A Question Of Agency?

[Crimson Longinus]

Because they fit or don’t fit someone’s preference?

The good and bad bit is subjective, and I’m not saying what’s good or bad. Not sure why you’d frame your response along those lines.

You might not be, a lot of people certainly strongly implied.

Sure, that’s probably part of it.

And this is why I really don't agree with the idea, that agency is so easily quantifiable that any increase of the player decision making power will automatically increase the net agency. I think I explained it well enough with my example about 'get out of jail free card' meta currency. And the truth is everyone actually agrees with this in theory. Everyone agrees that the game has to have some limits and making decisions within these limits is what makes those decisions meaningful, thus producing agency. People just do not agree what those limits should be.

No, it’s not.

A GM not allowing players to determine their PC’s backstory limits agency. It’s an area of the fiction on which a player can have input, and possibly shape the fiction of the game. If I’m allowed to say that my PC is secretly the heir to the throne and that he wants to restore his claim....that’s me telling the GM what I’d like to see in play.

If the GM looks at me and says “No....we’re gonna do Descent Into Avernus, so that backstory isn’t suitable” then he has limited my ability to determine what the game is about, and my character’s place in it.

Whether or not this is good in that it’s an acceptable way to play or not is up to the individual. Again, this isn’t about “Agency = Good”.

This is not exactly what I meant, though I am not sure what us knowing that the player's agency was limited gets us. Like so what? What are we using this information for?

Okay, what would be other areas? I agree there are others. Principles of play would likely be the big one that leaps to my mind.

What would you say would be ways to communicate intent and purpose?

Talking.

I would say a RPG session with no rules is as different a thing as one with no GM. Without rules, how is it a game? Sounds like it would just be people having a conversation about pretend things.

RPGs are barely games anyway. Imagine a part of a D&D session where the characters are just talking with each other and some NPCs, exploring a city, perhaps shopping. No dice have been rolled. Did it stop being a game? You can just run entire sessions or campaigns like that. Perhaps ask GM asks some rolls and just sets up the odds based how likely in they think the character is to succeed. In practice it doesn't run significantly differently than a game with somewhat more complex rules. Its really good for horror and drama where the focus is more on atmosphere rather than 'winning'. Keeps the focus on the fiction rather than on the rules.

No....rules should not get out of the way. They should promote and inspire and enable play. They’re essential.

Nah. I just want to pretend to be an elf or somesuch. I want to do things that would be sensible from the POV of my character and I want things that make sense in the fictional context result from those actions. The rules can help to facilitate that but they're just an imperfect simulation engine.

 

[Lanefan]

So, this is interesting . . . because this entire "meta" player decision runs entirely contrary to the whole idea of "absolute fidelity to the fiction and characters." If we're treating our characters as "real" within the fiction, no one in within the actual fiction is going to say word one if one of the characters wants to do a thorough examination of options and risks before taking action.

But if that supposed "objective reality" starts to conflict with the metagame reality of players being bored, it's totally okay to rule in favor of the metagame reality of "get the bloody game moving."

Oh, I agree - I didn't say it was a good thing, did I? Ideally my boredom level shouldn't have any impact on what my PCs do. I just don't always live up to ideals...

So it's always the duty of the player to subsume what they'd really like to explore, either thematically or in-fiction?

If it bores everyone else, I'd say it is. I-as-player have no right to expect anyone else to care about my PC trying to find his impoverished sister and set her up with some of the wealth I've acquired through adventuring. It's something I and the DM can look after off-session, or with just a few dice rolls and an expense notation. If, however, I was the only player in the game I'd want us to role-play this out in some detail.

Everyone's just supposed go along in an extended Abilene paradox, where no one really gets to enjoy exploring an aspect of the fiction/character that's interesting to them, because the GM's just decided that "well, the objective reality of the game world just doesn't allow for that"?

The objective reality of the game world does take precedence over everything. If it didn't, there'd be no objective reality to be found there.

