A Question Of Agency?

[chaochou]

In the real life you could go around hitting people with maces, and as a result they might die (so don't do that, it's illegal in most places.) In real life you cannot go around thinking hills and having them to appear where you want. Capisce?

In real life I can remember where some hills are. And they are exactly there. Capisce?

 

[pemerton]

Not far upthread I replied to @zarionofarabel with a post about unpacking assumptions.

And I also replied to @hawkeyefan about some assumptions that inform classic dungeoncrawling.

In very traditional D&D, of the sort Gygax describes in the "sample adventure" in his DMG and of the sort that Moldvay describes in his Basic rules, the dungeon is the focus of play. The PCs have not been there before play starts; they are strangers to the dungeon. And the only knowledge they have of it is provided, in advance of play, by the GM (perhaps using a formalised table of rumours, as in B2 Keep on the Borderlands).

So the question what does my character remember about this place doesn't come up.

When Gygax and Cook/Marsh Expert deal with travel beyond the dungeon, they take as a premise that it will be a "hex crawl" though lands that are unknown to and unexplored by the PCs. Gygax has rules for how maps and guides interact with the chance of being lost; he has no discussion of the situation where a PC, in virtue of his/her backstory, is already competent to be a guide through the place.

When you abandon these assumptions, what is to be done? One option is incessant second-person instruction from the GM about what the PCs know and remember.

There are also other options that in my view are obviously superior, both from the point of view of immersive inhabitation of the character, and from the point of view of player agency over the shared fiction.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If you hit an orc with the mace, you the player are not hitting the orc.

I am making a distinction between exerting power on the setting through your character (whether that be what your character says or does) and exerting power on the setting through your declarations as a player. In real life, I can say "I have a fort on the hill next to my house" all day long, but saying it doesn't make that fort exist. My memory of the fort is only valid if the hill and fort exist. The same in a setting. In a traditional style of play, the player asks the GM "is there a hill there"----the GM is the system for deterimining the objecting reality of the geography. Now you can play a different way. I am not saying playing differently is less fun, less immersive for you, or bad. I am saying if you allow the hill to exist because the player says, even if it is in character, "there are hills to the north", then that is distinct from how many on this thread play the game (and I would argue probably distinct from how most people play----but who knows, maybe that is changing).

I think that no matter what we're talking about, it's all through declarations as a player, right? That's all that is actually happening, whether it's the swing of an axe, or remembering a location, or trying to disarm a trap, or finding out the latest rumors.

I think that it's important to keep this in mind.

What you're advocating for is a mode of play where the vast majority of content is introduced by the GM. In this mode of play, what the players can declare is constrained by what has or has not been established, and with any unestablished factor going to the GM.

This is indeed a popular mode of play.

I think what's frustrating, is that you constantly site this mode as "normal" and "long established" and so on, which implies that any other approach is abnormal. The fact that you can do this, without seeming to even realize you are doing it, while also appealing to others to not place some objective value on their preferred approach, is a bit tough to take.

Anyone can play however they like, and there is no wrong way to play. But that doesn't mean every game allows the same amount of agency. There are mechanics and methods that allow for more or less agency.

Having the GM be the arbiter of almost all the fiction in the game is one method that tends to allow for less player agency. It's okay. This being a descriptor of a game is not the same as saying the game is bad or allows for less fun.

This is a very weird argument. The orc already was established as existing by the GM. And its death was contingent on a successful attack roll and doing the right amount damage. You didn't create a dead orc. You killed an orc that existed in the setting. The hill exists because you said it does. There is an obvious difference between these two things. If they feel the same to you, that is fine. I can't change that. But they don't feel at all the same to me.

So the distinction that seems most important to you seems to be the initial introduction of an element to the fiction. Does that seem right?

The GM should (in most cases) be the source of new fictional details. "There are hills north of the swamp!" The players are then free to go to the hills, or to avoid the hills, as they desire.

If a game allows the player some means to establish the hills.....what's the problem?

Can't a game do this? "I make a Wilderness check to see if I know where we are. If it's the Great Swamp, then Lothar knows the Iron Hills are to the north of us....." a successful Wilderness check means the player was right, and the PCs are now in the Great Swamp, and the Iron Hills are to the North.

This is a different approach than what many are used to, yes, but that doesn't mean it can't be suggested as a valid way to play, and as a method that will very likely increase player agency.

