A Question Of Agency?

[TwoSix]

That may be good or bad RPGing, but it's clearly not playing to find out what happens.

I'd push back on that a little. I mean, I can play a Final Fantasy game to "find out what happens", and what happens is going to be the same thing that happens to everyone else that plays the same game, but our experience of it will be different. Discussing an adventure path is much more akin to discussing a movie that's been seen by both.

It's obviously quite different than playing to make something happen, which is closer to what I think the ideal is for player-driven play.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is obviously nonsense.

I've seen posters on this board compare what happened in their play of particular adventure paths: how did your fight at the end go compared to my groups'?

That wasn't playing to find out what happened. Two different groups, RPGing in different cities on different sides of a country, ended up in exactly the same spot after many sessions of play, such that they can meaningfully compare how that situation played out in their different games.

That may be good or bad RPGing, but it's clearly not playing to find out what happens.

You think what happened in their games was the same? Even with the same major plot points and major battles I would bet their games were fairly different. Different things happened. Different characters did different things. Etc. Playing to find out doesn’t have to be playing to find out the plot.

and as @TwoSix mentioned above even playing to find out the plot works as long as the players aren’t repeating the same adventure path they’ve already played in.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think I am, no.

The rule set is the game. Invocation of color doesn't influence the play of the game unless the DM lets the invocation of color sway their adjudication (due to good roleplaying).

I guess it depends on what game means. I consider the game to be the thing going on at the table on the night of play.

much like the game of football has rules and then you have football games where different teams play in often very different ways (at least if you are into football nuance) by the same ruleset.

I wouldn’t say any of those teams playstyles aren’t part of the game of football. Just like I wouldn’t say a particular roleplay style isn’t part of a particular rpg that has actual players sitting around a table playing the game with that style.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But there is a distinction. Acting like your character, doing funny accents, etc., may be roleplaying, it may be roleplaying you're doing during the game, but it's not part of the actual game. Throwing out plans to the DM and letting the DM decide if they succeed or fail is part of the game, just not one that has a formal mechanic.

Now, if the in-character discussion is basically group strategizing to get to the point where you make a declaration to the DM that they can adjudicate....I'd say that's ultimately part of gameplay, just like negotiating is during a game of Diplomacy.

OK, fair enough, in D&D or in Diplomacy there are no rules or even process really (I think Diplomacy has a time limit on each turn, though it is common to change it) to govern this. Literally anything goes, I can lie, steal, spy on people, etc. in Diplomacy (actual laws and common decency obviously place limits here). The only thing of substance is the game board situation, and my orders for the turn. In fact I recall that in one Origins Diplomacy tournament I was in one of the players slipped fake orders for another player into the other players clipboard and they got turned in. There was a bit of a controversy on the legality of that, since it was impinging on the structure of the game. I think they decided it was a bridge too far, rolled the turn back and accepted the orders the player claimed were genuine.

Anyway, clearly the GM plays this role in D&D, they can't interfere (mostly) in this roleplay, but what exactly it means substantially is a bit unclear. Where it feels like it merges with play, to me, is exactly where "the rubber meets the road." That is, when a player acts out his character convincing a storekeeper to give him a bargain, then that looks like a part of the game, he saves some gold, which is part of the game state. OTOH it is rare these days for this sort of thing to happen without some dice being rolled. At that point, did the 'play acting' really impact the game? It might impact the other players, and thus their PCs. Still, I find all this to be a bit tenuous. I think it is fine to say, in common parlance, that this is 'part of the game', it is certainly part of the activity of playing. So it is meaningful to the participants. I still see a really useful distinction here though. I also have a desire to make all these things into one whole

 

[pemerton]

Do you see the difference between "established at the start of play by the player" and "imposed (for lack of a better word) on the character during play"? If a player makes something like that as important as Beliefs apparently are in BW, then I think the GM is obligated to treat it like something the player wants to play with. Dropping something like that on someone mid-game ... that's not something they asked for.

I don't think you have much familiarity with BW.

For instance, a player is allowed to change his/her PC's Beliefs at will - subject to the GM requiring this to be postponed if the player is just trying to squib and wriggle out of a challenging situation.

This is an expected part of play.

Artha can be earned (via the Mouldbreaker rule) for changing a Belief due to inner conflict:

If a player comes to a point in the story where his Beliefs, Instincts and traits conflict with a decision he must make—a direction in which he must go—and he plays out the inner turmoil, the conflict within his own guts, in a believable and engaging manner, then he earns a persona point.​

(The quote is from BW Gold p 64. I mention again that any participant can download this legally, for free, from the BW website.)

I earned mouldbreaker artha for Aramina in our last BW session:

I'd already made a point of Thurgon having his arms on clear display as he rode through the countryside and the estate; now he raised his mace and shield to the heavens, and called on the Lord of Battle to bring strength back to his mother so that Auxol might be restored to its former greatness.

<snip description of mechanical resolution>

So a beam of light shot down from the sky, and Xanthippe straightened up and greeted Thurgon again, but this time with vigour and readiness to restore Auxol. The GM accepted my proposition that this played out Thurgon's Belief that Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more! (earning a Persona point). His new Belief is Xanthippe and I will liberate Auxol. He picked up a second Persona point for Embodiment ("Your roleplay (a performance or a decision) captures the mood of the table and drives the story onward").

