A Question Of Agency?

[Ovinomancer]

I haven't been able to participate much, but I've kept up with the thread. I think there's a weird shift going on. There's a lot of perceived persecution for play approaches that isn't present in the thread. I tried earlier to make the clear statement that player agency is not an automatic good, just a preference that people use to value games and that is a useful consideration when analyzing how we play games. Being aware of relative agency in games isn't in itself a value statement, but rather should be looked at as a trade-off -- are you sacrificing agency for a purpose, and is that purpose working for you. If the answer is yes and yes, then concern over the fact your approach has less agency than another than doesn't answer those questions in the affirmative should be excised.

I think it's obvious that if the primary mechanic in your games is that Bob decides what happens, then players have less agency that if the mechanics say you have some chance X that you can decide what happens and otherwise Bob decides. Whether or not that difference in agency matters to you is absolutely personal. Perhaps Bob does a great job making decisions on what happens that entertain you. Perhaps you don't want the pressure of even occasionally deciding what happens (and it's definitely pressure). Or, maybe, you find you don't like giving Bob the power to decide what happens. That's fine too. But it shouldn't be a point of contention that Bob decides results in less agency that any system that shares some decision making with the player.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Except that does interfere with it. Because if I am going around asking witnesses to a crime questions and I ask a question that would logically produce a response, and I do so persuasively, it feels weird to leave that in the hands of a random roll (even if the DC is set to fit what I say). Wouldn't it make more sense for the GM to just say to him or herself "how would this character respond to what the PC just said?". This is more likely to be faithful to the PCs words and the personality of the NPC in question. Not saying it is going to be a huge deal to everyone.

This sounds like a “say yes, or roll the dice” situation. Seems fine to me.

I think this approach is only a problem if you say “no”; that’s where it gets sticky.

But personally I find just going with what was said in character, is better. Now I do use Persuade and Command and a variety of skills like that. But I only ask for them, when I, the GM, am uncertain about how an NPC would respond what a PC just said.

Would you follow the same procedure to deny the request?

I mean, barring some ridiculous extreme...like if the player declares that his fighter pees on the king’s carpet and flips him off while the bard is asking him for assistance....sure, I could see an automatic no. But in normal play, a unilateral no is a pretty severe obstacle to player agency.

Especially if no other mechanics are used to calculate the situation. No initial reaction roll or anything else of the sort. Instead, the GM crafts the entire scenario and then the player says “I’d like to address it in this way” and the GM says “No, that doesn’t work.”

It’s hard to see the agency in that scenario.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This sounds like a “say yes, or roll the dice” situation. Seems fine to me.

I think this approach is only a problem if you say “no”; that’s where it gets sticky.

I am not suggesting say yes or roll the dice. My point about, about only rolling social skills when I am unclear on the reaction for example, is more say yes or no; and roll if you don't know. But most situations are not simple yes or no scenarios anyways. With respect to things like social skills it is largely about knowing what the NPCs motives and personalities are, and applying those to what the player says and trying to create an organic exchange.

No is just as important as yes though in my opinion here. If you the point is to give the player the experience of solving the mystery say, then their successes only matter if not succeeding is also a possibility.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Would you follow the same procedure to deny the request?

I mean, barring some ridiculous extreme...like if the player declares that his fighter pees on the king’s carpet and flips him off while the bard is asking him for assistance....sure, I could see an automatic no. But in normal play, a unilateral no is a pretty severe obstacle to player agency.

Especially if no other mechanics are used to calculate the situation. No initial reaction roll or anything else of the sort. Instead, the GM crafts the entire scenario and then the player says “I’d like to address it in this way” and the GM says “No, that doesn’t work.”

It’s hard to see the agency in that scenario.

Absolutely. If I feel an NPC would respond negatively to something a player said, then that NPC will respond negatively and there is no need to roll. I only roll when the player says something and I genuinely don't know how the NPC would react.

I think framing it as yes or no is part of the problem here. These are conversations. Most conversations are not a simple yes and no issue. But lets say the player is going to the king to request something, I don't know he wants a ton of chocolate to feed to a bunch of owl bears that are threatening the city. In my opinion the players agency in that moment is all about what he chooses to say, how he makes his case. And if I don't honor that, by giving it a fair evaluation and having the king respond to what he says both as a logical outcome of what the player stated and as an honest appraisal of the kings motives and goals on my part, I would feel I am not giving the player agency. Agency to me is about what choices the players are able to make in the game and that should include the ability to make bad choices that anger the king or cause the king to refuse a request. I don't feel that I usually need dice or a mechanic to handle that.

This isn't about the GM simply saying yes this works or no this doesn't. It is about recognizing the value of having a human mind adjudicate something as nuanced and complicated as a conversation. I think that is a pretty good system personally. If that doesn't work for you, that is fine, but try to understand why some of us really love this approach (and it isn't about the GMing doing what he or she wants, or denying the player agency-----it is about empowering the players to interact with the setting fully and in a way that feels organic and real). This is particularly true around things like social rules. It took me a very long time to find a way to use social mechanics that didn't trip up my style of play. And for those interested in this approach (and not everyone is) it definitely works. Because it gets around the problem of the dice undoing what the player said but gives you a tool to use when you don't have a clear sense of how an NPC might respond.

Now in terms of reaction rolls. I don't mind those. Those are usually based on stats that reflect a character's appearance, charisma, persuasiveness. And, importantly, they don't undermine what the character says. They are also pretty plausible. I think we all have reactions to people we first meet, and all produce reactions, before a word is even spoken.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Point being that it is not a thing that requires rules and I would feel that any extensive rules would most likely be a detriment. Now if you feel differently and would like to have more rigid mechanical structure to support the play, then that's fine too, but I wouldn't want to play in such a game.