But assuming the game-world reality allows for those aspects one wants to explore, the question then becomes one of priority: are explorations of aspects and elements of an individual character more important (i.e. more worth spending session-time on) than explorations of aspects of the fiction as a party? In most cases, out of consideration for the other players at the table, I'd say no. Further, I'd think that to say yes is just selfish.

Well, yes, it's definitely hidden backstory -- in-fiction events, determined by the GM, which occur without input vis-a-vis the players. And sure, it's fun as a GM to occasionally throw out some unforeseen surprise.

But truthfully, in many circumstances, it's an indulgence on the GM's part.

Was the question ever asked, "Will my players enjoy this conflict/obstacle, or would they much rather be experiencing something else?"

And can that question ever truly be answered, other than in hindsight? Ahead of time, all one can do is guess.

Given the choice, would the players rather have proceeded on to something that felt more dramatically interesting and relevant to the stakes of their characters, or their personal interests? And how would they signal such interest to the GM?

The truth is, if the players weren't interested in this particular conflict/obstacle, then it's the GM just being indulgent. There's a million ways to skip past this event if the players weren't really interested in it . . . but it happened anyway by the choice of the GM.

Which is fine --- but hopefully the GM has the awareness on some level that it is, in fact, an indulgence on their part.

IME most players, if given the choice, would have their PCs avoid all conflicts or obstacles. Given that, it falls to the GM to make sure they have to go through some regardless.

Maybe the the GM does it because this set of events is just more fun for him or her--(S)he just wants to play around with a fun set of encounter mechanics or abilities, or a fun NPC they want to toy around with.

Thing is, if this is the case I'll often outright tell the players this is what I'm doing, either at the time or afterwards.

Maybe the GM is willing to sacrifice the enjoyment of their players to maintain "fidelity to the illusion of objective reality," because "that's totally what would happen in the fiction right now, and I must maintain that illusion."

I'm more than willing to make that sacrifice.

My players enjoy having their PCs find lots of treasure. Does that mean I have to have piles of gold waiting in every cave? Hells no!

Regardless of the reason, it's a case of the GM actively prioritizing some other interest above the enjoyment of the players. And if the players are okay with that, great! Some players are totally fine with the knowledge that the GM is going to regularly place other needs/agendas above their own enjoyment of the game. It's been that way since 1974, and will probably be that way in 2074.

And I suppose that there are some players that are willing to sacrifice some of their own dramatic interests in the name of maintaining "fidelity to the illusion of objective reality."

Not so much sacrifice their own dramatic interests as be willing to work them in to whatever the game world provides; and accept that not everything is going to fit in every situation. As an extreme example, if I-as-player am interested in examining and messing around with how artificial intelligence impacts society I'm not likely to get much out of a medieval-based game world....but if that's what the DM has us in it's on me to accept that, and either put my AI ideas by until a better setting for them comes up or start my own futuristic campaign.

 

[pemerton]

It's not really that. It is merely that for choices to matter there must be some constraints and limiting the players ability to affect the setting to that of their character is one possible constraint.

Here's one way to limit what the players can do in a RPG: all they do is listen to what the GM tells them is happening, but they elaborate on it a bit with (what @Manberacat, not far upthread, called) characterisation/pantomiming.

Such RPGing actually takes place. I've seen it. I've read posts about it. I've participated in it.

Those limits don't make choices by players matter. They make choices by players, beyond the zone of characterisation/pantomiming, largely irrelevant.

The main "limit" that makes choices matter in a puzzle-solving RPG is that there is a correct answer to the puzzle.

The main "limit" that makes choices matter in "play to find out what happens"-type RPGing is that what happens can't just be ignored.

People seem to recognise this in a sense that they accept that the game needs to have rules; that a situation where the players can just freely declare anything and have it be so is not optimal. I really want people to answer this: do rules that place limits on how the player can affect the fiction or 'gamestates' reduce the players agency? And if they do, why we have such rules?

