A Question Of Agency?

[Ovinomancer]

I suspect Lanefan is assuming people not playing characters with suicidal tendencies, and without that characters will at least somewhat be prone to survival-positive outcomes. "Never" is a broad term because a lot of things can happen, but it doesn't change the basic premise in that case unless you assume a character with one degree or another of a deathwish.

You mean characters that willingly explore dangerous, monster-filled ruins, that fight dragons, that confront eldritch horrors? This is even before we look at characters that are desperate criminals, or death-before-dishonor types, or even gallant knights on a quest. The concept that characters in our games aren't routine doing outlandishly dangerous things to focus on a narrow instance and declare that this is the difference is baffling to me.

An Actor stance player is not immune to doing things for dramatic purposes alone; he may pay a lot of attention to what makes sense for a character but he's not allergic to putting his thumb on the scale to produce a dramatic scene. A purely IC player doesn't do that, except to the degree it arises naturally from the character's nature.

Basically, it comes down to this situation: A character is presented with three choices, all of which make some degree of sense in-character. What criterion does the player use to decide? An IC player will, barring randomness in his own mood, default to the one that seems the most in character. An Actor player may well chose the one that's most interesting to portray.

(I'm ignoring for the moment Deep-IC or immersive players because that's a rabbithole that can lead to some strange places).

You don't have Actor stance correct and are instead describing a change in stance during play. Stances are fluid and what you have here is a switch to author or director (depending on details) stance, not staying in Actor stance. There's no such thing as an Actor stance player, just as there's no such thing as an "In Character" player. It's a thing you do at times during games.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What is your general game-state expectation of survival? Or in other words, what is the expected lethality of that game as it's being run?

Becuase this makes a massive difference.

If you-as-player know the game is being run at low (or no) lethality you can have your PC be a lot more gung-ho and risk-takingly heroic than if you know or believe that death awaits around every corner thus making survival and safety goal number one. And sure you can risk other things than just death, but losing out on those still means you're able to come back and fight another day. Death, absent affordability and-or availability of revival mechanics, doesn't.

I always assume the game world is out to kill me - and would be rather disappointed if I ever learned it wasn't.

Not true at all. In Blades, death is right around every corner -- lethality can come extremely quickly. Yet, you're playing desperate rogues and gangsters, so that's the territory you inhabit. This is one where rash, impulsive, and dangerous things are common, even with death a constant companion.

 

[darkbard]

That said, I don't generally play to be heroic, and almost never play characters whose overall goal is to become a hero. Even as a kid I got bored with the hero always winning; this is why I found Game of Thrones to be so wonderful: other than Sansa and arguably Jon Snow there really are no heroes. Even the in-theory-good people end up doing evil things at some point.

When I offered my brief sketch of heroism, I had in mind the Weird Sisters' urging of Macbeth to "be bloody, bold, and resolute" in order to be master of his own fate (read: agency) in putting down his enemies and consolidating power. Macbeth does, of course, commit atrocities every bit as evil as a GoT character. One of the great themes of that play, of course, is what really controls us: our own decision making, fate, internal psychological function, social pressure, and so on? Agency, in other words, is put to the test.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@pemerton, I was simply trying to ask the OP what they meant exactly with the term agency. I was trying to move beyond the petty style squabbles and understand what it is the OP felt agency meant, so I could help give a response that maximizes that for them. Honestly though I am not even sure I understood the bulk of your post. But I don't think I was being loaded in my questioning at all. I was just trying to find out what the OP wanted

 

[Bedrockgames]

But no one in this thread has connected that sort of thing to player agency in the context of RPGing.

There was at least one poster saying (I believe two) the more control players have over narrative or even over things like what appears in the geography of the setting), the more agency they have. One poster even described this as the higher form of agency and the higher form of gameplay. However, I really don't think I understood most of what you said there. Maybe you were invoking terms from a game I don't play or perhaps you were invoking examples in the thread I don't remember that well. But I found your post very difficult to follow

 

[Bedrockgames]

I keep my eyes open for Rufus as we enter the borders of Auxol is something that my character does, within the setting, that is meaningful. It's true that whether or not Thrugon meet Rufus depends, in part, on something that Rufus does. But that is just the same - if you ask me - as the case where I attack the Orc with my mace. Whether or not I hit the Orc depends, in part, on something that the Orc does (eg dodge, or block and turn aside the blow with its shield).