The whole fictional world doesn't come crashing down if someone besides the GM decides what's on the map.

 

[pemerton]

So the distinction that seems most important to you seems to be the initial introduction of an element to the fiction. Does that seem right?

<snip>

The whole fictional world doesn't come crashing down if someone besides the GM decides what's on the map.

I fully agree with the second sentence I've quoted.

I'm going to quibble very slightly over the first. A dead Orc is a different fictional element from A live Orc.

Now in the real world there are no Orcs, but there are living things that die. And their are (complex) causal processes that explain the transition from one to the other state.

But when we are talking about the content a fiction, the transition from live Orc to dead Orc is exactly the same process as the transition from dunno what's to the north of the swamp to there are hills to the north of the swamp. In both cases, the process is called authorship.

With that off my chest, I allow you to resume your excellent posting about authorship in RPGs!

 

[hawkeyefan]

I fully agree with the second sentence I've quoted.

I'm going to quibble very slightly over the first. A dead Orc is a different fictional element from A live Orc.

Now in the real world there are no Orcs, but there are living things that die. And their are (complex) causal processes that explain the transition from one to the other state.

But when we are talking about the content a fiction, the transition from live Orc to dead Orc is exactly the same process as the transition from dunno what's to the north of the swamp to there are hills to the north of the swamp. In both cases, the process is called authorship.

With that off my chest, I allow you to resume your excellent posting about authorship in RPGs!

That's fair enough, but you can't make the dead orc unless the GM has already introduced a live one. So in that sense, the players are free to have their characters engage and interact with things the GM has already established. They may be able to build upon something, or destroy something, but only if it's already there.

I think this is the expectation....players can't just decide things are in the fiction without GM approval. Sometimes, some exceptions may happen, but only through the resolution of an action check of some kind, and then only in small ways.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So the distinction that seems most important to you seems to be the initial introduction of an element to the fiction. Does that seem right?

No. Like I have said many times here, the distinction I am making is one way (the "I remember the hill" way), enables the player to generate content in the setting. It is a question of whether the setting is under the purview of the GM, or of the players or a mix of both. I am saying the traditional way is the GM has control of the setting, and the players influence on the setting is through their character (and unless the character has a spell called 'summon hills' the character asserting a memory of hills wouldn't just make them appear). Now I did say there are going to be some gray areas. And there it is largely a question of how easily noticed or hand waved it is.

part of the problem here is we use entirely different language to talk about games. I never use terms like "the fiction". I find that label blurs setting and plot in a way that makes the distinctions I am making here less obvious.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The GM should (in most cases) be the source of new fictional details. "There are hills north of the swamp!" The players are then free to go to the hills, or to avoid the hills, as they desire.

If a game allows the player some means to establish the hills.....what's the problem?

Can't a game do this? "I make a Wilderness check to see if I know where we are. If it's the Great Swamp, then Lothar knows the Iron Hills are to the north of us....." a successful Wilderness check means the player was right, and the PCs are now in the Great Swamp, and the Iron Hills are to the North.

This is a different approach than what many are used to, yes, but that doesn't mean it can't be suggested as a valid way to play, and as a method that will very likely increase player agency.

The whole fictional world doesn't come crashing down if someone besides the GM decides what's on the map.

I don't think there is any problem with a game allowing this sort of thing. I specifically called out Hillfolk as a game I like that does just that sort of thing. I have no issue with you wanting this in a game. Where I, and others, are taking exception is inserting that into something like a wilderness check. Obviously if your group is down with a wilderness check being used in that way, fair enough. But if you were to join my table, you wouldn't be allowed to make a wilderness check like that in one of my standard campaigns (and I don't think using wilderness checks that way is the way people usually expect them to be used).

In the example of the iron hills, if you are introducing the concept of the iron hills to the setting by saying Lothar knows the iron hills are to the north, then that would to me, be both an example of you the player shaping the setting itself, and you using a wilderness roll in a way that isn't the norm (and I am not saying this pejoratively to label your style or approach 'abnormal', I am saying it isn't what is typically expected or done).

I have never once said it isn't a valid way to play. I have stated numerous times it is valid and fine, and that I have even played that way myself and enjoyed it.

