A Question Of Agency?

[Ovinomancer]

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.

And that's fine, but the point has been that so long as you, as GM, wield the power to shut down those player initiated tangents, you're also reducing player agency. Which, again, is fine -- there are always tradeoffs.

 

[Radaceus]

<snip> It's about letting the story of the game be about the player characters and playing to find out what they will do. <snip>

This ^^
It's about the story, and driving that narrative.

And on an aside,
regarding NPCs existing and contributing as much as PCs ( @Lanefan 's earlier point), our main DM does just that, his worlds exist with or without us, it annoys me in some ways because I am quite the opposite in my approach, but I do admire his commitment; the fleshing out of his campaign worlds is immaculate.
Me, I just like to weave a story thread by thread and see where it will go, my PCs are those threads, and for me to project what will happen and plan for it never worked. I was ever ill-prepared, or rather my preparations were nothing to do with where they ended up. Sure one could argue a Gygaxian causality, and roll for what's behind door number 2, but I'm pedantic about story continuity and cohesion. Working with the players, that is, twisting their fates as they take each step, begets the direction of my campaign worlds. What happens outside of their interactions is immaterial, it only exists when they choose to perceive it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Yeah, I can see the latter situation. I've rarely seen that particular combination of setup (theoretically open world but actually packed down tight) but I'm sure it could happen.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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).



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.

I have to object here. Just because you pay attention to things like "charop" and have a strong interest in the mechanics of the game doesn't make your play any less valid RP. I mean, I know some very brilliant role players who exploit the rules like crazy, refer to their characters in the 3rd person constantly, eschew "talking in character" etc. etc. etc. and yet their PCs are quite distinctive characters. In fact some of these are the same people who play brilliantly in narrative type play as well. Understanding and sympathizing with your character and developing it in myriad ways is NOT synonymous with being a play-actor, nor is role play opposed to, IN ANY WAY, building strong mechanical characters.

I also think 4e was kind of a high point for this. Its mechanical granularity and vast arrays of different options and combinations encouraged people to walk that path. Yet ever single one of those options was both loaded with color, AND easy to reflavor in whatever ways you wanted. I found that 4e encouraged more strong character concepts, and making play actually reflect them, than any other version of D&D in its entire history.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And that's fine, but the point has been that so long as you, as GM, wield the power to shut down those player initiated tangents, you're also reducing player agency. Which, again, is fine -- there are always tradeoffs.

That's sort of the thing, though; this seems like a definition of "agency" that requires the campaign to be utterly open-ended so they can insert their desires into it. If that's what they want, I guess its what they want, but it seems to limit the kinds of campaigns that can be run pretty severely to one flavor or another of open-ended sandbox.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have to object here. Just because you pay attention to things like "charop" and have a strong interest in the mechanics of the game doesn't make your play any less valid RP. I mean, I know some very brilliant role players who exploit the rules like crazy, refer to their characters in the 3rd person constantly, eschew "talking in character" etc. etc. etc. and yet their PCs are quite distinctive characters. In fact some of these are the same people who play brilliantly in narrative type play as well. Understanding and sympathizing with your character and developing it in myriad ways is NOT synonymous with being a play-actor, nor is role play opposed to, IN ANY WAY, building strong mechanical characters.

First off, I think you're reading my statement of token play as critical of it. I'm not. I'd argue an awful lot of RPG play is token play with a small veneer of characterization over it. As long as its not disruptive I consider that as viable a form as any other. I'd say I play in that mode myself some times, and like any other stance, all kinds of people use it on occasion mixed with other stances.

The part of char-op I'm referencing is specifically the idea of searching for the "best" way to do a particular general build. While not limited to token players, it certainly supports them as do games that actually let you do that, because it means that mechanical engagement actually matters.

I also think 4e was kind of a high point for this. Its mechanical granularity and vast arrays of different options and combinations encouraged people to walk that path. Yet ever single one of those options was both loaded with color, AND easy to reflavor in whatever ways you wanted. I found that 4e encouraged more strong character concepts, and making play actually reflect them, than any other version of D&D in its entire history.

I don't think that's unfair, actually, as long as you could get around the way the mechanical bobs worked.

 

[FrogReaver]

So I’ve read through everything I’ve missed. I’m seeing more and more evidence that agency is being defined by the advocates of non-traditional rpgs in such a way that effectively excludes traditional rpgs.