These questions, in so far as they apply to "play to find out what happens"-type RPGing, have been amply answered upthread.

In games that use "say 'yes' or roll the dice" - eg Burning Wheel - the point of resolution mechanics (ie "rolling the dice") is to find out who gets to say what happens next - player or GM - and to determine the constraints that govern that - will it be the player's desire for what happens to his/her PC that comes true (ie if the GM says "yes", or if a roll is a success) or will it be some sort of adversity for the PC narrated by the GM (ie a roll is a failure).

In PbtA games like Apocalypse World or Dungeon World, the point of resolution mechanics is to find out, at certain key moments, who gets to say what happens next. The system determines what counts as a "key moment" by its list of player-side "moves" (the slogan is, if you do it, you do it; if a group discovers that the systems list of moves doesn't correspond to what they care about in play, then they're playing the wrong game and should find one better suited to their tastes). If a move is triggered then we work out who gets to decided what happens next by rolling the dice - on a 6- result the GM gets to say what happens next, and is allowed to go hard in that respect; on a 10+ the player generally gets quite a bit of say over what happens next or perhaps (eg in AW if Go Aggro is used against a NPC) the GM gets to say but is significant constrained; on a 7-9 maybe the player gets to say but is significantly constrained (eg Seize by Force in AW) or maybe the GM and player get to share it a bit (eg Do Something Under Fire in AW).

In AW, there are very few player-side moves that permit the player to establish what it is that his/her PC knows, sees or recalls. Here's an exception, from the Batlebabe:

Visions of death: when you go into battle, roll+weird. On a 10+, name one person who’ll die and one who’ll live. On a 7–9, name one person who’ll die OR one person who’ll live. Don’t name a player’s character; name NPCs only. The MC will make your vision come true, if it’s even remotely possible. On a miss, you foresee your own death, and accordingly take -1 throughout the battle.​

Generally, though, when a player wants to establish what it is that his/her PC knows, sees or recalls this is done via moves that (on a success) oblige the GM to narrate certain things under various sorts of constraints, including (if the player's roll is a success) that the information be relevant or useful (eg Read a Charged Situation; Read a Person; Open Your Mind to the World's Psychic Maelstrom). The GM is also directed by the game rules to ask provocative questions [of the players] and build on the answers [that they give]. This (or, rather, it's Dungeon World equivalent) is the principle that @AbdulAlhazred had in mind upthread when envisaging that a player might be asked what landform is to the north of the swamp?

Burning Wheel takes a different approach to establishing what it is that his/her PC knows, sees or recalls. The player is typically permitted to put this to the test, via action declaration. Because such actions have a chance of failure, they open up the possibility that what it the PC knows, see or recalls either (i) isn't what the player hoped for, or (ii) isn't going to be as useful as the player had hoped. (Eg Don't I recall that there are hills to the north of this swamp? OK, test Travel-wise. <Player rolls and fails> Yes, you do; you also recall that the hills are cursed - no one who has entered them has ever left alive!)

What makes all of this matter is that the fiction is what it is. Once established, it's established. If you're not sure about why this would matter, review the play example upthread of Thurgon and Aramina's encounter with Rufus. Or of their subsequent encounter with Xanthippe.

Yes, such rules may result in less agency for players than the rules of another game may allow. As to why would we have them, it’ll vary from person to person according to preference, but the general answer is that the rules result in an engaging play experience.

And then you also have an answer for why it might be desirable for GM to decide certain things instead of the player. But now you have basically agree that limiting player agency (as you define it) is often needed. So then this is really not about agency, it is about how that limiting happens.

Your post doesn't follow from the post you've quoted. By "such rules", @hawkeyefan means rule for "things decided by GM fiat," And what is said about such rules is the fairly obvious point that we would use such rules to produce an engaging play experience.

It doesn't remotely follow from that all that matters in RPG design, with respect to player agency, is how such agency is limited.

