A Question Of Agency?

[Crimson Longinus]

To pemerton.

I would likely prefer play along those lines myself, although I’d likely be open to other approaches as well.

Sure. And agency cannot be defined based on some people's arbitrary preferences.

Because what makes them different is unlikely to determine the events of play such that play goes differently. Meaning that play is not about these characters and their traits.

What events? How is your character talking an eliciting an response from another character not an event in the play? How is your character choosing an course of action based on their motivations not an even in the play?

How so? I mean, I’m not saying it can’t matter. And I’m not saying that such character portrayal can’t be entertaining for what it is.

But I think that, if you look at it with a mind toward the kind of agency for which @pemerton has been advocating, then the difference is clearer, and is consistent. It’s not that he wants to be free to bring these things up during play, it’s that he wants them to be what play is about.

That’s my understanding of it, anyway. If I’m far off, I’d sure he can correct me.

The play is about that without there being some rigid rule about it. It is the people who make the play, not the rules.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I at least get the distinction there, though in that case I think it behooves the player to chose character traits that will still keep things within the intended scope of the campaign (as in, are unlikely to make the character, essentially, walk out of the campaign. Sometimes that will happen unexpectedly, but if it happens frequently I have to conclude either the player, the GM or both are failing to communicate what the campaign is about).

Of course there are people who are super-resistant to the idea of campaign scope, too, but I can only generate so much sympathy for people who want wide open worlds or nothing.

Well... If the 'scope' is "we are going to play through the DGQ module series" and what you're saying is that the player shouldn't have the agency to decide that he's going to lead the party through a planar gate to Jotenheim instead of monkey with Drow because of that, then I'd say he's got little agency and his character's traits aren't going to be making much difference. The story arc is already set! As @pemerton stated above, the grumpy fighter and the happy fighter DO EXACTLY THE SAME STUFF, and end up in the same place, etc. I'm not sure I even call that RP, really. I mean, OK, marginally if there are a few minor instances where some action in an encounter goes a bit different, but that's pretty darn light weight in my book!

We're just saying, we want to play characters who come up with what THEY want to do, or are driven to do things based on their personality/etc. and not "Because this is the module and you're going to run through it." Obviously, though lacking mechanics needed to guarantee it, there's the possibility of such play in D&D. I think it is VERY rare for it to be consistently realized, even by groups with the awareness of the techniques. I take this from experience. While we discuss our 5e games and have player input on what we would like to do next, it is still not equivalent to what would happen if the game was Burning Wheel. The system just doesn't foster it, and there are pieces that are actively missing in play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To pemerton.

I would likely prefer play along those lines myself, although I’d likely be open to other approaches as well.



Because what makes them different is unlikely to determine the events of play such that play goes differently. Meaning that play is not about these characters and their traits.



How so? I mean, I’m not saying it can’t matter. And I’m not saying that such character portrayal can’t be entertaining for what it is.

But I think that, if you look at it with a mind toward the kind of agency for which @pemerton has been advocating, then the difference is clearer, and is consistent. It’s not that he wants to be free to bring these things up during play, it’s that he wants them to be what play is about.

That’s my understanding of it, anyway. If I’m far off, I’d sure he can correct me.

I think you have it right. I created a character to play in our first 5e game a few years ago, and I created a personality and agenda for that character. However, the game was ABOUT what was in various modules and adventures which were presented to us. I DID keep putting the focus on what my character wanted to do (and in all fairness the other players needed to get a turn to do this too, so I can't complain about when they got the spotlight). To an extent that worked, but it REALLY would have worked in a game like BW where I simply would have stipulated circumstances which would have made the action take on my character's dream of building an empire in a direct way. Maybe he would have failed too, or maybe the story would have brought out what the terrible personal costs of doing so were, etc.

5e simply isn't designed to work this way, and just inhabiting a character who's trait is "he dreams of building his own kingdom" but the action never allows for it, is not really that rewarding. As it turns out, I did make some progress with my character working on his agenda, since the GM of that game is interested in collaborating. Still, without principles to guide the game, like "you can't lose something you already won unless you put it at risk by some choice." it was hard to make the whole story work well from my perspective.

 

[aramis erak]

Token play has always been a thing, even if it gets looked down on by a lot of people. There was a lot more of it in the early D&D days.

It was also flaring up with 4th ed D&D. and a strong subculture even in 3rd.

To be honest, I think it's actually become MORE common over time, because the better selling modules seem to be ones that can support it.

Which extrapolation would that be? That they're rare? Something can be rare and still show up in clusters.

That it's rare. It's been a consistent subculture every bit as strong as minis-wargame mode, and around since the early days. It's just also a group that walks away from most tables.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It was also flaring up with 4th ed D&D. and a strong subculture even in 3rd.

Honestly, there's always been a pretty good sized group that goes there. There were whole localized communities in the OD&D days who largely played that way (the CalTech D&D group that ended up developing Warlock, for example).

To be honest, I think it's actually become MORE common over time, because the better selling modules seem to be ones that can support it.

I suspect its just a case of visibility; charop things and so forth made the populace that was partially or wholly oriented toward token play visible in a way they likely wouldn't have been in, say, the 90's.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well... If the 'scope' is "we are going to play through the DGQ module series" and what you're saying is that the player shouldn't have the agency to decide that he's going to lead the party through a planar gate to Jotenheim instead of monkey with Drow because of that, then I'd say he's got little agency and his character's traits aren't going to be making much difference. The story arc is already set! As @pemerton stated above, the grumpy fighter and the happy fighter DO EXACTLY THE SAME STUFF, and end up in the same place, etc. I'm not sure I even call that RP, really. I mean, OK, marginally if there are a few minor instances where some action in an encounter goes a bit different, but that's pretty darn light weight in my book!

