A Question Of Agency?

[pemerton]

Would that immersion be broken if you were able to manipulate the setting as you played - make the wind on the ridge die down, decide the tunnel led to a treasure vault, make a favourite ally appear in the ruined castle? I think for a great many people it would. Being able to manipulate the world would shatter the illusion that it exists beyond the immediate needs of the game session.

The strength of the informal method is that it maintains the control of the reality of the game world within the confines of one noggin ensuring greater coherence. Furthermore, it allows most of the benefits of the narrative meta mechanics without the player actually having to bother with such. And as a lot of people find such mechanics at odds with their enjoyment, this is rather significant. It basically lets the player to pretend that the world is objectively and independently existing 'real' place even though that really isn't the case.

by the same token, many players feel their immersion is more aided if they can craft the story to fit the way the story is progressing in their imagination. I think some people prefer to be immersed in the setting, but others feel it more important to be immersed in the story.

I want to be immersed in my character and his/her situation.

This has a number of aspects to it. I don't want to have to ask someone else to tell me what my memories are. That is immersive only if I am trying to play an amnesiac (I know from the experience of having been an amnesiac). This then feeds into goal-formation for my character: to be immersed in my character, I need to form goals that are rational for my character given what s/he knows about the world s/he is part of; and I can't do that if I have to acquire all that knowledge and understanding by asking someone else.

I want to be able to declare actions that cover the full spectrum of mental and physical activity. And I find it jarring if someone else at the table has superior knowledge to mine as to what my character is thinking or doing (which, again, will be the case if I have to ask the GM all the time).

 

[hawkeyefan]

But this is the whole point whether you emphasize the player or the character, that makes all the difference in the world. That is one of the elements that makes it hard to say agency is objectively enhanced by X style of play. It is very contextual and dependent on what you are playing the game for in the first place.

Right, I agree with that. I think if we use Character Agency to mean what @Thomas Shey describes below, then sure, I'll accept that as one level of agency.

But then it becomes a question of whether or not a game that allows or supports Player Agency of the kind I've been discussing somehow doesn't also allow or support Character Agency.

Do you think that's the case? If so, how?

Characters don't have any agency of their own, but as a shortcut for "agency expressed only through the vehicle of the character" that seems a perfectly fine term too. On the other side, if people have an issue with that idea, that's not my problem, either.

No one is saying it is perfect simulation of reality. Nor is anyone saying bad calls don't happen. They are saying they believe giving this to a human referee to rule on, is a good system for producing something that feels fairly stable, predictable in terms of whether an idea is plausible or how people will react to things etc. Now some people fundamentally distrust giving a GM that kind of power, have had bad experiences with it, or just have a different temperament. Personally this has never bothered me. I don't expect every GM to rule the way I would. I expect them to rule the way they rule, and is what gives their world, their NPCs, etc a sense of consistency and physics. Again, if this doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. For me this is the most enjoyable and engaging (and yes, agency enhancing) way to play RPGs. Doesn't mean I won't play other ways. Like I said I enjoyed Hillfolk, and I enjoyed Gumshoe. One of these days I may run some of the games you have mentioned. And I play other games that occasionally get into that territory. But my bread and butter is more traditional for the reasons I've stated. And when it comes to GMs, I am pretty at ease with them managing that sort of thing. If I think something is plausible and suggest it, but they reject it, that is fine by me (in fact that is an essential part of creating a world that feels external and real).

My issue is not one of trust with the GM. Nor do I expect a perfect simulation of reality. I prefer to assume a functional form of play. I've played in plenty of games where the GM was the arbiter of all that was not PC and had them go perfectly fine....I know that this form of play can function and be perfectly entertaining.

My point is that many games grant so much authority to the GM that it compromises player agency. If everything is up to the GM.....portraying the world, portraying the NPCs, deciding how difficult or likely something is, and so on....if all of that is up to the GM, it limits the input of the players.

When faced with a challenge of some kind (crafted by the GM, described by the GM, with a solution decided by the GM) there's little player agency in resolution of that challenge.

