A Question Of Agency?

[Crimson Longinus]

I think the concept of dogmatism is misplaced here.

I like playing backgammon. The rolling of dice is pretty important to play - letting a player just choose how far to move their pieces would wreck the game! That's not "dogmatic" - that's me wanting to play backgammon!

Of course chess players don't roll dice - but that's because they are playing a different game.

If people want to play RPGs where the GM does most of the deciding of what happens, and the players contribute narrowly-conceived of action declarations (We go to place X; we ask person Y what she's doing there; etc) but most of the outcome of the action declaration is provided by the GM either reading from his/her notes or making it up on the spot, that's their prerogative.

But using different methods means that the resulting games will have different properties. A property of backgammon, compared to chess, is its randomness. A property of the sort of RPGing I just described, compared to the sort I prefer, is the higher degree of GM vs player agency.

I really cannot reasonably engage with this as you're conflating rules with playstyles/GMing styles and those are not the same thing.

Functional for whom?

To the OP in this instance.

The GM here has not come up with a quest or an adventure or a plot hook. The GM follows through on action declarations: with the successful Circles check introduces the NPC Rufus (Thurgon's brother), presented and played consistently with established backstory but also embellished in ways that the GM thinks/hopes will be interesting and provocative. As I declare further actions for Thurgon and Aramina the GM adjudicates the consequences - where they succeed (eg Aramina shaming Rufus) he honoured that; where they failed (eg the attempts to Command Rufus) he narrates the failure in ways that he intends to drive things forward (Rufus turns into something like a Wormtongue character - though we don't yet know who "the master" is).

The mechanics are unfamiliar to me so I have some difficulty following this, for example I have no idea what these circles are. But does the GM know who the 'master' is, and what are their motivations? How is creating that not creating plot hooks? How the GM choosing actions for NPCs that they hope would be interesting/provocative to you is not creating a plot point?

As a GM, I do the same sorts of things. There are differences across systems - eg in Prince Valiant I want to present opportunities for gallant errantry; in Traveller I want to present worlds for the PCs to travel to in their starship - but the core is following and building on player goals for their PCs.

The GM has to create a lot of NPCs, they have to create events that happen independently from the characters, they have to create a lot of naughty word. This by necessity creates 'plot hooks' and 'adventure opportunities' or 'quest', and it would be weird to pretend otherwise.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@Lanefan I don’t want to reply point for point because I feel like each response would boil down to essentially the same thing.

The things that you’re concerned about....consistency of minutiae and distances and movement speeds and mapping and all that stuff...those are all valid concerns in the play approach that you and your players have.

And that’s an absolutely fine way to play, but it isn’t the only way. So some of the things I’m suggesting wouldn’t make sense to be incorporated into a game where mapping and positioning are important elements.

But if someone is not mapping and not concerned with the kind of simulationist exactitude, then the lack of these things is not important.

I’d argue further that details can still be made up on the fly and work with this approach if some of the simulationism was toned down.....but if you got players looking at maps weeks later and questioning things, I get why maybe your case is unique.

But regardless, other approaches to play eschew all that stuff. Some systems don’t even factor it in at all. Blades, for instance, doesn’t have speed rates or initiative, there’s no mapping and the NPCs don’t even have turns. The players are encouraged to add details to the environment through play. In that system, having the GM determine all kinds of details beforehand would be a very poor fit.

All this is to say that it’s a matter of both the system used, and the approach to that system. Different things may work or not for different games, and different participants.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I definitely agree that the precise measurements thing is a matter of playstyle and something I am aware of in a larger context.

I don't think I would be willing to indulge a player that wanted to enforce precise measurements and high granularity movement in, say, Far Trek, because the system doesn't have rules to support that. If the player then accused me of robbing them of their agency I would be quite likely to tell them to go get stuffed!

On the flipside, if I was running a game of Mythras, and I declared that during the opening round of combat the guy with a dagger gets to strike the guy with the longspear, I would certainly think my players would tell me to get stuffed! And rightly so!

Yay! I'm contributing..maybe...