Does the whole fictional come crashing down? No, but some players are going to get annoyed if the GM isn't the one making those calls. And for some players it could produce believability and buy in issues. I even said earlier, I ran a session of my normal game where I let the players decide what was on the map. But I did at least recognize it was an exception to how we normally did things, and it did change the feel of play (and it was a one time thing because I wanted the rest of the campaign to feel like our usual sessions). Again this is a playstyle and expectation issue. I am not saying any of them are good or bad. I am saying these are different

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So the distinction that seems most important to you seems to be the initial introduction of an element to the fiction. Does that seem right?

The GM should (in most cases) be the source of new fictional details. "There are hills north of the swamp!" The players are then free to go to the hills, or to avoid the hills, as they desire.

If a game allows the player some means to establish the hills.....what's the problem?

Can't a game do this? "I make a Wilderness check to see if I know where we are. If it's the Great Swamp, then Lothar knows the Iron Hills are to the north of us....." a successful Wilderness check means the player was right, and the PCs are now in the Great Swamp, and the Iron Hills are to the North.

This is a different approach than what many are used to, yes, but that doesn't mean it can't be suggested as a valid way to play, and as a method that will very likely increase player agency.

The whole fictional world doesn't come crashing down if someone besides the GM decides what's on the map.

I don't think that either @Bedrockgames or I have said anything about how thing should be done or what is better way to do these things, aside perhaps some personal preferences. But this discussion has gotten utterly bogged down, because bizarrely @pemerton seems to refuse to accept that any difference even exists! You're fine, you clearly understand what the difference in question is. All I ask that people would respect the fact that some players do not want play in a manner where they're responsible of introducing these setting elements. (Commonly because it weakens the illusion of the setting having an existence independent of them.) You can prefer either style, that's perfectly fine. I have played a lot of GMless freeform RP, and that's decent enough and has its own strengths. In that format the players obviously are jointly in charge of the exterior world as there is no GM. But my personal preference generally is that if a GM is available, to have them fully take charge of the world outside the characters. I am not even anyway fundamentalist about this, I would be perfectly willing to occasionally play a game with a GM where it was handled somewhat differently; though granted, I'd probably be unwilling to GM one myself in that manner.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is indeed a popular mode of play.

I think what's frustrating, is that you constantly site this mode as "normal" and "long established" and so on, which implies that any other approach is abnormal. The fact that you can do this, without seeming to even realize you are doing it, while also appealing to others to not place some objective value on their preferred approach, is a bit tough to take.

Anyone can play however they like, and there is no wrong way to play. But that doesn't mean every game allows the same amount of agency. There are mechanics and methods that allow for more or less agency.

Having the GM be the arbiter of almost all the fiction in the game is one method that tends to allow for less player agency. It's okay. This being a descriptor of a game is not the same as saying the game is bad or allows for less fun.

I can't help it if people are choosing to take umbrage with me saying something to me seems like the normal way people usually play. I think I've gone to great lengths to explain that I don't take issue with any particular playstyle here. And even tried to explain that I have enjoyed the very playstyle in question.

Yes, but I think your perception of agency changes a lot depending on your perception around things like whether players should shape the setting or not. You see that as an expansion of agency and agency increasing overall. Those who value a more traditional exploration based approach, would not see it as such, because, to them, it is producing a less stable setting to explore and choices are not made against the backdrop of a world that feels objective and external (because they as players can assert things about the setting which would seem to undermine the weight of their choices). Pemerton sees this as mere puzzle solving. And that is fine. I happen to like puzzles, and one reason this style of play appeals to me is the challenge and puzzle solving aspect (though I would say it is much more involved because you have a human GM who is able to react organically to your solutions). But how much agency I perceive here is impacted by things like other players being able to make a wilderness roll and suddenly deciding there are hills to the north.

Now, maybe you don't see it that way. That is fine. But to me agency is very much about how much freedom I have to explore the setting, not how much freedom I have to control the setting.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, but I think your perception of agency changes a lot depending on your perception around things like whether players should shape the setting or not. You see that as an expansion of agency and agency increasing overall. Those who value a more traditional exploration based approach, would not see it as such, because, to them, it is producing a less stable setting to explore and choices are not made against the backdrop of a world that feels objective and external (because they as players can assert things about the setting which would seem to undermine the weight of their choices).

Damn! I already pressed the like button, but I had to quote this too, because it was so well said. I tried to articulate this same though earlier, but I couldn't do it nearly this clearly.