From where I'm standing, (not just this particular post but the general trend of this conversation), the whole situation looks like somebody offering you a power drill to tighten some screws but you insisting that your rusty screwdriver that barely fits suffices. Or in more extreme cases, it seems you're trying to tighten screws with a hammer.

Where did this idea of combat and exploration being the only things worth mechanizing come about? Why must social interaction be entirely freeform? I understand if you're intentionally shooting for that as a means of stylistic design (namely certain strains of OSR), but as a general rule? Having no adjudication measures for social situations beyond "the GM says so" means that A: those situations lack mechanical weight and impact, and B: players who aren't confident with certain social situations IRL can't participate effectively, just as if a person who didn't know any wilderness survival measures was asked to freeform roleplay an exploration scenario.

If that isn't what the game is about - if much more time is being spent on combat or exploration than social situations, I guess it's an acceptable loss. But that requires the recognition that your game isn't about that thing. Yes, the negative space in the D&D rules design does permit the freeform roleplaying of exploring relationships (going back to the current discussion topic), but compare that to Monsterhearts, where the entire game is about relationships, and has mechanical support to match. A much weightier and robust experience can be gained from the latter.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I haven't been able to participate much, but I've kept up with the thread. I think there's a weird shift going on. There's a lot of perceived persecution for play approaches that isn't present in the thread. I tried earlier to make the clear statement that player agency is not an automatic good, just a preference that people use to value games and that is a useful consideration when analyzing how we play games. Being aware of relative agency in games isn't in itself a value statement, but rather should be looked at as a trade-off -- are you sacrificing agency for a purpose, and is that purpose working for you. If the answer is yes and yes, then concern over the fact your approach has less agency than another than doesn't answer those questions in the affirmative should be excised.

I think it's obvious that if the primary mechanic in your games is that Bob decides what happens, then players have less agency that if the mechanics say you have some chance X that you can decide what happens and otherwise Bob decides. Whether or not that difference in agency matters to you is absolutely personal. Perhaps Bob does a great job making decisions on what happens that entertain you. Perhaps you don't want the pressure of even occasionally deciding what happens (and it's definitely pressure). Or, maybe, you find you don't like giving Bob the power to decide what happens. That's fine too. But it shouldn't be a point of contention that Bob decides results in less agency that any system that shares some decision making with the player.

I think it is pretty clear there are value judgments of styles going on around the agency discussion. And to an extent that makes sense as agency is generally thought of as a good thing. People value it. but importantly we are using the term agency differently because, as others have pointed out, agency is somewhat subjective depending on what it is you are interested in exploring in play. It is very easy to say "I am just being objective about this and using the term this way" but that starts to feel a little hollow when term X clearly has a kind of moral value, and the playstyle that you subscribes to just happens to have maximum X according to your argument.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If that isn't what the game is about - if much more time is being spent on combat or exploration than social situations, I guess it's an acceptable loss. But that requires the recognition that your game isn't about that thing. Yes, the negative space in the D&D rules design does permit the freeform roleplaying of exploring relationships (going back to the current discussion topic), but compare that to Monstearhearts, where the entire game is about relationships, and has mechanical support to match. A much weightier and robust experience can be gained from the latter.

A lot of this is going to boil down to how you process things, how you like to play the game. For plenty of people, romance and character relationships are more rewarding when they are not mediated by mechanics (because they can have a freeform flow and an organic quality that is based around how the players and the GMs understand those things to work). For plenty of others, having a clear system for that, can be a better choice. I think it is fine both exist. I think it is a little weird not to understand why someone would want or not want one or the other. In some cases it is true people can be stubborn and might be denying themselves a tool that would be useful. But sometimes it is just a tool that works well for how you think, but not for how I think.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Except that does interfere with it. Because if I am going around asking witnesses to a crime questions and I ask a question that would logically produce a response, and I do so persuasively, it feels weird to leave that in the hands of a random roll (even if the DC is set to fit what I say). Wouldn't it make more sense for the GM to just say to him or herself "how would this character respond to what the PC just said?". This is more likely to be faithful to the PCs words and the personality of the NPC in question. Not saying it is going to be a huge deal to everyone. But personally I find just going with what was said in character, is better. Now I do use Persuade and Command and a variety of skills like that. But I only ask for them, when I, the GM, am uncertain about how an NPC would respond what a PC just said.

Right, here we agree, if you use a set of rules/process in which all a 'check' does is generate a success or a failure on the execution of a task, then there is a problem. Either the player is acting the part of Sherlock and deducing an answer to the mystery, or some dice are getting tossed to decide whether or not Sherlock manages to derive the conclusion from the evidence (or even see the evidence, which is actually MORE problematic in some respects). It just doesn't work. Or rather, it would not, I suspect for most people, be all that fun to do with a bunch of checks. Of course it is also almost impossible to do the other way too, because 99% of the time either the player sees right through the mystery and the gig doesn't come off, or they're totally stumped and it still doesn't come off.

There are other game architectures which may work better for some people. I'd note that mystery games are a pretty niche RP concept, although they have been somewhat successful as party games.

 

[Bedrockgames]

because 99% of the time either the player sees right through the mystery and the gig doesn't come off, or they're totally stumped and it still doesn't come off.

This I disagree with (and my experience on both sides of the screen simply doesn't match this assertion)

 

[Bedrockgames]

There are other game architectures which may work better for some people. I'd note that mystery games are a pretty niche RP concept, although they have been somewhat successful as party games.

They can come up in regular campaigns though

I used to have a bunch of my aunt's old book shelf murder mystery games from the 70s