a focus on storytelling over game play.

You do not have to run it or play it in that fashion, but the game is tuned for GM story in my opinion.

From accounts I know @S'mon runs a game that affords players a very high degree of agency over the fiction. I suspect @prabe does too. I do not think the Fifth Edition is a great asset in that regard.

I know I will get blowback for saying this, but I think Fifth Edition does a phenomenal job at enabling GM storytelling. The only mainstream game on the market that is better for that purpose is Numenera.

I think that the publication model WotC are using for 5E is more-focused on selling long-form adventures than anything else, and I don't think that long-form published adventures focus at all on character agency (or, really, player characters). I have felt the same way about Paizo's Adventure Paths for Pathfinder as well--and those I've just played through, not run.

I really like 5E, but I don't doubt that a lot of people who run it do so in a way that at least approaches what you call "GM storytelling." I don't think I run it that way (I'd certainly prefer not to), but I'm hardly the most objective witness regarding that. Anyone interested is welcome to peruse the campaign notes (I'll post a link if asked) but I'm also not sure if those are dispositive in that regard.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't understand all this talk about players editing scenes.

GM: There's an orc in front of you!​

Player: An orc? I draw my sword and stab it dead!​

<dice are rolled and rules applied>​

GM: OK, now there's a dead orc in front of you.​

Or how about this one (borrowed from @Ovinomancer):

GM: OK, so as you're hanging out in the bar a thug comes at you with a knife!​

Player: Jeeprs, a knife? And me with nothing but my leathers and a mean attitude. I look around for something to defend myself with - maybe there's a spitoon nearby?​

<dice are rolled and rules applied>​

GM: OK, the spitoon you reach for is pretty slippery, but your leathers and attitidue come through for you: you suffer nothing worse than a cut across the ribs.​

If the player can't change the fiction, which means changing the scene, what are they playing for?

We can talk about what sort of action declarations are permissible given rules, genre, etc. We can talk about who gets to frame scenes ie who gest to decide which character is where with whom confronted by what. But I just don;t find the language of editing scenes to be very helpful at all. Because in basic structure - of framing and of resolution there's no difference between the two examples I posted.

imo, failure changes the scene even if nothing in the scene changes other than PCX failed

 

[Fenris-77]

I strongly disagree. If you look to @Manbearcat's definition of agency, that's very much present in delve play, so long as the GM is following the principles of that play by adjudicating impartially and sticking to the prep. Players very much have the ability to both declare actions and enact them.

Allow to me to clarify further, I completely agree with you. 100%. I was just saying that common usage of 'player agency' is perhaps more focused on 'create dramatic narrative'. I was identifying that a a potential source of confusion, not disagreeing with @Manbearcat .

As for your second post, we have very similar approaches to 5E. I was actually kind of indexing myself as an example of preferencing one kind of agency without giving enough discussion space to another (delve particularly) that I don't use as much.

 

[Maxperson]

I think that many are looking at player agency as "I am able to declare all actions for my characters, and no one else can do so, barring certain specific instances" and I think that's only a very small part of it. I do think that a player controlling their character, and not being restricted in how they do so is generally a good thing.....I just don't think it constitutes a meaningful definition of player agency for the context of this conversation.

If I am simply able to say "My character tries this" and it happens, then I have agency. If I am able to say "My character tries this" and we use dice to determine success, then I have agency. If I say "My character tries this" and the GM has to determine if it's possible.....here's where it gets tricky. I may still have agency because my desire may come about in the fiction (ME: "I want to kick in the door"--->GM (decides by fiat): "The door goes flying off its hinges"; in this way the GM has facilitated my agency, as @pemerton mentioned earlier). But if the GM unilaterally decides to block my action, then it's a restriction on my agency (ME: "I want to kick in the door" ---> GM (decides by fiat): "You try your hardest, but the door simply will not budge").

Of those three admittedly basic processes for the game.....1) action simply happens, 2) we use dice to determine outcome, or 3) GM decides yea or nay......only one of them can result in 0% agency. Not that it always does or even mostly does.....but only one of them has it as a possibility. Would you agree with this?

If you try to bash the door down and fail the roll, your declaration fails in the fiction just the same as if the DM says no. If the roll succeeds, it succeeds in the fiction just the same as if the DM says yes.

I don't see how relying on a random roll grants you agency with your declaration. Either the die roll says yes or no, or the DM says yes or no. Either way you are dependent on something outside of your control(barring the ability to re-roll or something which gives some limited control). If one method that results in failure equals no agency, then the other equals no agency as well.

If so, then a player declaring actions for his character does not display agency in and of itself.....because the GM can deny every single action.

No he can't. Just like he can't approve every action. Either of those things would be a blatant violation of the social contract and the game rules. The DM like the players, has to act in good faith with his rulings.