I prefer to take some of that load off of the GM, either by sharing that authority around a bit, or by using processes or mechanics to help. I don't think this means I don't trust the GM to provide what they consider legitimate judgment. It's more that I want the player to have some point of connection in all this.

I don't think leaving all this to the GM really portrays a world that's external and real.....it's at best producing a world that is real to the GM. As you mentioned earlier, the players may come up with viable solutions or actions that are perfectly plausible and which the GM did not even consider.

If I'm going to look back at a point of play, I think I'd prefer to say "Wow I didn't even think to try X" rather than "Wow the GM didn't even think to try X".

It's about me as a player being able to act on the things I want my character to do in a way that does not get filtered entirely through the GM.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

When faced with a challenge of some kind (crafted by the GM, described by the GM, with a solution decided by the GM) there's little player agency in resolution of that challenge.

I prefer to take some of that load off of the GM, either by sharing that authority around a bit, or by using processes or mechanics to help. I don't think this means I don't trust the GM to provide what they consider legitimate judgment. It's more that I want the player to have some point of connection in all this.

I don't think leaving all this to the GM really portrays a world that's external and real.....it's at best producing a world that is real to the GM. As you mentioned earlier, the players may come up with viable solutions or actions that are perfectly plausible and which the GM did not even consider.

Yes, players coming with unexpected solutions is the best! And does not require them having narrative meta powers, I really don't understand why you think it would.

And I agree that GMs shouldn't have the correct answer in mind for challenges that come up in the game (they might have a correct answer though.) They just present the situation and it is up to the players how they react to it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Of course. but by the same token, many players feel their immersion is more aided if they can craft the story to fit the way the story is progressing in their imagination. I think some people prefer to be immersed in the setting, but others feel it more important to be immersed in the story.

You can get both, to an extent. Again, look at @pemerton's BW example(s). The CHARACTER declares an action (Circles Check, Wises Check) and describes their intent (locate a specific NPC in the area, locate a building in the area). Now, we the players know that these elements aren't specifically described as having a location in the world yet, or at least their current state is undefined. We thus know that success, by BW rules, will set the state of the world. The CHARACTER doesn't know this! The character is NOT doing something illogical, out of character. Neither is the player 'out of character' here.

So, is there actually some lack of immersion in the setting? I mean, even in a classic sandbox the player knows that SOMEONE at SOME POINT created the world, that it is a fiction. Why is it less immersive if the fiction was authored at 8:00PM on Saturday vs 12:00PM the previous Sunday on the GM's day off?

I mean, sure, if there is a system where you have 'story points' and the player gets to spend them to add an element to a scene, unilaterally, at a certain point, then that might be argued to be more involved. There are now questions of a resource game the PLAYER is playing, etc. I think this would be another discussion, and IME there are few games which work this way. Certainly I can see having different feelings about such a game than about, say, BW or DW. In fact, about as close as any game DOES come to this, is Inspiration in 5e! (technically the player just "gets advantage", but presumably they should also supply fiction to justify it).

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, players coming with unexpected solutions is the best! And does not require them having narrative meta powers, I really don't understand why you think it would.

I really don't understand why you think I was talking in any way about "narrative meta powers".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I really don't understand why you think I was talking in any way about "narrative meta powers".

Because we've been talking about that a lot and I'm tired... But yes, I reread the context and you weren't. Sorry.

But still, I really don't get how the GM having any sort of control prevents the players coming up with creative solutions. I recognise the problem you describe, and it is due the GM being too enamoured with their one specific solution. It's an attitude issue, not a rule issue.

 

[Lanefan]

This perhaps unfairly maligns social skills when part of the larger issue was the 3e skill system as a whole. Worth noting, is that large parts of the Indie Story scene were likewise responses to what they were seeing in the 3e skill system, namely mechanics first. This is one reason why the whole notion of "fiction first" is an important principle in indie games. So the idea that social mechanics = "no roleplay" or "skip all the talking" shows a lack of awareness of the larger body of conversation in the hobby. For game engines like PbtA, Fate, Cortex, FitD, etc., "fiction first" also means that the roleplaying has to come before the roll.