 

[pemerton]

So...does that mean I'm railroading my players because I use systems that don't specifically give them the option of making up details of the campaign world???

I think we have to be really careful about making up details of the campaign world.

Here are some examples:

* A player is building his/her PC. S/he writes down some notes about his/her PC's family.

* It's halfway through a session. The GM narrates the PCs arriving at the City of Greyhawk. A PC's established backstory is that she is a native of Greyhawk City. The PC's player says "Let's go and stay with my mum and dad!" The PCs' mum and dad have never been mentioned before by any player or the GM.

* A player announces to the GM "My PC really wants to find a magic sword!" The GM decides to include a magic sword in the next dungeon s/he builds. (A more interesting variant: the player announces "My PC really want so find her grandmother's lost magic sword!", and this is the first time the grandmother or her lost sword have been mentioned by anyone.)

* The action is taking place in a tavern. Not much has been said about the tavern except that it has a common room, where the PC's have been eating and drinking. Something comes up that makes the ceiling of the place relevant. A player says "I pull up a stool and stand on it so I can get a better look at the ceiling."

* A player says "I want to find someone who'll sell me illegal firearms at a fair price". The GM sets a difficulty for a Streetwise check. The player makes the roll and succeeds - the player and GM now start discussing the details of the transaction. (This example is taken straight from Traveller Book 1, 1977.)

* A player wants his PC to catch the blood draining from the neck of a decapitated sorcerer, and asks "Is there a basin or jug in the room?" The GM calls for a Perception check; the check succeeds; so the answer is "Yes, there is." (This example is taken from actual play of Burning Wheel.)

* The GM rolls a 1, and as per the rules of the game a player spends a point to create a Resource that correlates to one of his/her PC's specialties. This rule is taken from Marvel Heroic RP. An example of it in play: the PCs were in the steading of a giant chieftain, and arguing about whether the giants should help them on their quest. The PC warthane looks around to see if their is a giant shaman or advisor who will agree with him - and see that there is! (Mechanically: I roll a 1, the player spends a point and creates a Resource - Giant Shaman who agrees with me - based on his Social specialty.)

* As per the rules of the game, the player spends a point to flat-out stipulate that some bit of fiction s/he cares about obtains. I've never played any RPGs like this, but OGL Conan (based on the 3E D&D mechanics) is an example of one.

There's a pretty wide range of techniques and mechanics (or their absence) in that list. More examples, illustrating further techniques and further mechanics, could be given.

I would say that if the players in a RPG cannot influence - whether mechanically, or by suggestion, or by stipulation - what the possibility-space is for their action declarations for their PCs, then there is a high likelihood it's a railroad. I see this as very closely connected to @hawkeyefan's reference, upthread, to the players "blazing their own trail".

I say "high likelihood" deliberately, and not just as a euphemism for certainly. Eg: in KotB, or ToH, the players cannot influence, either mechanically or by suggestion or by stipulation, the possibility-space of action declarations. That's all set out in the GM's maps and keys. But playing those modules probably won't be a railroad. Rather, and assuming the GM doesn't "cheat" by moving the "tiles" or what is hidden under them, then it is puzzle-solving.

But based on my reading of ENworld and other blogs and my general sense of the zeitgesist, I think that that sort of puzzle-solving RPGing is, today, a minority of play. The default for contemporary play seems to be some variant on the "living, breathing world".

 

[pemerton]

if I was running a game of Mythras, and I declared that during the opening round of combat the guy with a dagger gets to strike the guy with the longspear, I would certainly think my players would tell me to get stuffed! And rightly so!

Mythras is RuneQuest, right, with the Gloranthan IP removed?

In which case I absolutely agree with you here. I don't know if the most contemporary versions still use strike ranks, but the versions of RQ that I have experience with care about that sort of thing to a high degree of detail.

I don't think I would be willing to indulge a player that wanted to enforce precise measurements and high granularity movement in, say, Far Trek, because the system doesn't have rules to support that. If the player then accused me of robbing them of their agency I would be quite likely to tell them to go get stuffed!

