A Question Of Agency?

[Crimson Longinus]

Name the games which restrict 'agency over the internal life of the character'. And cite the rules which do so please.

Oh, you don't know any! ROFL.

A lot of games do it to small degree. I mostly experienced it in various White Wolf games, though they tended to me kind of tangential mechanics in those. Still disliked it. Monster Hearts was mentioned as a game that does this frequently and indeed the play focuses on it. I haven't played it so, I don't know how accurate this characterisation is.

Now I feel a bit stupid for trying to seriously answer to a person ending their post with 'ROFL.'

 

[hawkeyefan]

As it's been explained here, Monsterhearts has mechanics that allow another player to take control of my character's desires, thereby reducing my agency over my character's internal life. Will that suffice?

ETA: If I understand how @pemerton has described Beliefs in Burning Wheel, those can be changed by mechanics in the game, which would also seem to reduce a player's agency over their character's internal life.

And Fate has Consequence-esque results of conflicts, which can replace a character's Aspects, which also would seem to (potentially, depending on the Aspects) reduce a player's agency over their character's internal life.

Do these things simply happen in those games? Or are they some kind of fallout due to a choice that was made and didn't work out?

Does the risk of PC death in 5E mean that a PC who takes a risky action that could result in death has no agency? Or is it that risk that instead gives that choice meaning?

 

[Aldarc]

This is a bit of a tangent here, but it just kind of occurred to me.....if we look at absolute GM authority of the game world as being potentially undesirable because it's a railroad, I think that having a PC who is never going to actually grow or change to be similarly offputting as a railroad. The world really doesn't get to this guy? Like ever? Only if the player chooses? Where is the risk in this approach to play, other than just the character living or dying?

Isn't that risk what makes something meaningful?

This was an issue I was alluding to in an earlier post:

It would be a dull story indeed if Lancelot had power over both over his adversity as a character and its resolution.

 

[prabe]

Do these things simply happen in those games? Or are they some kind of fallout due to a choice that was made and didn't work out?

Does the risk of PC death in 5E mean that a PC who takes a risky action that could result in death has no agency?

It sure as heck has sounded as though in Monsterhearts another player could choose to pull my character's strings. Since there is no way in hell I will play that game I'll have to leave an answer for that for those as have played it. I figure @pemerton will correct my misapprehensions about Burning Wheel.

In Fate, taking a Consequence (I think that's the term--it's at least the idea, and I don't feel like digging out my Fate books) is IIRC usually the result of a conflict, as a concession to avoid being Taken Out (removed from play, possibly but not necessarily killed); so the player has agency to accept the deal, but after that needs to live with the result--which might be a change to an Aspect important to the player--for ... some time (it's in the rules, I forget, I don't want to dig the books out).

As to which PC has more agency ... A risky action is a risky action, and they both chose to take that (enter the conflict/combat), so the difference in agency comes after the combat. A dead PC (probably) has no agency, but if the PCs don't die, I'd be inclined to say the player in 5E has more agency after the conflict--mainly because of how Compels work in Fate, and any Fate GM worth his salt would want to hammer on that unwanted Aspect mercilessly.

 

[chaochou]

As it's been explained here, Monsterhearts has mechanics that allow another player to take control of my character's desires, thereby reducing my agency over my character's internal life. Will that suffice?

ETA: If I understand how @pemerton has described Beliefs in Burning Wheel, those can be changed by mechanics in the game, which would also seem to reduce a player's agency over their character's internal life.

And Fate has Consequence-esque results of conflicts, which can replace a character's Aspects, which also would seem to (potentially, depending on the Aspects) reduce a player's agency over their character's internal life.

No - a rules citation for Monsterhearts please. The exact wording.

And a rules cite for Beliefs please. The exact wording.

And for Fate. The exact wording.

Surely you must know what you're talking about - just go to your bookshelf and pick them up and give me the page numbers...

 

[chaochou]

A lot of games do it to small degree. I mostly experienced it in various White Wolf games, though they tended to me kind of tangential mechanics in those. Still disliked it. Monster Hearts was mentioned as a game that does this frequently and indeed the play focuses on it. I haven't played it so, I don't know how accurate this characterisation is.

Now I feel a bit stupid for trying to seriously answer to a person ending their post with 'ROFL.'

You mean Monsterhearts you've never played, nor read, and know nothing about.

Any others?

 

[prabe]

No - a rules citation for Monsterhearts please. The exact wording.

And a rules cite for Beliefs please. The exact wording.

And for Fate. The exact wording.

Surely you must know what you're talking about - just go to your bookshelf and pick them up and give me the page numbers...

Fate Core, Consequences start on page 162. I especially draw your attention to "extreme consequences" on pate 166, which was the mechanic I was talking about. I believe in the Dresden Files game the example is Harry getting his arm severely burned.

I don't own Monsterhearts or Burning Wheel, and I will leave those who have read or played those games to answer about them.