In theory 3e had the same proviso, as noted in the PHB (and the DMG?). In practice...well...

This is largely because the roll happens when there are consequences at stake as a result of the fictional framing by the associated characters.

Fair enough. My point is that the introduction and presence of those mechanics led straight to a "skip to the roll" mentality among a distressingly large subset of players*; and were those same players to find themselves in a fiction-first game that mentality would come with them.

* - and a much smaller but certainly non-zero subset of GMs.

You may be missing the actual thrust of discussion here: i.e., the dependency of fictional resolution and/or new fictional states on convincing/entertaining Bob the GM. Or let's put it another way. It doesn't necessarily matter how well in-character you roleplay or act when social resolution ultimately boils down to convincing Bob. In fact, all the roleplaying and acting, in this case, is nothing more than high quality lipstick on the "Mother-May-I" Pig, because Bob holds all the cards for social scene resolution. But let's not pretend that the system is anything more mechanically meaningful than "In Bob We Trust."

The problems arise, of course, when Bob for whatever reason can't be trusted; and examples of this are legion across this forum and others.

But if Bob can be trusted, what more do you really need?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Because we've been talking about that a lot and I'm tired... But yes, I reread the context and you weren't. Sorry.

But still, I really don't get how the GM having any sort of control prevents the players coming up with creative solutions. I recognise the problem you describe, and it is due the GM being too enamoured with their one specific solution. It's an attitude issue, not a rule issue.

Well, a classic case is that some GM creates an adventure, and then the players immediately (or at some point) figure out a plausible way to obviate some significant aspect of it, kill the boss, or something like that. This OFTEN results in GM 'damage control' which is simply inventing some, at least to them, plausible argument for why said tactic fails, or using some sort of force to 'rerail' things. They may well allow players choices, within some limited range.

The more subtle point is the one @pemerton makes, which is that the content of play can only engage with whatever the GM thought of, and the process of being a PC is fundamentally one of 'asking the GM questions about what they authored', which is really a lot different from inhabiting the world. Granted that PC actions can change things (though see above for pitfalls). Still, the action is fundamentally localized within the limits of what one person has imagined, for good or ill.

I am of the opinion that "two heads are better than one." There is a more subtle thing that goes on though. If I invent a setting and whatnot, that's focused on "being a setting" and it has a certain internal structure. If a narrative emerges from a dynamic process at the table, then the setting (fiction really) is an outgrowth of that. It is MUCH more likely to be a dynamic fiction with interesting action.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because we've been talking about that a lot and I'm tired... But yes, I reread the context and you weren't. Sorry.

But still, I really don't get how the GM having any sort of control prevents the players coming up with creative solutions. I recognise the problem you describe, and it is due the GM being too enamoured with their one specific solution. It's an attitude issue, not a rule issue.

Such narrative tools are only one means of the player influencing the game.

I'm not complaining that the GM has "any sort of control" its more about them having complete control. The GM being enamored of their own solution is one aspect of this, but it can also happen when I GM is open to more than one possible solution.

Everything about a scenario under that system is subject to one person's take on things.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, a classic case is that some GM creates an adventure, and then the players immediately (or at some point) figure out a plausible way to obviate some significant aspect of it, kill the boss, or something like that. This OFTEN results in GM 'damage control' which is simply inventing some, at least to them, plausible argument for why said tactic fails, or using some sort of force to 'rerail' things. They may well allow players choices, within some limited range.

But this is something that is easily fixed, and something I've fixed in my own campaigns. If the players figure out a solution or get lucky in the first ten minutes of play to kill the boss....I let them. I don't do damage control to keep the pace of the game going. It is a game, and games should have unexpected outcomes. If the players legitimately figured out a way to beat that challenge fast, it is good to give it to them.