I don't know Far Trek but guess that it's a sci-fi game with a Star Trek-ish flavour? (I just did a quick Google and that seems right.)

Anyway, what you posted here reminded me of this extract from the rules for Maelstrom Storytelling (which I first encountered being quoted by Ron Edwards):

focus on the intent behind the scene and not on how big or how far things might be. If the difficulty of the task at hand (such as jumping across a chasm in a cave) is explained in terms of difficulty, it doesn't matter how far across the actual chasm spans. In a movie, for instance, the camera zooms or pans to emphasize the danger or emotional reaction to the scene, and in so doing it manipulates the real distance of a chasm to suit the mood or "feel" of the moment. It is then no longer about how far across the character has to jump, but how hard the feat is for the character... If the players enjoy the challenge of figuring out how high and far someone can jump, they should be allowed the pleasure of doing so - as long as it doesn't interfere with the narrative flow and enjoyment of the game.

The scene should be presented therefore in terms relative to the character's abilities ... Players who want to climb onto your coffee table and jump across your living room to prove that their character could jump over the chasm have probably missed the whole point of the story.​

Action resolution in Malestrom Storytelling is a dice pool in which successes (evens, I think) are counted against a difficulty number. The dice pool is a function of PC build plus player choices about using 1x/session resources.

The GM's job is to maintain pacing and tension by presenting challenges/obstacles of <whatever> difficulty between the players and their goals. The roll of the dice, plus players' decisions about burning their limited-use resources, will determine what happens.

This is completely different from a resolution framework in which first, the GM specifies how far across the chasm is in feet, and second, the player works out how many feet his/her PC can jump based on stats + athletics skill, then third the player scrounges around for other buffs and bonuses (from spells, springy shoes, or whatever else might be available) and finally fourth a check is made, the difficulty of which may be easy or hard depending not on the GM's opinion of what pacing and tension demand but rather the outcome of steps two and three in the context of step one.

There can be hybrid approaches too. Burning Wheel, for instance, resemble Maelstrom Storytelling - and doesn't involve any step 1 - but does allow step three, because gear and spells are a thing in BW beyond simply figuring as potential 1x/session resources. It does have other mechanical features, though - in particular its PC improvement rules - which mean players don't always have a reason to max-out at step three.

Which approach provides more player agency? I think the agency in Maelstrom is clear: the player sets the goal; the player decides what resources to burn; the GM is providing opposition and narrating failure.

I think the agency in the more "simulationist" or "traditional" approach is harder to unpack. Why is there a chasm here? What process determined what buffs and gear might be available at step 3? It could be high agency, or could be pretty close to a railroad. We can't tell without more information and context.

 

[Manbearcat]

1) I really cannot reasonably engage with this as you're conflating rules with playstyles/GMing styles and those are not the same thing.



2) To the OP in this instance.


3) The mechanics are unfamiliar to me so I have some difficulty following this, for example I have no idea what these circles are. But does the GM know who the 'master' is, and what are their motivations? How is creating that not creating plot hooks? How the GM choosing actions for NPCs that they hope would be interesting/provocative to you is not creating a plot point?

The GM has to create a lot of NPCs, they have to create events that happen independently from the characters, they have to create a lot of naughty word. This by necessity creates 'plot hooks' and 'adventure opportunities' or 'quest', and it would be weird to pretend otherwise.

Since @pemerton hasn't had a chance to answer, I'll go ahead and fill in the blanks for him (because I'm clearly a presumptuous douche). Numbered for reference but I'm including everything in the last two paragraphs under header (3):

1) He's not conflating them. He's integrating them, which is a fundamental part of holistic systems like Burning Wheel. You can't silo play procedures from action resolution mechanics from GM instruction from the system's premise/ethos in the sort of game he's referring to. If you do so, you're likely going to introduce downstream problems that you now have to solve.

2) Perfect (intending this for the OP). This is because in a low prep game (like the OP is running) you need a level of malleable/unfixed backstory and setting (like in a game such as Burning Wheel or the games I've mentioned above). More on this in below.

