A Question Of Agency?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Except, as I've noted before, there's little sign most people playing D&D were doing that even as early as 1975, whatever the theoretical intent.

I'm not so sure about that... I know it was done fairly commonly in the late 1970's, because I was part of a game club that had 200+ members, and that was exactly how it worked! There was a shared world, various GMs ran adventures and the milieu included a whole level of play that was just people raising armies, fighting wars, etc. Most of the individual adventuring was driving towards that. Higher level PCs adventured to eliminate threats, or to gain treasures that would help them with their empires. Other adventures were mostly involving lesser ranked characters who were either in service to the 'big guys' (former henchmen turned PC usually) or at least they were getting quests from those name level and higher PCs (often, not always).

I suspect it was pretty analogous to the 'Lake Geneva Tactical Game Society' "Great Kingdom" campaign, which is memorialized in Gygax's WoG product from CA 1982.

Now, who can really say what people were doing in CA? That was the land of 'Arduin Grimoire' and they did invent a bunch of different play styles. I've also heard of other significantly 'variant' types of 'D&D' that were played in the 70's in different places. Usually it was some particularly energetic and imaginative DM. Still, even a lot of these included strongholds and armies and such as elements of play. Wilderlands of High Fantasy was certainly set up with that in mind (this was the first commercial game world AFAIK).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, it is a significant distinction. By fixating on this division you make your contributions irrelevant to overwhelming majority of people who play RPGs. The games where the players have significant mechanically-backed, narrative-level agency are fringe. And yes, pointing out that such games exist is fine, but but if you considering anything besides the players having mechanical narrative meta control not worth discussing, then we really have nothing to discuss regarding agency and you have nothing to discuss with most people playing RPGs. Because most games do not have such mechanics and they're not gonna.

Yeah, and I was being accused of being elitist up thread! ROFL! IME, of 35 years of GMing RPGs, a LOT of players are both eager for more than your formula, but a lot of them are utterly ignorant that it can even exist, so don't know to ask for it. In the REAL world the vast majority of people don't even know any RPG exists except D&D. This is not because they wouldn't be interested in, or maybe even happier playing, some other game. It is simply that D&D itself is a niche thing, and other games are niches of niches (how many people know about subgenres of Manga for example, and Manga is an industry that is 10x the size of RPGs).

Again, in my extensive experience, players EAT UP games that give them narrative tools and authority. This is especially true of people who are new to play, and particularly young people. Older people who have less energy to devote to games and/or have been trained on 'traditional' D&D (either 2e+ 'story teller' or 1e- 'Gygax Style') are a little trickier, they often need a bit of coaching to 'get it' or maybe just don't have the mental bandwidth to spend on doing a lot of agenda setting. It is fine to say that conventional D&D is good for them, I'm not into imposing things, but it doesn't follow IMHO that this makes narratively focused games less desired or popular.

And I think that by fixating on this one aspect, you ignore other aspects of how agency manifests, which are at least as important and are actually relevant to most games being played. Agency works pretty damn differently in a railroady adventure path, a narrative driven game where the GM improvises the narrative based on character actions and in a sandbox and those are the sort of differences that actually matter to most people.

Again, if you don't have agency to declare character actions, it isn't an RPG. What you are describing is 'illusionism' or 'force'. That is a 'railroady adventure path' is a game where the players are just an audience basically, reduced to merely rolling dice when prompted. This is hardly even role playing, though I guess it can be classified as a 'game' in some sense (Chutes and Ladders is generally classified as a game too). In the 'GM improvises the narrative based on character actions' then you are playing basically how we play, just informally!

This is art vs engineering thing. You're an engineer, I am an artist. And neither is right or wrong. But I don't want my creative processes limited or defined by codified rules, they hinder me more than help. You obviously feel differently.

I'm a fairly creative guy. Well, I like to exercise my (admittedly pedestrian) creativity. I don't know if 'engineering' informs my desire for structure in narrative roles. I think a big reason for it is simply because I am better with social interactions which are gated by formalisms. When the rules/process incorporates something, then I am sure to do it, and it happens smoothly. If its informal, then I'm left wondering if I did what I was setting out to do or not. Some people have talked about these mechanics distracting or restricting them, but FOR ME at least they make things much smoother and more automatic! I'm sure I could run a BitD campaign and it would mostly 'just work', but if I tried to do the same game using a 'classic' type of strict role set of rules, it would be MUCH harder to produce the same atmosphere and sort of play/narrative. Impossible really.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And I'd argue this is an argument that can be made by anyone who wants less rules than other people do. There's always "rules bloat" claims by somebody unless a game is so light to almost be schematic.