The GM can be 'constrained' by their desire to make sure that everyone is having good time.

That's not a constraint. Which your scare quotes acknowledge.

The reason player's choices for their PCs matter, in "play to find out what happens"-type RPGing, is that everyone at the table cares about the fiction and those choices help establish what that fiction is. What distinguishes this from cooperative, round-robin storytelling is that the set-up of the game means that (i) a certain group of participants (ie the players) have an especial stake in one or more protagonists, towards whom they adopt a first-person identification, and that (ii) all the decision-making about what happens next is oriented towards the fate of those protagonists based around what they try and do.

If you are playing RPGs as a type of puzzle-solving game then what makes the player's choices matter is that they can genuinely contribute to solving the puzzle. This generally depends upon the puzzle-maker not being able to change the parameters of the puzzle part-way through the attempt to solve it.

Neither of these approaches to RPGing generates any particular demand that the non-player participant (ie the GM) (a) be able to make up fiction during the course of play as s/he sees fit, nor (b) that there be strong limits on the topics of fiction that the players contribute.

 

[pemerton]

as the PCs have no way of knowing whether what they're deciding on is major or trivial it's only fair the players don't either.

One way to approach RPGing is to make sure that nothing is ever put at stake that is trivial.

There are various ways this can be achieved. My personal favourite is a variation of "say 'yes'" - I will tell the players that their PCs get the trivial thing they want, or will describe some outcome that resolves the question in front of them. Probably less often, I will step outside of narration of the fiction and just tell the players that it doesn't matter.

Imagine a part of a D&D session where the characters are just talking with each other and some NPCs, exploring a city, perhaps shopping. No dice have been rolled. Did it stop being a game? You can just run entire sessions or campaigns like that.

That does not seem like a very high-player-agency campaign. Nothing is happening.

It sounds like extremely low-stakes round-robin storytelling.

I'm sure it's possible to have quality RPGing that emulates fiction other than melodrama and adventure stories; or even that emulates Andy Warhol's Sleep. But the RPGing I've participated in or observed that involves nothing but PCs talking to NPCs about shopping hasn't been it.

 

[Lanefan]

But one of the principles of no myth games that afford player agency in shaping the setting in this way is not to contradict elements already established in play. If the flow of the river has already been established in play to flow south-north as per your example, a player couldn't just establish hills to the north as that would conflict with something already established (the south-north flowing river).

But let's presume that for some reason the geographical details of the world have been forgotten or become confused so that these two elements (south-north river, northern hills) are brought into play.

Yeah, it's the forgetting bit that'd worry me, followed by the "Oh, crap" moment sometime later when realization hits. And it's so easy to do - I mean there's maps in published novels that violate some of these principles and those in theory are done by one person!

Is this truly irreconcilable in a fantasy game? Might the player's introduction of a "mistake" not just be a happy accident that begs for explanation: a magical reverse waterfall that flows up a cliff's edge or something?

This could be done now and then, but if overdone the setting would become like Alice's wonderland - cool as hell to read about, perhaps, but nearly impossible to play in.

 

[Lanefan]

No....rules should not get out of the way. They should promote and inspire and enable play. They’re essential.

Ideally rules should be as unobtrusive as possible - like the stereotypical butler, they should always be present but out of the way, and never noticed until needed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

One way to approach RPGing is to make sure that nothing is ever put at stake that is trivial.

There are various ways this can be achieved. My personal favourite is a variation of "say 'yes'" - I will tell the players that their PCs get the trivial thing they want, or will describe some outcome that resolves the question in front of them. Probably less often, I will step outside of narration of the fiction and just tell the players that it doesn't matter.