I believe that Evard's tower is around here somewhere - I look out for it also declares something that my character does, within the setting, that is meaningful. It's true that whether or not Aramina's recollection is correct depends, in part, on something that Evard once did - ie build a tower. But again, most other action declarations also depend, for their success, on things done or not done by other persons and forces in the gameworld.

For reasons that are somewhat opaque to me, you and other posters might want to treat the action declaration about meeting someone differently from the action declaration about finding a remembered building from the action declaration about hitting an Orc with a mace. I don't see them as different in any underlying structure or significance, and certainly don't think that the language you have used to try and characterise them is apt.

Here's an example of something that I would accept counts as a player exerting agency on the gameworld itself without making a choice through his/her character: the player declares The King of Keoland meets an envoy from the Queen of Celene (and the player is neither the king nor the envoy nor the Queen nor otherwise connected to this event taking place). That's not an action declaration for a PC.

But no one in this thread has connected that sort of thing to player agency in the context of RPGing.

I am genuinely confused by what you are trying to say here. All I can say is my observation on this thread is some posters seem to be in favor of an approach where the players can make declarations that have an impact on the game world in a way that would normally be reserved for the GM rather than a player (and many seemed to be saying if you weren't doing that it was a lesser form of play); and having this kind of power over the setting/narrative is a form of agency. My point was simply to ask the OP which side's version of agency they were using, so we could stick with whatever the OP had meant by agency. Honestly, I don't particularly care about the term at this point, I was just trying to figure out what the OP meant by it, so we could get back to answering the OPs original question. Maybe I am misunderstanding this post though

 

[Bedrockgames]

In terms of heroic versus non-heroic characters, that is possibly a subject for another thread (maybe someone should start one?) but I will say I lean more toward non-heroic or at least, more shady heroes. Part of that is I have always found villains and bad guys more fun, so I have always been pretty open to 'functional villainous parties" (i.e. evil parties that are not constantly backstabbing each other, and are at least functional among themselves). One of my longest campaigns was for a group of awful PCs who were hell bent on gaining power and prestige in the martial world.

 

[pemerton]

I don't know if you appreciate how loaded this in, in terms of building in assumptions about approach to play, and allocations of authority in play, that are very specific.

All I can say is my observation on this thread is some posters seem to be in favor of an approach where the players can make declarations that have an impact on the game world in a way that would normally be reserved for the GM rather than a player

I was trying to move beyond the petty style squabbles

Well, unfortunately you failed in what you were trying to do. Because you expressed your conception of what is "normal" by describing the "atypical" in ways that mischaracterises it, at least from my perspective. That was the point of my post. In the rest of this post I will attempt to explain, again, why I say that.

There was at least one poster saying (I believe two) the more control players have over narrative or even over things like what appears in the geography of the setting), the more agency they have.

@AbdulAlhazred gave the example of the GM asking the player of the ranger what is to the north of the swamp? and the player of the ranger answering hills.

The examples of action declaration that I gave in my post were ones that I have referred to extensively in this thread: my success on a check (of Circles, an attribute of Burning Wheel PCs) prompted by my action declaration I keep my eyes open for my brother Rufus as we enter the border of Auxol meaning that the GM narrates an encounter with Rufus; my success on a check (of Great Masters-wise, a knowledge skill of my Burning Wheel PC's sorcerer sidekick) prompted by my action declaration Isn't Evard's tower around here somewhere - I'm looking for it leading the GM to narrate that Evard's tower is in the area and is come upon my PC and his sidekick.

The examples prompted discussions that you have weighed in to about "players creating things out of thin air" (@Lanefan) and "players exercising narrative power or engaging in narrative perspective/stance" (@Crimson Longinus). I pointed out that Gygax contemplated this sort of thing in his DMG, quoting his discussion of the process of a player's PC establishing a stronghold, and you posted in response to that suggesting that Gygax there was identifying a non-standard or marginal instance of action declaration.

I'm sure it's true that these examples involve the player exercising more control over the content of the fiction than some RPGers are use to. I would also add: given that control and agency in this context are near enough to synonyms, it's no great surprise that @AbdulAlhazred has characterised that greater control as greater agency, and that @hawkeyefan has tended to agree.

