A Question Of Agency?

In theory 3e had the same proviso, as noted in the PHB (and the DMG?). In practice...well...
And would you mind telling me how it works in practice for these games you have no actual experience with?

and were those same players to find themselves in a fiction-first game that mentality would come with them.
Your fears are overblown.

But if Bob can be trusted, what more do you really need? :)
Trusting Bob as a King doesn't negate my preference for Bob to be a Prime Minister of a representative democracy with checks and balances.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.

Haven't caught up on the thread, but I just wanted to comment on this right quick as I'm a believer in the TTRPG community (even if it just a micro-community) developing clear, communicative, technical jargon for complex concepts.

I think I'd be ok with the following as Player Agency and sub-headings of Player Agency:

PLAYER AGENCY - THE CAPACITY FOR A PLAYER TO BOTH DICTATE ANY GIVEN GAMESTATE, DICTATE ITS TRANSITION, AND DICTATE THE OVERALL TRAJECTORY OF PLAY.

Setting Authority - The ability to establish Setting elements (persons, places, things, backstory).

Situation Authority - The ability to frame some or all initial components a Situation, or the ability to reframe a Situation as play unfolds.

Character Agency - Player Agency excluding any Setting/Situation Authority, expressed exclusively through the vehicle of player character.




I think it needs to be (and hopefully it already is) understood that Gamestates are game/genre-specific and therefore agency is naturally constrained. Chess doesn't suddenly loose Player Agency because you can't move your Knight outside of its L-shape etc. The same way you view degenerate action declarations in TTRPGs should be how you view "gamestate-relevant agency;" "I fly to the moon" might be a relevant action declaration and gamestate move in a Supers game...but not in a Heroic Tier D&D game.

Finally, what CAN'T be done is to have any kind of "immersion/verisimilitude rider" attached to any of the concepts above. Those are neurological states that are objectively decoupled from the above across any given population. One person might feel immersively "jarred" by having any Setting Authority, while another might feel "jarred" by having little to none. It feels like too often people try to smuggle this in and then fight for legitimacy of their feelings (and then legitimize it via appeal to orthodox/majority sales). This conflation is not only not helpful to distilling and analyzing the nature of concepts, its actively harmful.
 
Last edited:

I think the real stylistic divide is whether it's assumed the players are there to explore the DM's setting, or is the DM there to facilitate the generation of the story being told by the PCs.

Basically, most traditional RPGs are sort of like open-world CRPGs (think like Skyrim), except the DM acts to allow the action to be more open-ended because we, as human beings, can generate new content on the fly. The DM states the environment and surroundings to the PCs, the PCs take actions in response to that environment, and the DM crafts a response based on the environment and any related rolls based on the PC's actions. That's the obvious path of a dungeon crawl, a story path game (like a module) is essentially an geographically unbounded dungeon crawl, and a sandbox is a story path game with procedurally generated environment changes.

The other, "indie-game" approach is to assume the setting is simply a tool to provide scenery for conflict, and to help the player and DM create appropriate scenes. There's no real exploration to be done, the players state a set of goals and the DM creates conflicts based around those goals. The gameplay loop is "state your goal", the DM creates a conflict or hazard, and the subsequent roll decides the next step in the progression.

Broadly agree with the notable exception being Torchbearer! Torchbearer pretty amazingly integrates the indie treatise of Burning Wheel with Moldvay Basic's aesthetic.
 

Broadly agree with the notable exception being Torchbearer! Torchbearer pretty amazingly integrates the indie treatise of Burning Wheel with Moldvay Basic's aesthetic.
I think Torchbearer might be the RPG example of horseshoe theory, though. :)

I admit to not having looked at Torchbearer too much; does it support/require map&key style play, or is the dungeon exploration vibe more a question of framing?
 

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.
Sure, but it is a really common pitfall, because the GM 'owns' the setting/fiction and thus develops a proprietary relationship with it. Also they are motivated by the fact that everything needs to be prepped. If you just spent the last week writing up the next 3 sessions worth of material, it can be a real bummer to watch it all melt in 10 minutes. NOW you ARE improvising on the fly, but without tools!
 

I think Torchbearer might be the RPG example of horseshoe theory, though. :)

I admit to not having looked at Torchbearer too much; does it support/require map&key style play, or is the dungeon exploration vibe more a question of framing?

Its Map & Key functional dungeon crawling where the GM creates the delve by going through TB's specific procedures. However, Twists (Wandering Monster Clock), Light Clock, and the Condition Clock are emergent properties of play (and the pressure points) and dynamically change the delve setting and subsequent situations.

There's an Adventure Phase, Camp Phase, Town Phase, and Winter (a special Town Phase) so, structurally, the game shares a lot with Blades (inspired by Moldvay). Point(singular) of Light setting. Characters struggle, change, are slain, or retire.

You've played Darkest Dungeon I suspect? The creator of that game were 100 % creating a CRPG of Torchbearer.
 