I'm thinking more of "We're playing cops in Chicago in an urban fantasy setting" and the player decides at one point he's more sympathetic to Faery and decides he's going to run off and join them. He's effectively decided that he's going to step outside the scope of the campaign and should be in no way surprised if his character gets mostly ignored after that, unless the GM just feels like, effectively, running one game for him and one for everyone else.

We're just saying, we want to play characters who come up with what THEY want to do, or are driven to do things based on their personality/etc. and not "Because this is the module and you're going to run through it." Obviously, though lacking mechanics needed to guarantee it, there's the possibility of such play in D&D. I think it is VERY rare for it to be consistently realized, even by groups with the awareness of the techniques. I take this from experience. While we discuss our 5e games and have player input on what we would like to do next, it is still not equivalent to what would happen if the game was Burning Wheel. The system just doesn't foster it, and there are pieces that are actively missing in play.

And I'm just saying that without some limits on that, you have "We have a wide open world game in Setting X" or nothing. Even in a module series game, you ought to go in with the idea of trying to stay within the scope of the module, or why are you even telling the GM you're going to play there?

I guess what I'm saying is, at the point where someone decides their character's agency is always more important than whatever the game is avowedly about (and makes no effort to build a character where said agency will tend to still keep them within some bounds) that they've pretty much decided only a narrow sort of game is acceptable. And they ought to at least be really up-front about the range of decisions they feel is appropriate so a GM can go "Shine on you crazy diamond, but do it somewhere else."

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure. And agency cannot be defined based on some people's arbitrary preferences.

If you think there’s anything arbitrary about how he defines agency, then I don’t know what to say. He’s explained at length what his view of agency is.

At this point, you can either recognize that and discuss accordingly, or you can try and force his comments to work for some other definition of agency, and then question the results.

The former seems like it would be best, no?

What events? How is your character talking an eliciting an response from another character not an event in the play? How is your character choosing an course of action based on their motivations not an even in the play?

These things could be meaningful in some ways, but play does not revolve around them.

My example of the fighters was a simple one. What I meant by it is: would the play of Steading of the Hill Giant Chief go differently if I were to play with one character over the other? And more importantly, would that difference be meaningful?

Let me phrase this another way. When you think of “character driven play” do you mean that the characters are free to decide where they go and what they engage with? Or do you mean that play actually revolves around the characters?

Does the fiction feature the PCs or is it actually their story?

The play is about that without there being some rigid rule about it. It is the people who make the play, not the rules.

I haven’t really evoked any rules in this matter. Some games absolutely have rules that promote this play, but I think that I’m just talking about processes and approach at this point.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I at least get the distinction there, though in that case I think it behooves the player to chose character traits that will still keep things within the intended scope of the campaign (as in, are unlikely to make the character, essentially, walk out of the campaign. Sometimes that will happen unexpectedly, but if it happens frequently I have to conclude either the player, the GM or both are failing to communicate what the campaign is about).

Of course there are people who are super-resistant to the idea of campaign scope, too, but I can only generate so much sympathy for people who want wide open worlds or nothing.

Sure, I think it’s reasonable to expect some amount of cooperation on or communication about play expectations. It also matters a great deal what game is being played and so on.

Most forms of D&D and similar games require some amount of preparatory work, and everyone should have that in mind.

Other games may not require that prep, and so may allow for more freedom on the player side to craft a character with less concern for fitting the GM’s plans.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, I think it’s reasonable to expect some amount of cooperation on or communication about play expectations. It also matters a great deal what game is being played and so on.

Most forms of D&D and similar games require some amount of preparatory work, and everyone should have that in mind.

Other games may not require that prep, and so may allow for more freedom on the player side to craft a character with less concern for fitting the GM’s plans.

I think prep is only part of it, though. Even if I had a game that was mostly improvised with extent material, I'm just not always interested in going off on a tangent a player wants to (and that's even assuming he gets everyone else to go along). I agree that the degree of offswing their interested in pursuing should be presented upfront, though. I'm just kind of getting the feeling from some responses in this thread that that, well, doesn't matter to some people, or at least takes a lesser priority than pursuing whatever they decide in-play is their gig.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think prep is only part of it, though. Even if I had a game that was mostly improvised with extent material, I'm just not always interested in going off on a tangent a player wants to (and that's even assuming he gets everyone else to go along). I agree that the degree of offswing their interested in pursuing should be presented upfront, though. I'm just kind of getting the feeling from some responses in this thread that that, well, doesn't matter to some people, or at least takes a lesser priority than pursuing whatever they decide in-play is their gig.

Oh sure. I suppose a tangent is a tangent, where as what I think is being proposed is not a tangent, but the expected content of play.

But I suppose that should be assumed whichever game or style we’re talking about. If I show up o a game of D&D and the group’s agreed to run AD&D and use the Giants modules, then I’m probably not going to create a character who’s looking for his long lost brother who was taken in by the Scarlet Brotherhood.

But if I’m playing Dungeon World, then that’s perfectly fine, and if the GM doesn’t bring that into play in some way, then that would suck.

I think where we (potentially) run into issues is with a game where the goals of play are a little more open, and maybe play expectations aren’t exactly clear. So a game like 5e with a GM running non-published material, and saying it’ll be a sandbox....and then a player creates a highly specific goal for his character only to find that the GM’s already filled the entire sandbox. That kind of thing.