I am not in this post, nor my previous one to which you posted three responses, expressing a view on what scope of control is good or bad. I am pointing out how loaded your description of it is. You characterised these sorts of action declarations as leading to (i) agency the player can exert on the world itself that contrasts with (ii) agency through their character that consists in players being able to make meaningful choices within a setting (the three italicised phrases in this sentence are direct quotes of you).

My point is that these sorts of action declarations are, in the games in which they occur, precisely instances of players exercising agency through their characters by making meaningful choices within a setting. Or to be more concise: they are examples of a player playing his/her PC. When (in AbdulAlhazred's example) the GM asks the player of the ranger to answer what is to the north of the swamp? this is not an out-of-game request to a player to draw a map. It is an in-game demand that the player play his/her PC by evincing his/her PC's knowledge. When the player answers, s/he is answering in character. The question is a version of what do you do? where the action performed is recollecting and evincing knowledge.

My further point was that you can't distinguish these sorts of examples of playing the character (recollecting facts about geography or wizard's towers; hoping to meet one's brother) by saying that they establish facts about the world other than the character. Because nearly every action declaration, if successful, does that. A declaration I attack the Orc with my mace, if successful, establishes facts about the world other than the character (eg it establishes that the orc failed to dodge or to turn aside the blow by blocking with a shield). A declaration (in 3E D&D) that I use Gather Information skill to learn what's been happening recently in town, if successful, establishes facts about the world other than the character (eg that there are locals hanging about and gossiping). A declaration that I forage for food so we don't die of starvation in the wilderness, if successful, establishes facts about the world other than the character (eg that there is sufficient food available to be eaten by the PC and his/her companions - this example I owe to @hawkeyefan).

You are using a conception of what it is "normal" for a player to be able to influence or not influence, beyond the character, via action declaration - I am guessing that the roll to hit, the survival check, and the gather information check would all fall on the "normal" side of your divide; it's clear that the knowledge check about a wizard's tower, or the answer to the GM's question about the character's geographical knowledge, fall on the "atypical" side of your divide; you haven't (as far as I know) expressed a view about the Circles check or the similar ability that players of yakuza PCs have in AD&D Oriental Adventures.

My point is that you are expressing that conception by drawing a distinction between playing ones PC and directly establishing facts about the gameworld that is (from my point of view) utterly untenable and wildly mischaracterises my RPGing experiences. Given that in previous posts in this thread you have been critical of people presenting advocacy for their preferences in the language of neutral description, I thought it appropriate to draw this to your attention.

 

[pemerton]

What is your general game-state expectation of survival? Or in other words, what is the expected lethality of that game as it's being run?

Becuase this makes a massive difference.

If you-as-player know the game is being run at low (or no) lethality you can have your PC be a lot more gung-ho and risk-takingly heroic than if you know or believe that death awaits around every corner thus making survival and safety goal number one.

I'm not really into this sort of metagaming.

I play my PC by inhabiting him/her; which means internalising as best I can, given I'm an amateur at this sort of thing, my character's self-conception, motivations and aspirations, understanding of his/her capabilities, etc.

This is one reason why my BW PC does not advance in ability as quickly as my GM's character does when he is a player. He has a very good wargamer's eye for making action declaration choice that will generate advancement opportunities. Whereas I'm not very good at that: rather than paying attention to that sort of thing, I do my best to focus on the situation through the "eyes" and emotions of my PC.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, unfortunately you failed in what you were trying to do. Because you expressed your conception of what is "normal" by describing the "atypical" in ways that mischaracterises it, at least from my perspective. That was the point of my post. In the rest of this post I will attempt to explain, again, why I say that.


@AbdulAlhazred gave the example of the GM asking the player of the ranger what is to the north of the swamp? and the player of the ranger answering hills.

The examples of action declaration that I gave in my post were ones that I have referred to extensively in this thread: my success on a check (of Circles, an attribute of Burning Wheel PCs) prompted by my action declaration I keep my eyes open for my brother Rufus as we enter the border of Auxol meaning that the GM narrates an encounter with Rufus; my success on a check (of Great Masters-wise, a knowledge skill of my Burning Wheel PC's sorcerer sidekick) prompted by my action declaration Isn't Evard's tower around here somewhere - I'm looking for it leading the GM to narrate that Evard's tower is in the area and is come upon my PC and his sidekick.