3) Instead of explaining the rules of Burning Wheel/Torchbearer, I'm going to attempt to roughly map them to 5e and then change 5e's premise (that won't remotely be an analogue - see the holistic commentary above - but I think it will have better explanatory power because you are familiar with 5e).

On Circles:

First, imagine that the premise of 5e was (exclusively) to test each PC's core ethics and nature (Beliefs and Instincts in BW but Ideals/Bonds/Flaws in 5e) and, through this feedback loop, see how they evolve in the course of play. This is great for the OP's example because Burning Wheel is entirely unscripted play. "Story" emerges "now" (meaning at the table through the accumulation of moments of play) rather than "before" (prescripted adventures).

No imagine that there was a Skill in 5e called Relationships. Now imagine that a player can declare an action like the following:

"I look at the barkeep pouring drinks to the soldiers. I wonder if I served with any of these men during my time in the Legions. Some of them went into Guide-work and know the territory well. We could use a Guide right about now."

The GM says "sounds good...roll Relationships DC 15 and lets find out."

If the Player succeeds, they get to name them, briefly describe them, and add the to their Allies section of their character sheet (which is mechanically relevant...this isn't just fluff/color). The GM is now obliged to help the PCs through that NPC in a way that honors the mechanics and the fiction.

If the Player fails, the GM should introduce either (a) a nemesis from the PC's time in the Legions and a complication that will challenge that player's conception of their PC or (b) a dear friend from the Legions who has fallen on hard times and will complicate that player's conception of their PC or (c) a new antagonist entirely. If (a) or (c) then the player adds the new NPC to their Enemies section.

Regardless, the fallout of the failed action resolution won't be something that the player can ignore. It will introduce new content that must be dealt with.

This is how content is generated in Burning Wheel, Torchbearer, and games like this (including the games I've listed above...they have analogues to this). Players build PCs with thematically potent cues for the GM that say "PUSH THIS CANDY RED BUTTON." The players declare actions and the GM's job is to constantly push the candy red buttons and the the resolution mechanics tell us what happens (pass and fail). This feedback loop persists, the story emerges "now" and the PCs' ethic and motivations invariably change as a result of the intersection of these things.

Hopefully it should be clear that backstory and setting has to have a low enough resolution at the beginning/level of malleability/lack of fixedness in order for this to work. Scripted metaplot, PC-irrelevant side quests, and high resolution setting is anathema to this style of play. Consequently, there is no "adventure module", no "GM-devised plot hooks/quests." All thematic content is "uploaded into the engine" by the players and the system's procedures, the players (through their PCs), and the GM each play their discrete part to find out who/what/why/when.

Presumably, this paradigm is somewhat/mostly similar to what the OP does.

 

[pemerton]

If I as the GM frame a scenario, and the players don't have their PCs interfere with it, I feel as though I should know beforehand what happens then. Maybe they're doing something in the same place and time, in which case it can happen around them; maybe they're going somewhere else, in which case it might have happened by the time they get back.

My feeling about this is that something more important would be going on: If I present a situation to the players, and they don't engage it with their PCs, I feel that something has gone wrong at that point ie my idea was meant to be interesting, but it turns out that it wasn't!

I wouldn't worry about what happens to the fictional stuff I thought up that no one else at the table seemed interest in. I would try and come up with something that sparked more interest! If, down the track, in narrating some consequence or presenting some new situation it seemed worthwhile to pick up some aspect of my earlier idea that fell flat, well I might do that. At that point I might think about possible in-fiction pathways from then to now, if they seemed relevant.

In a D&D game, it is possible that killing an enemy will lead other enemies to act differently. I believe the GM is free to have them do so. Generalize that, and I believe the GM is free to decide how the world reacts to the PCs' successes.

I'm not questioning your belief. But a game played in accordance with that belief will be one with relatively low player agency, because the players have no way to "lock in" outcomes.