In the game context, I prefer to use the mechanical resolution framework to find out if the PC gets what the player wants for him/her; and then establish the appropriate narration.

One reason for this is @hawkeyefan's from upthread: it avoids the frustration of RPGing-as-puzzle-solving.
A frustration I prefer to lean into, to a certian extent, rather than avoid.
Another is that I find it more entertaining and enjoyable: rather than deciding in advance what the outcome will be of such-and-such an approach to a NPC will be, we find out in play. It produces a wide range of unexpected consequences.
If the GM is doing her job halfway well, the outcome that results will stem more or less directly from the approach you took, based on what the GM has decided makes that NPC tick.

For example, if the GM (or the module) has pre-determined that a down-to-business approach will be much more effective with the Duke than will small talk and flattery then if your approach involves a lot of flattery and bootlicking you're not likely to get very far. And even if your PC has no knowledge of these tendencies going in, one or two "Shut up and let's talk turkey" hints from the GM-as-Duke in response to your fawning approach ought to get it across, after which you sink or swim on your own.
An example: in our Classic Traveller game the PC von Jerrel seduced the NPC Imperial Navy Commander Lady Askol, ranking officer of the naval base on the world of Novus. This took place during the course of a week of wining-and-dining which another PC (Vincenzo von Hallucida) was financing, so as to allow the PCs more time before an alien starship they were exploring, which had mysteriously appeared in orbit about Novus, was interdicted by the Navy. The actual reduction was resolved via a roll on the Reaction Table, with +1 for von Jerrel's Liaison-1. The player rolled double 6 - in the system a roll of 12 is unmodified and produce a genuinely and/or strongly friendly result. As the player narrated it, when von Jerrel and Lady Askol kissed it was the most perfect kiss the latter had experienced, and she swooned in his arms.

Thus she willingly joined him when he invited her to accompany him onto the alien vessel. And then was onboard when it jumped out of the system to another world, where the PCs were trying to locate the remnants of the ancient alien civilisation that had built it. During that exploration, von Jerrel was accused by another NPC - Toru von Taxiwan - of using psionics, which is a serious matter in the Imperium. When Lady Askol asked him whether the accusation was true (which it was), lamenting that if it was true then she would have to send him back to his homeworld of Ashar (this last itself being the result of a roll on the reaction-to-use-of-psionics table, modified by +1 for his Liasion-1 and +2 as a GM-stipulated modifier to reflect her affection for him) he denied it. The previous reaction roll stood (ie the natural 12 signifiying genuine and/or strong friendship), and so Lady Askol believed his denial. The upshot is that Lady Askol has declared a provisional "first contact" order in respect of the alien site, thus asserting Imperial authority to displace that of von Taxiwan, and placing von Jerrel in command as Imperial Overseer while she returns to her naval base on Novus to take further steps.

This romance has involved two checks so far: the initial seduction attempt, and the reaction-to-the-use-of-psionics check. But the mechanical outcomes have had ongoing effects. The strongly successful seduction result has underpinned Lady Askol accompanying von Jerrel onto the alien vessel, tolerating being unexpectedly taken to another world in it, and then believing his lie and acting on it. And the result of the psionic reaction roll framed the player's choice to have his PC lie to her, which means we now have a situation where von Jerrel's romance with Lady Askol rests on a fundamental deception.

These events have played out over four sessions. They haven't been the totality of those sessions by any means, although the problem with the psionics was very prominent in the final hour or so of our most recent session. When I read Vincent Baker talking about playing to find out what happens, or read Paul Czege saying that he likes to frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player and to keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this, I think that what I've described in this post is an example of just that. I don't think it's as dramatic (either literarily or emotionally) as the sort of play they are aiming for - my group is solidly low-to-middle-brow melodrama at best - but in the process and the logic of play I think it is exactly what they're talking about.

I think the game would be much more boring for both me and the players if I had a description or a script for Lady Askol that dictated, in advance of the actual play and the actual action declarations, what she is like and how she will respond to things. Whatever that had been, I can't envisage how it would have ended up with von Jerrel stringing her along with a lie that had him appointed Imperial Overseer of a potential first contact site!
What you don't mention here, in a write-up of what at face value sounds like a very cool situation, is how much if any role-play went on before the seduction check happened. I mean, if a seduction-check mechanic exists I can see many players saying no more than "I try to seduce her and - hey - double-sixes!"; where I (and I kinda suspect you also) would like to see a lot more roleplaying effort put in before that roll can occur.