And I would say that anyone claiming too many rules is a problem and then expounding about D&D being an ideal example of a game is very strange! I mean, pretty close to every narrative game out there has 10x less rules than 5e D&D does...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Before I find out if I want to disagree with you on this, do you consider hero points land within this category?

Depends on what exactly they do. If they just offer rerolls or some minor mechanical bonuses like that then they really aren't narrative-control.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And I'd argue this is an argument that can be made by anyone who wants less rules than other people do. There's always "rules bloat" claims by somebody unless a game is so light to almost be schematic.

What counts as 'rules bloat' is pretty much purely subjective. I don't doubt that many rules that feel like 'bloat' to me are useful for other people and similarly some rules that I like feel like 'bloat' to others.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah, and I was being accused of being elitist up thread! ROFL! IME, of 35 years of GMing RPGs, a LOT of players are both eager for more than your formula, but a lot of them are utterly ignorant that it can even exist, so don't know to ask for it. In the REAL world the vast majority of people don't even know any RPG exists except D&D. This is not because they wouldn't be interested in, or maybe even happier playing, some other game. It is simply that D&D itself is a niche thing, and other games are niches of niches (how many people know about subgenres of Manga for example, and Manga is an industry that is 10x the size of RPGs).

Again, in my extensive experience, players EAT UP games that give them narrative tools and authority. This is especially true of people who are new to play, and particularly young people. Older people who have less energy to devote to games and/or have been trained on 'traditional' D&D (either 2e+ 'story teller' or 1e- 'Gygax Style') are a little trickier, they often need a bit of coaching to 'get it' or maybe just don't have the mental bandwidth to spend on doing a lot of agenda setting. It is fine to say that conventional D&D is good for them, I'm not into imposing things, but it doesn't follow IMHO that this makes narratively focused games less desired or popular.

Well then we only need to wait that this new paradigm inevitably takes over! (I mean it certainly could happen, though I'not exactly holding my breath.)

My point was that if people are talking about how to handle things in a game X and your answer is just "game X and all games similar to it are hopeless crap, you should play game Y instead," then it is not super helpful.

Again, if you don't have agency to declare character actions, it isn't an RPG. What you are describing is 'illusionism' or 'force'. That is a 'railroady adventure path' is a game where the players are just an audience basically, reduced to merely rolling dice when prompted. This is hardly even role playing, though I guess it can be classified as a 'game' in some sense (Chutes and Ladders is generally classified as a game too).

That's overtly harsh. Even in such game players have agency, albeit not necessarily very much. There will be strategies, there usually will be several ways to solve problems and of course there is a possibility of failure. Besides, if it feels sufficient to the players, then what's the problem? (Not my preferred approach, but still.)

In the 'GM improvises the narrative based on character actions' then you are playing basically how we play, just informally!

So you finally agree with me that you can give players agency without the players having access to formal narrative-control mechanics! Hallelujah, that's what I've been trying to say for the last forty pages!

Furthermore in reality most games are some sort of combination of the railroady adventure path and full reactive improvisation methods, containing some more rigid elements supplemented by more improvisational content.

I'm a fairly creative guy. Well, I like to exercise my (admittedly pedestrian) creativity. I don't know if 'engineering' informs my desire for structure in narrative roles. I think a big reason for it is simply because I am better with social interactions which are gated by formalisms. When the rules/process incorporates something, then I am sure to do it, and it happens smoothly. If its informal, then I'm left wondering if I did what I was setting out to do or not. Some people have talked about these mechanics distracting or restricting them, but FOR ME at least they make things much smoother and more automatic! I'm sure I could run a BitD campaign and it would mostly 'just work', but if I tried to do the same game using a 'classic' type of strict role set of rules, it would be MUCH harder to produce the same atmosphere and sort of play/narrative. Impossible really.