More importantly though, why should I care about agency that allows me as the player to drive the fiction (outside my character)? Why would I even want that kind of agency? Does having that kind agency take anything away from the experience?

there are 2 common ways to play D&D. Optimal play and character driven play. I think most players go in and out of these play styles at various points during the game.

I think the non-traditional systems we are discussing don’t really leave open the option for optimal play - defined as Play where you were careful, made all the right decisions and get rewarded for that. Such systems are better in some respects for character driven play as they can ensure the game is about what is important to the characters. However, there is a cost to that even beyond the lack of optimal play. being able to on the fly introduce fictional elements that aren’t yet there is a much different experience than being “forced” to be limited to just what is in the scene the DM framed - thus allowing one to focus solely on their character and what is there before them.

I don’t think it’s that most people can’t understand how non-traditional playstyles work. It’s that many of us are happy with playing our character in a DM framed scene with a healthy mix of optimal focused play.

 

[Aldarc]

My mental image of my character is not directly the same thing than the character's self image. The latter is only a part of the former.

How would your mental image of your hypothetical Lancelot character being disrupted by the system triggering feelings for Guinevere?

And if that works for some people, great. It definitely does not for me. But relating to discussion of agency, a system dictating how the character must feel certainly is a huge imposition on the player agency. The character's feelings and motivations are the very core of the player agency.

Is it really more of an imposition on agency than being hit or downed in combat? Something has affected your character without your consent. But to return to Lancelot. Seeing Guinevere triggers romantic, if not lustful, desires in Lancelot. However, how he feels torn and anguished about this new state. And his actions become guided by wrestling with his internal feelings. It would be a dull story indeed if Lancelot had power over both over his adversity as a character and its resolution.

 

[pemerton]

I don't agree at all. You simply arbitrarily declare some things to be meaningful and some not. The things what you dismissively call 'characterisation and pantomime' are the core of the play to a lot of people, and being in charge of that is the sort of agency they care about. Now you are perfectly free to value other things, but you don't get to decide that agency only means controlling the things you personally care about.

In what RPGing experience do players not have that agency?

 

[pemerton]

I would say that you cannot ever call Monopoly, as-written, an RPG, no matter how much you role play while playing it, because of exactly this, there's no impact of the fiction on the game state. In this sense even a basically 100% 'pawn state' play of D&D is STILL an RPG, because whatever the player describes for fiction at least has some impact on the game state (hopefully, I am hard pressed to believe there's a D&D game that is truly not RP at all). RPGs require a 'closed loop' where mechanics and narration of fictional actions interact and produce narrative and a meaningfully evolving game state.

Agreed. I was making the point that, just as speaking in the voice of the Top Hat as you move your token around the Monopoly board doesn't change it from boardgame to RPG, so speaking in a funny voice as you work your way through White Plume Mountain doesn't change pawn/token-stance play into genuinely character-based player decision-making.

I think it’s about those character traits being meaningful to play.

Yes. And to elaborate that a bit: making a difference to situation. To plot. To theme. Not just the merest of colour.

If my fighter with a haunted past begrudgingly accompanies the party to the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, how is that different from my fighter who’s a happy go lucky scoundrel who’s in it for the coin?

If essentially all that’s different is that with one character I speak in a glum manner and occasionally make reference to past horrors, and with the other I act upbeat and make jokes....they’re not meaningfully different.

Right. The merest of colour.

It may be that this kind of thing is common or that many consider this the extent of roleplaying; that’s fine. It’s just not the kind that @pemerton enjoys. He wants the character traits to be more than window dressing. To be central to play.

Yes.

They are completely different characters! How on earth is that not meaningful? They will interact with their fellow PCs in different manner, creating a drastically different social situations, evoking different emotions in the players at the table. And of course their differing personalities and motivations would be likely to result different decisions on many occasions.

That final claim is what is being discussed. I regularly read posts where objection is made to players who make "stupid" decisions because "that's what my character would do".

As to the first point:

(1) Clearly that is not what is meant when the OP asks if "quantum ogres" interfere with player agency. Because even if everything from setting to situation to resolution outcomes is made up by the GM at whim, the players can characterise and pantomime their PCs.

(2) In what RPG experience can players not character and pantomime their PCs? If the answer is, as I think, none, then a discussion about whether or not player agency is possible or can be increased would be pretty pointless. If that's the sort of agency you're interested in, then conversation over: all you have to do is sit down at a RPG table and perform your PCs' voice and mannerisms! No matter how strict the railroad, you've got as much of this sort of agency as you could want!