 

[Aldarc]

You mean Monsterhearts you've never played, nor read, and know nothing about.

Any others?

Sure. Monsterhearts 2 (p.18).

Turn Someone On
When you turn someone on, roll with Hot. On a 10 up, gain a String on them and they choose a reaction from below. • On a 7-9, they can either give you a String or choose one of the reactions.

• I give myself to you,
• I promise something I think you want, or
• I get embarrassed and act awkward.

All kinds of things can Turn Someone On, especially if that person is a teenager. Maybe this is a flirtatious glance, a whispered promise for later, or a goofy smile at
the right moment. Maybe it’s just something they notice about you as you walk past them in the hall. When you use this move, feel free to take the opportunity to step outside your character, to speak like an author would: describing your character’s pouty lips or moonlit silhouette. Unlike the other basic moves, Turning Someone On can be triggered even if there’s no specific action being taken; your character doesn’t have to intend to Turn Someone On – sometimes, it just happens.
This move is at the heart of how Monsterhearts understands sexuality, especially teen sexuality. We don’t get to decide what turns us on, or who. Part of your agenda is keeping the story feral, and that means letting your character’s sexuality emerge in all of its confusing and unexpected glory.
When someone turns your character on, the emotional dynamic between them shifts. If a String is gained, the power dynamic shifts a little bit as well. How you react to that is up to you. What honesty demands is that you acknowledge the shift, imagine what your character might be feeling, and play from there. If Julia turns Monique on, it doesn’t mean Monique has to throw herself at her. Just play out how Monique would naturally respond. Maybe Monique blushes and turns to leave, or maybe she suddenly gets nervous and starts stammering.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's perfectly valid not to like it.

I may have missed the context of whatever example may have been in discussion.

I don't think that, depending on how it came about, some mechanic made that choice for you (I don't know if that's the case, but assuming it is for this comment) it is necessarily a removal of agency. It depends on how it came about and how the game works.

To me it would feel as a serious removal of agency.

But the same way that if I fail my save, I'm gonna run away from the dragon, I don't go into these games expecting absolute and total authority over my PC.

Very few people actually seem to think that, even if they claim that's how a game should work. They'll say "agency is my ability to decide any and everything for my PC; no one else can decide what they will think or feel or do". And then you say "Well what about Charm Person or Dragon Fear?" and then they will say "Okay, yes, but those are highly specific instances, for which a saving throw is at play. And they're different cause magic."

I don't really like those magical abilities. But they're pretty rare. And them being magical makes them indeed less bad in a sense that they're effectively an external force. The mechanics that force my character to feel or behave in a certain way feel like mind control to me, and it is less jarring when they are actual mind control in the fiction too! But anything that takes away the control of the character from the player should IMHO be used super sparingly.

This is a bit of a tangent here, but it just kind of occurred to me.....if we look at absolute GM authority of the game world as being potentially undesirable because it's a railroad, I think that having a PC who is never going to actually grow or change to be similarly offputting as a railroad. The world really doesn't get to this guy? Like ever? Only if the player chooses? Where is the risk in this approach to play, other than just the character living or dying?

Ask the player, it's their character. Sounds super boring to me, but whatever. And if there truly was a player who was not interested portraying their character as real person who is affected by things that happen to them, I have hard time imagining that any mechanics would be much of help.

Isn't that risk what makes something meaningful?

That is one way to make things meaningful, but not the only one. Furthermore, I think you demonstrated in your earlier example an excellent narrative way to represent the risk; create situations which test the characters values. That is the way to do it, no mechanics needed.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.


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.

A couple things for you to consider that I think your thoughts on might be helpful. Its about (a) "system dictating how the player must feel certainly is a huge imposition on the player agency" and (b) agency isn't about unbridled autonomy (agency requires a level of constraint, focus, and distillation...eg without walls and obstacles in a dungeon and without the premise of treasure extraction without being slain there is no "meaningful" agency being executed in a Moldvay Basic dungeon crawl...see (2) below):

1) I believe you wanted to invoke agency in the external world earlier but you were rebuffed or no one engaged. Now might be a time to do so. I'm going to put to the side for a moment the present consensus in neuro/cognitive science on when the frontal cortex comes online when executing a decision-tree (which has huge implications on perceived agency). Our perception of our autonomy over our internal workings does not comport with what is actually happening. The endocrine system has a significant role to play in our execution of our decision-trees. Emotional or physical damage (a concussion or lesion/tumor on the brain's infrastructure or the feedback loop of despair or some other form of emotional trauma and philosophical fallout).

What do you think about system architecture simulating these inputs?

2) It seems to me that having absolute autonomy over your internal workings is, from first principles, an interesting violation of the Czege Principle in any game that cares at all about testing your beliefs/ethos, instincts, and nature. If you have absolute autonomy over these things...then any "test" is the equivalent of playing at Ouija Board. Its all theatrics, pantomime, characterization. Its the illusion of a crucible rather than an actual one.

No?