I don't doubt that these rules help you, people think differently. I remember when Exalted second edition introduced very detailed social combat mechanics and a lot of people loved that. "Finally a social interaction system with similar rigidity than physical combat!" I despised it. It was anathema to my LARP-influenced freeform handling of social situations. It bogged down my favourite part of the game with a ton of mechanics that interrupted the natural flow of the conversation and forced me to consider mechanics while I just wanted to be acting. But does this mean it was a bad system? No, it doesn't, a lot of other people found it very useful. It just wasn't suitable to my mentality. Same thing here.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't doubt that these rules help you, people think differently. I remember when Exalted second edition introduced very detailed social combat mechanics and a lot of people loved that. "Finally a social interaction system with similar rigidity than physical combat!" I despised it. It was anathema to my LARP-influenced freeform handling of social situations. It bogged down my favourite part of the game with a ton of mechanics that interrupted the natural flow of the conversation and forced me to consider mechanics while I just wanted to be acting. But does this mean it was a bad system? No, it doesn't, a lot of other people found it very useful. It just wasn't suitable to my mentality. Same thing here.

I've always wondered how much of the LARP aesthetic and cultural inclinations pervade all of the things we're talking about here:

* "system doesn't matter"

* "rules should get out of the way"

* ROLEplayer vs ROLLplayer demarcation (epithet when its weaponized...which it pretty much always is in my experience)

Are these refrains common among your TTRPG circle?

@Lanefan , your TTRPGing tastes and positions taken are LARP-influenced as well or no?

 

[prabe]

I might come to regret this, but:

I've always wondered how much of the LARP aesthetic and cultural inclinations pervade all of the things we're talking about here:

I've never LARPed in my life.

* "system doesn't matter"

I honestly don't think it matters much. I think systems as written end up with differing strengths, and there's much to be said for choosing them based on that, but I think principles matter more, and I think there are strong arguments for using systems the people at the table know.

* "rules should get out of the way"

I think rules should be quick and easy to grasp (ish). I think it should be fine to color outside the lines (inventing a rule or ignoring one) so long as you stick to whatever principles are at play at a given table.

* ROLEplayer vs ROLLplayer demarcation (epithet when its weaponized...which it pretty much always is in my experience)

I know of the distinction, but I think it's a spectrum: At one end you have a player whose desires for their character aren't achievable between system and character build, and at the other you have a character with nothing but mechanical advantage and no real "personality" (in D&D, this is likely something like a murderhobo, built to obtain whatever the player thinks of as the win-state).

Are these refrains common among your TTRPG circle?

Among the people I game with, all I see is the ROLEplayer/ROLLplayer thing, and even then it's not always as negative as you imply--I've seen it used, for instance, to ask (in a text chat) whether people wanted to resolve with dice or not (if there were issues of player-subject comfort or something). I mean, some of the people I TRPG with don't care much about system, but I don't think they're taking a hard stance on whether system matters.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It seems to me that the rules are the means by which players tend to exercise their agency on the game. Absent the rules, what let's them effect change? The most common answer is that the GM lets them do so. And if something I want is ultimately up to another to decide, it's hard to argue that I have a lot of agency in the situation.

I think that's what it boils down to.

And for clarity, by "rules" I don't just mean mechanics, but also processes and/or techniques of play.

 

[Manbearcat]

I might come to regret this, but:

I've never LARPed in my life.

I honestly don't think it matters much. I think systems as written end up with differing strengths, and there's much to be said for choosing them based on that, but I think principles matter more, and I think there are strong arguments for using systems the people at the table know.

I think rules should be quick and easy to grasp (ish). I think it should be fine to color outside the lines (inventing a rule or ignoring one) so long as you stick to whatever principles are at play at a given table.

I know of the distinction, but I think it's a spectrum: At one end you have a player whose desires for their character aren't achievable between system and character build, and at the other you have a character with nothing but mechanical advantage and no real "personality" (in D&D, this is likely something like a murderhobo, built to obtain whatever the player thinks of as the win-state).

Among the people I game with, all I see is the ROLEplayer/ROLLplayer thing, and even then it's not always as negative as you imply--I've seen it used, for instance, to ask (in a text chat) whether people wanted to resolve with dice or not (if there were issues of player-subject comfort or something). I mean, some of the people I TRPG with don't care much about system, but I don't think they're taking a hard stance on whether system matters.

I'm not sure why you would "come to regret this?"

Thanks for the answer.

For clarity, when I refer to "system" I mean every single thing that is in that book, so Principles (or lackthereof) must be included. Holistic, intentful design is extremely important to me.