Once things get going after that I'd also probably have one more check at some point surrounding the deception/lie, either by the player if the game had a specific Deception mechanic or by me-as-GM to see on a sliding scale if and-or how hard Lady Askol fell for it...which means - somewhat surprisingly - mechanically we're on pretty close ground here.
That's not an accurate description of either Moldvay Basic or AD&D. Both feature a reaction roll table, to be modified by CHA. In the example of play in Moldvay Basic we see the table in use, with the referee applying a contextual modification (but not a stipulated outcome) to reflect the impact of the player's action declarations.
Yes - that's one minor mechanic in a book otherwise filled with combat and exploration mechanics, which backs my assertion that the designers paid only as much heed to social mechanics as they felt they had to.
What is presented there is not wildly different from how my group does it in Traveller, except we have the benefit of a coherent set of subsystems rather than the hard-to-integrate mish-mash that is Classic D&D. (As I posted upthread it's fine for first impressions but it's not clear how to extend it into something like romance.)
In today's climate any attempt to codify romance might quickly run aground on other concerns, making the task even harder. :)
 

So, I'm not going to argue that your experience is somehow false, but I've found there are at least two advantages to having social skills available for PCs. The first is that if there's a situation where between at the table and in the fiction it's clear that the knowledge-states are wildly different (which I know you hate ... but it's eminently plausible, for example, for the DM to know the PC is lying when the NPC should have no idea) it serves as a way to resolve things relatively fairly.
It's kind of a fact of life that the knowledge state of the GM and any NPC she plays are almost always going to be vastly different; and as a DM-facing mechanic (formal or not) I can get behind this as a compromise.
The second is that it lets players without much in the way of social skills play a character who has them, and it doesn't bork the party. A probable third is that if one is playing a character who knows much about the world, that character will have heard of cultures the player hasn't (because this player at least doesn't read world books for setting I'm a player in) and should be capable of not committing some sort of lethal faux pas--and rolling seems at least as fair as DM Fiat.
These last two don't get as much sympathy from me. Someone with limited social skills playing a character with great social skills might give said player a chance to improve said limited social skills. As for setting knowledge, I don't use published settings in part because of all the stupid amounts of canon bloat; but the info for my homebrew setting is online and if you-as-player don't read it I'll just assume (most of the time) that your character's knowledge is similarly limited.
 

A mechanic which forces a player/ PC to do X or constricts their choices on what they can do is a mechanic that takes away player agency over their character.

Most mechanical methods of generating agency over the fiction involve doing the above.
I was confused as to what you were referring to until I realized you were talking about D&D. Of course! You must be talking about the Charm, Dominate, Fear, etc line of spells and abilities!

Right? Or is there about to be a "but magic" lampshade placed over this?
 

Of course you can eschew rules and 'just roleplay', and of course you can eschew rules and figure out some sort of substitute for wandering monsters (or just live with the resulting caster supremacy since everyone will play the old "unload the big guns at every encounter and then just rest" game). It is amusing to note that in the 40 years since 1e was published NO set of D&D rules has YET found another way to solve that problem, and 5e is still suffering with it! I do take your point that wandering monsters feels like a sort of hack, but yet, again, since nobody is willing to mess with casters to make them weaker, you can't just say "well, that's not a significant part of the game, just leave it broken!".
There's many ways to weaken casters such that while even if they can unload their big guns whenever they want, those big guns either a) aren't always 100% reliable or b) carry some risk to friends and allies or c) both.

But - and this has come up in one or two threads in the D&D side recently - the caster-player lobby is both numerous and loud, and thus any attempts to actually weaken or rein in casters get shot down. So, instead the designers just weaken the spells themselves, which is hella boring.
So, really what it all amounts to seems to be that some of us want to play a game which WORKS and provides relevant functionality out of the box. I'm perfectly fine with coloring outside the lines of any given game when people want to do that. If players in a DW game want to spend their 'carouse' move in irrelevant banter or seducing the local townswomen or whatever, that's fine. We don't really need to play with dice or whatever, but we COULD. I mean, 'Carouse' has a check, and one of the possible results is "you get into trouble". Nothing is worse trouble than girls! (sorry ladies, you may read the gender reversed version of this, it is equally true).

I mean, I can tell stories. I don't need an RPG for that. What @Crimson Longinus is suggesting is perfectly feasible and to an extent happens in every game, but it is not relevant to the point I was making, which was that principles of a game, and its agenda (maybe that falls under principles too, not sure) are an integral part of the game. Just because you can 'do other stuff at the table' doesn't really change that. Likewise with Wandering Monsters. Just because some people, even a lot of people, ignore it and live with the inevitable (and well-known) fallout doesn't undermine the point that wandering monsters are part of a set of rules that support core principles of classic D&D. XP for GP does that too, and this is why its removal from 2e was such a key indicator that 2e is really a whole different non-classic D&D (despite sharing a lot of mechanics with 1e).
Heh - we just saw 2e's removal of xp-for-gp as TSR finally catching up to us, as we'd taken it out in about 1983. :)

We've also made a lot of other changes e.g. ditching weapon speed and weapon-vs-armour-type, removing or greatly raising demi-human level limits, allowing greater multi-class options and putting Humans into the same multi-classing mechanics as demi-humans; but I think if you sat in on a few of our sessions you'd still recognize it as largely hewing to the principles of classic D&D.

Or on second thought maybe you wouldn't, and now I'm quite curious whether we've in fact drifted farther than I realize. :)
 

Remove ads

Top