The examples prompted discussions that you have weighed in to about "players creating things out of thin air" (@Lanefan) and "players exercising narrative power or engaging in narrative perspective/stance" (@Crimson Longinus). I pointed out that Gygax contemplated this sort of thing in his DMG, quoting his discussion of the process of a player's PC establishing a stronghold, and you posted in response to that suggesting that Gygax there was identifying a non-standard or marginal instance of action declaration.

I'm sure it's true that these examples involve the player exercising more control over the content of the fiction than some RPGers are use to. I would also add: given that control and agency in this context are near enough to synonyms, it's no great surprise that @AbdulAlhazred has characterised that greater control as greater agency, and that @hawkeyefan has tended to agree.

I am not in this post, nor my previous one to which you posted three responses, expressing a view on what scope of control is good or bad. I am pointing out how loaded your description of it is. You characterised these sorts of action declarations as leading to (i) agency the player can exert on the world itself that contrasts with (ii) agency through their character that consists in players being able to make meaningful choices within a setting (the three italicised phrases in this sentence are direct quotes of you).

My point is that these sorts of action declarations are, in the games in which they occur, precisely instances of players exercising agency through their characters by making meaningful choices within a setting. Or to be more concise: they are examples of a player playing his/her PC. When (in AbdulAlhazred's example) the GM asks the player of the ranger to answer what is to the north of the swamp? this is not an out-of-game request to a player to draw a map. It is an in-game demand that the player play his/her PC by evincing his/her PC's knowledge. When the player answers, s/he is answering in character. The question is a version of what do you do? where the action performed is recollecting and evincing knowledge.

My further point was that you can't distinguish these sorts of examples of playing the character (recollecting facts about geography or wizard's towers; hoping to meet one's brother) by saying that they establish facts about the world other than the character. Because nearly every action declaration, if successful, does that. A declaration I attack the Orc with my mace, if successful, establishes facts about the world other than the character (eg it establishes that the orc failed to dodge or to turn aside the blow by blocking with a shield). A declaration (in 3E D&D) that I use Gather Information skill to learn what's been happening recently in town, if successful, establishes facts about the world other than the character (eg that there are locals hanging about and gossiping). A declaration that I forage for food so we don't die of starvation in the wilderness, if successful, establishes facts about the world other than the character (eg that there is sufficient food available to be eaten by the PC and his/her companions - this example I owe to @hawkeyefan).

You are using a conception of what it is "normal" for a player to be able to influence or not influence, beyond the character, via action declaration - I am guessing that the roll to hit, the survival check, and the gather information check would all fall on the "normal" side of your divide; it's clear that the knowledge check about a wizard's tower, or the answer to the GM's question about the character's geographical knowledge, fall on the "atypical" side of your divide; you haven't (as far as I know) expressed a view about the Circles check or the similar ability that players of yakuza PCs have in AD&D Oriental Adventures.

My point is that you are expressing that conception by drawing a distinction between playing ones PC and directly establishing facts about the gameworld that is (from my point of view) utterly untenable and wildly mischaracterises my RPGing experiences. Given that in previous posts in this thread you have been critical of people presenting advocacy for their preferences in the language of neutral description, I thought it appropriate to draw this to your attention.

Well the OP liked my post, so I don't think I failed in that respect. I honestly don't understand you at this point Pemerton. Look some of us see play primarily as playing the world through your character, and this is how we've seen the game from when we started back on early editions. And some of us, you for example, seem to have a loser understanding of that. And this is all getting bound up in the question of agency and we are responding to a poster who wanted to know if he was honoring his players sense of agency. In order for me to answer that person's question I really need to know where he resides in terms of these two views of how players engage the game world. And you seem to be saying I need to accept your view of what the norm is for some reason, or need to accept that this distinction some of us see isn't really there. I don't know what to do with that. And I am really not sure what your overall point is. I feel like I have responded as best I can to your points. I think in terms of what Gygax meant, what those kinds of cases imply, we simply disagree, and there probably isn't a way to bridge that. In terms of what we consider the typical style of play through the years, we would also disagree. But the focus I am taking here is trying to address the OPs original concern and avoid these kinds of play style and perspective arguments (which you and I always seem to get bogged down in during play).