I think what's happening in this conversation a lot is that people are looking at it as "agency is good" and "My game is not bad" so "My game must have agency". And I think this is leading to some real contortions and justifications to prove that agency is present. I am not saying this is true of you, but I think that it accounts for the fact that there are different definitions of agency being used in the discussion.

If we take away the idea that "agency is always good" and then just start to look at it as a thing that exists or does not.....that there are good instances of agency being removed, and there are bad instances of agency being present.....then we have a clearer view.

I look at it as...

1) The players declare how they want to try and change the fiction.
2) For the vast majority of declarations, both success and failure change and shape the fiction, so virtually every declaration, regardless of auto success, auto failure, or die roll to determine, succeeds in changing the game world.
3) Since pretty much every declaration will change the fiction somehow, the ability to make declarations gives them agency. They have full control over how their character will shape the fiction through both successes and failures.

 

[prabe]

I don't understand all this talk about players editing scenes.

GM: There's an orc in front of you!​

Player: An orc? I draw my sword and stab it dead!​

<dice are rolled and rules applied>​

GM: OK, now there's a dead orc in front of you.​

Or how about this one (borrowed from @Ovinomancer):

GM: OK, so as you're hanging out in the bar a thug comes at you with a knife!​

Player: Jeeprs, a knife? And me with nothing but my leathers and a mean attitude. I look around for something to defend myself with - maybe there's a spitoon nearby?​

<dice are rolled and rules applied>​

GM: OK, the spitoon you reach for is pretty slippery, but your leathers and attitidue come through for you: you suffer nothing worse than a cut across the ribs.​

If the player can't change the fiction, which means changing the scene, what are they playing for?

We can talk about what sort of action declarations are permissible given rules, genre, etc. We can talk about who gets to frame scenes ie who gest to decide which character is where with whom confronted by what. But I just don;t find the language of editing scenes to be very helpful at all. Because in basic structure - of framing and of resolution there's no difference between the two examples I posted.

I'll give this a shot. I don't know what you know about the games I'll talk about, so I'll try not to skip anything important. If something seems overly basic, it's because I'm presuming this is new to you, not because I believe you to be stupid--I emphatically do not.

While Fate has (arguably) a similar mechanic, I'm specifically thinking about Mutants and Masterminds, second edition (they're on third edition, but I don't know it as well; and it's been a while since I played or ran even second edition). As you might guess from the title, it's a superhero roleplaying game. Characters have Hero Points that can be spent in several ways: You can use them to re-roll an action resolution, you can use them to temporarily add an ability to your character, you can use it to increase a power's effectiveness (I'm whiffing on the mechanics here, but I can probably find them if you want), or you can use them to edit a scene.

In all cases, when you use them they are actually spent--something like the Certificate I remember you mentioning in I think Prince Valiant--so they are a limited resource. If a player wants to use a Hero Point to edit a scene, he does something at the table to indicate this (we used beads to represent Hero Points, I gather some people use poker chips--IIRC it's strongly recommended in the rules that there be physical tokens), and he proposes his edit to the GM. The GM approves it, or doesn't, or makes a counteroffer (which can lead to further negotiation). There are at least recommended limits to the editing--it shouldn't be an instant-out. The scene is then re-written (I think "re-framed" might fit with the terminology you've been using) to reflect this change. Adding the spittoon from your example would fly; I had a player at my table do it once to edit ambulances into the approaching first responders. IIRC, an example in the game book involves a PC being locked in a storeroom by a villain with plant powers editing the storeroom to contain herbicide/s.

Does that help?

 

[Campbell]

@FrogReaver

I have clarified repeatedly that I am speaking to a player's agency over the fiction meaning their capacity to make decisions for their characters that have a material impact on the current situation play is focused on (what is on screen). The ability to declare what your character does is necessary, but not sufficient. A player needs to be able to make informed decisions based on fiction that have a genuine impact on what happens. We play to find out what happens.

I am using player agency in the same way I have seen it used in the indie and OSR circles I travel in. Player agency as it relates to playing tabletop roleplaying games had its roots in people who were trying to design story and character focused games that were not about the GM telling a story.

The constraints on a player's ability to declare actions for their character are like important to discuss. That's not what I am talking about though. I am talking about decisions that have impact.

 

[Campbell]

Here's the thing about legal moves. Sometimes not every legal move will be a good move to make for satisfying play, particularly when it comes to the GM.

So in Apocalypse World when a player has a their character do something to trigger a player side mechanic/move it will often say on 6- expect the worse. As an MC/GM you are instructed in these situations to make as hard of move as you want to. The best GM moves to make in these situations are often not hardest and usually not the softest. Part of the skill of running a game is making the right moves and not just the legal ones.

In any game where a GM is given a good deal of latitude like they are in Fifth Edition or Apocalypse World making the right calls based on play priorities, rather than just ones you have the authority to make is huge. I expect players to provide feedback and try to hold me accountable if they feel I made the wrong call even if I had the authority to make it at the time. This is how we get better.