Here's a contrast, taken from Dungeon World (p 68):

Discern Realities​

When you closely study a situation or person, roll+Wis. ✴On a 10+, ask the GM 3 questions from the list below. ✴On a 7–9, ask 1. Either way, take +1 forward when acting on the answers.​

• What happened here recently?​

• What is about to happen?​

• What should I be on the lookout for?​

• What here is useful or valuable to me?​

• Who’s really in control here?​

• What here is not what it appears to be?​

The GM is not free, if the player succeeds at this move, to make subsequent unfettered decisions about how the world reacts. Eg if the player ask who is really in control here? or what here is useful or valuable to me?, then the GM has to stick to the answer given. If the GM decides that Pup is in control, and then the player(s) (via their PCs) bring Pup around to their side, the GM isn't at liberty just to decide that now Pup's followers change their minds about their allegiance to Pup!

This is just one illustration of how robust action declaration can be a mechanism for players exercising agency over the shared fiction.

 

[pemerton]

I don't believe that any kind or amount of prep can prevent unintentional railroading; I think avoiding it requires some care, and can be done by a GM who preps tons, and by a GM who preps next to nothing, and by GMs who fall between those two poles.

Sure, as you have characterised it (ie unintentional railroading) and if you allow that the GM is free to narrate whatever s/he likes without being obliged to honour success in action resolution.

This is why the key to player agency is, as I have posted multiple times in this thread, robust action resolution.

 

[pemerton]

I really cannot reasonably engage with this as you're conflating rules with playstyles/GMing styles and those are not the same thing.

Since @pemerton hasn't had a chance to answer, I'll go ahead and fill in the blanks for him (because I'm clearly a presumptuous douche). Numbered for reference but I'm including everything in the last two paragraphs under header (3):

1) He's not conflating them. He's integrating them, which is a fundamental part of holistic systems like Burning Wheel. You can't silo play procedures from action resolution mechanics from GM instruction from the system's premise/ethos in the sort of game he's referring to. If you do so, you're likely going to introduce downstream problems that you now have to solve.

To add to what Manbearcat has said: the idea that you can separate rules from GMing techniques seems to take as a premise that the rules are something like what is the range of a longbow or how do we work out how much my PC can carry? , while GMing techniques are things like frame scenes that will engage the players via the flags they've run up in PC build.

I don't accept that premise.

The rules of Burning Wheel are pretty clearly stated in the books, and they include things like how to frame scenes and how to narrate successes and failures as much as how far a longbow can shoot or how well elves and half-elves can spot concealed and secret doors.

Personally I think that the rules of AD&D include things like what sorts of things should be in a dungeon as much as how far a longbow can shoot. The idea that you can drop the first sort of thing while keep the second is (in my view) responsible for a lot of RPGing in which there really are no significant action resolution rules: because the mechanics are modelled on classic D&D, and so deal with weaponry, architecture and carrying stuff but not much else; while most of what matters in the actual action of the game is something else.

The mechanics are unfamiliar to me so I have some difficulty following this, for example I have no idea what these circles are.

<snip>

But does the GM know who the 'master' is, and what are their motivations? How is creating that not creating plot hooks? How the GM choosing actions for NPCs that they hope would be interesting/provocative to you is not creating a plot point?


The GM has to create a lot of NPCs, they have to create events that happen independently from the characters, they have to create a lot of naughty word. This by necessity creates 'plot hooks' and 'adventure opportunities' or 'quest', and it would be weird to pretend otherwise.

On Circles:

<snip>

imagine that there was a Skill in 5e called Relationships. Now imagine that a player can declare an action like the following:

"I look at the barkeep pouring drinks to the soldiers. I wonder if I served with any of these men during my time in the Legions. Some of them went into Guide-work and know the territory well. We could use a Guide right about now."

The GM says "sounds good...roll Relationships DC 15 and lets find out."

If the Player succeeds, they get to name them, briefly describe them, and add the to their Allies section of their character sheet (which is mechanically relevant...this isn't just fluff/color). The GM is now obliged to help the PCs through that NPC in a way that honors the mechanics and the fiction.