This principle is enshrined at the highest level in my game. There are 2 phases of play, 'challenge', and 'interlude', and every moment of play takes place in one of these 2 phases. No dice are ever touched during an interlude, it is not necessarily entirely trivial (there could be important revelations for instance) but nothing is AT STAKE, no player has committed to any action or cost at that point. Shopping for clothing is a classic example (assuming it isn't tied to some agenda). Your wizard simply buys a robe. If he wants a high quality robe, he spends the resources for that, or he could go cheap. Either way, nothing depends on this choice. It may establish some fiction which is significant later, but it doesn't require adjudication of success or failure. The GM simply says 'yes' here.

Challenges are of course where the issues of the game are brought to a head.

That does not seem like a very high-player-agency campaign. Nothing is happening.

It sounds like extremely low-stakes round-robin storytelling.

I'm sure it's possible to have quality RPGing that emulates fiction other than melodrama and adventure stories; or even that emulates Andy Warhol's Sleep. But the RPGing I've participated in or observed that involves nothing but PCs talking to NPCs about shopping hasn't been it.

Again, you can have this in an interlude, although I think pacing demands that it not extend overmuch, and the real idea is for whatever happens there to provide the fictional position which can quickly (at the table anyway, it could be years of PCs lives) reach a point of further conflict and thus challenge.

 

[Lanefan]

One way to approach RPGing is to make sure that nothing is ever put at stake that is trivial.

They get to a door. They don't know what's beyond it, and all attempts to find any traps etc. have come up dry in such a way to leave the PCs still unsure if any are present or not.

The GM knows the door is safe and that there's no real threats right behind it...but the players don't and nor do the PCs. Which means, the principles of GM neutralilty tell me I should just sit back, shut up, let them decide what to do, and then react to that decision.

There are various ways this can be achieved. My personal favourite is a variation of "say 'yes'" - I will tell the players that their PCs get the trivial thing they want, or will describe some outcome that resolves the question in front of them. Probably less often, I will step outside of narration of the fiction and just tell the players that it doesn't matter.

Doesn't doing so kinda chew on their agency? Aren't they allowed to get hung up on something trivial if that's what they want to do?

In one of the most hilarious sessions I've ever seen, most of the session consisted of trying to persuade a particularly stubborn Dwarf PC to ride in a cart or ride a horse or use any method of transportation faster than his own stubby little legs, as we had a long way to go and limited time. You-as-DM would have been tearing your hair out (ours was!), but as players we just couldn't stop laughing. And the increasingly-ridiculous arguments put forth by both the Dwarf's player (to walk) and those of the other PCs (to get in the damn cart) - priceless!

We got nothing done that night, yet 35 years later I still remember that session fondly.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, it's the forgetting bit that'd worry me, followed by the "Oh, crap" moment sometime later when realization hits. And it's so easy to do - I mean there's maps in published novels that violate some of these principles and those in theory are done by one person!

This could be done now and then, but if overdone the setting would become like Alice's wonderland - cool as hell to read about, perhaps, but nearly impossible to play in.

This kind of concern has never really arisen in a significant way in all my years of play/GMing. I mean, there are plenty of rivers in the real world which flow into the hills. The Hudson River is a perfectly good example, and the result is Ausable Canyon.

Obviously it isn't IMPOSSIBLE to construct something that simply cannot be resolved in a believable way, but you still have the 'magical escape hatch' at that point. If your ability to keep details straight is so poor, AND the players desire to focus on them with laser-like concentration is so great, maybe you are better not being the GM for that group and running a zero-myth type of game, sure.

But this is not an inherent problem, it is simply an issue of for whom does a given technique work, and which people make a good group for a given type of game.

 

[Lanefan]

Obviously it isn't IMPOSSIBLE to construct something that simply cannot be resolved in a believable way, but you still have the 'magical escape hatch' at that point. If your ability to keep details straight is so poor, AND the players desire to focus on them with laser-like concentration is so great ...

I'm that player, which is why keeping those details straight matters to me as GM. Basically, my mantra is that if I can poke holes in my own details I'm doing it wrong. And it still happens sometimes, much to my annoyance.