If the Player fails, the GM should introduce either (a) a nemesis from the PC's time in the Legions and a complication that will challenge that player's conception of their PC or (b) a dear friend from the Legions who has fallen on hard times and will complicate that player's conception of their PC or (c) a new antagonist entirely. If (a) or (c) then the player adds the new NPC to their Enemies section.

Regardless, the fallout of the failed action resolution won't be something that the player can ignore. It will introduce new content that must be dealt with.

This is how content is generated in Burning Wheel

<snip>

Hopefully it should be clear that backstory and setting has to have a low enough resolution at the beginning/level of malleability/lack of fixedness in order for this to work. Scripted metaplot, PC-irrelevant side quests, and high resolution setting is anathema to this style of play. Consequently, there is no "adventure module", no "GM-devised plot hooks/quests." All thematic content is "uploaded into the engine" by the players and the system's procedures, the players (through their PCs), and the GM each play their discrete part to find out who/what/why/when.

Manbearcat has explained how Circles works. I see it as an extension of, and more character-focused than, Classic Traveller's Streetwise mechanics.

I don't think the GM knows who "the master" is. He may have some ideas of where he might take that element that he's introduced; but he doesn't have the sole authority to decided it. Eg suppose I declare and succeed in a Wises check to learn that "the master" is actually XYZ (some interesting NPC connected to backstory and prior action), then the GM would have to respect that outcome.

More generally, when the GM is creating NPCs they will be in response to action declarations, or as part of framing that is itself designed to challenge the PCs' Beliefs, and so will be responsive to those.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To add to what Manbearcat has said: the idea that you can separate rules from GMing techniques seems to take as a premise that the rules are something like what is the range of a longbow or how do we work out how much my PC can carry? , while GMing techniques are things like frame scenes that will engage the players via the flags they've run up in PC build.

I don't accept that premise.

The premise is true for a lot of games. In a lot of games the sort of things we're talking about simply are not covered by the rules; if they were. we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The rules of Burning Wheel are pretty clearly stated in the books, and they include things like how to frame scenes and how to narrate successes and failures as much as how far a longbow can shoot or how well elves and half-elves can spot concealed and secret doors.

Personally I think that the rules of AD&D include things like what sorts of things should be in a dungeon as much as how far a longbow can shoot. The idea that you can drop the first sort of thing while keep the second is (in my view) responsible for a lot of RPGing in which there really are no significant action resolution rules: because the mechanics are modelled on classic D&D, and so deal with weaponry, architecture and carrying stuff but not much else; while most of what matters in the actual action of the game is something else.



Manbearcat has explained how Circles works. I see it as an extension of, and more character-focused than, Classic Traveller's Streetwise mechanics.

I don't think the GM knows who "the master" is. He may have some ideas of where he might take that element that he's introduced; but he doesn't have the sole authority to decided it. Eg suppose I declare and succeed in a Wises check to learn that "the master" is actually XYZ (some interesting NPC connected to backstory and prior action), then the GM would have to respect that outcome.

More generally, when the GM is creating NPCs they will be in response to action declarations, or as part of framing that is itself designed to challenge the PCs' Beliefs, and so will be responsive to those.

Ok, I think I get the idea. I've certainly used mechanics where the players can dictate to at least suggest facts about setting, albeit these mechanics have been in more ancillary role. Various influence or contacts traits in WW games, or perhaps some drama points to dictate some setting details etc.

But I absolutely would not want the game to revolve around such approach. At that point it becomes more like collective storytelling around some rules like Once Upon a Time (card game) and less like a tabletop RPG. Now in a GMless freeform games it is pretty common (and necessary) that the players just collectively make up the environment around their characters, but that is rather different format and one I'd personally consider inferior to GM-curated approach.

To me the whole point of having the GM there is for them to use their judgement. I want them to come up with interesting things I want them to come up with surprising things and I trust them to do it better than a codified rule system could. And when I play a character, I don't want to be deciding setting details because that forces me constantly from in-character perspective to the narrator-perspective. Now this is not absolute, you always need to consider things from system or narrator perspective somewhat, and of course that is what the GM does all the time. But as player that is not what I primarily seek.