Turning back to Aramina, I decided that this made an impact on her too: up until now she had been cynical and slightly bitter, but now she was genuinely inspired and determined: instead of never meeting the gaze of a stranger, her Instinct is to look strangers in the eyes and Assess. And rather than I don't need Thurgon's pity, her Belief is Thurgon and I will liberate Auxol. This earned a Persona point for Mouldbreaker ("If a situation brings your Beliefs, Instincts and Traits into conflict with a decision your PC must make, you play out your inner turmoil as you dramatically play against a Belief in a believable and engaging manner").

The PC who is charmed by the Dark Naga might likewise have such a moment of transformation should the play of the game plus the fiction support it. It hasn't happened yet, but it could. (There is no Dispel Charm in Burning Wheel. It's meant to be more like when Maedhros picks up the Silmaril, realises he is tainted by the Oath of Feanor, and hurls himself into a chasm. Or like Gandalf's freeing of Theoden.)

I believe the contention is that if there isn't some mechanical restriction that derives from "lusting after the queen" then it's not really a game state.

I would not say that. I would say if your play is not being constrained it is not really part of the shared fiction. Like if you as a player can just ignore it without anyone else calling you out for it not part of the game state / shared fiction.

So in this case a lot of people seem to be speculating about a game that they haven't played and haven't read - Prince Valiant.

For what it's worth I agree with @Campbell. This is also how PC INT works in our Classic Traveller game.

Here are three extracts from actual play reports of my Prince Valiant game (Sir Gerran, Sir Justin and Sir Morgath are PCs; the rest are NPCs, and Lady Alia is the daughter of the Duke whose castle the PCs have just taken over):

Next, warning came that a military force was approaching in the distance. The drawbridge was raised and the gates closed. But Sir Morgath, looking out from the battlements, could see that in front of the soldiers were two women riding hurriedly on ponies. (In the tram on the way to the session I had decided to use the second of the Woman in Distress episodes found in the main rulebook.) There was debate - should the drawbridge be lowered? - but Sir Morgath was against it, as too risky. The women arrived at the edge of the moat across from the drawbridge and called out for help to Sir Gerran, who as Marshall of the order was in command of the gates. Lady Lorette of Lothian explained that she was fleeing from her fiance, Sir Blackpool the Count of Toulouse, to whom she had been betrothed by her father and who had treated her cruelly. Would they not lower the drawbridge?

Although Prince Valiant is not technically a pulp it is from the same period - the 30s and 40s - and there is a degree of pulp-era stereotyping in Greg Stafford's presentation of women in his scenarios. In this case, Lady Lorette has Presence 4 and Glamourie 5. So as she pleaded to Gerran I rolled her 9 dice vs Gerran's Presence of 3. I allowed Gerran's player two bonus dice (the maximum morale bonus allowed for in the system) as a resolute Marshall defending his castle, so he had 5 dice in total. And rolled better than me! And so he didn't relent.

Meanwhile Sir Morgath had lowered a rope down the wall of the castle. He called out to the Lady and she leapt into the moat and swam to him, where he took hold of her and carried her up the wall. But the handmaiden accompanying her did not have the strength or courage to jump into the moat. So Morgath slid back down the rope and swang across the moat to rescue her. (At the start of the session I had handed out some fame (the "XP" of the system) that had been earned in the previous session. This had qualified Morgath for a new skill rank, which he had spent on Agility: his player felt he was repeatedly suffering for a lack of physical ability at key moments. It now served him well, as he got 3 successes on his 4 dice.)

In the scenario as written by Stafford, the Lady has the Incite Lust special effect which she will use against the strongest and most famous male adventurer, provided he is not married. Anticipating possible complications, Morgath - when asked by the Lady who her rescuer was - announced himself as Sir Morgath, husband of Lady Elizabeth of York. But being an unfair GM while also trying to run with the fiction, it seemed only to make sense that Morgath should fall for the Lady as he carried her in his arms into the castle. The player cursed me appropriately, but also had seen it coming. He took the Lady into the keep to ensure her safety.

Meanwhile the Count - Sir Blackpool - and his men had arrived and approached under a white flag of truce. The players had deciced that they would have Lady Alia explain that there was a new duke, Duke Bryce her brother, and that hence there was no need for relief after all. Suitable Presence rolls persuaded her to do as instructed. The Count was satisfied with this, but had one other request - his fiance had been taken into the castle, and he wanted her returned. Sir Justin tried to direct Sir Blackpool to leave in the name of the Duke, but he retorted that he had not yet sworn fealty to the new duke, and would not do so until his fiance was returned.

At this point the player of Morgath was laughing, and thinking that the Lady Alia must be feeling the same way. And as the other PCs decided they would fetch the lady from the keep, Sir Morgath decided that safety required sneaking out with her through the secret tunnel - which they did, and then - with a successful Stealth roll despite the 1-die penalty for having a non-stealthy companion - he led them without being noticed to the lighthouse on the coast which he knew to be abandoned, the PCs having beaten up its thug occupants a couple of sessions ago. So when Gerran and Justin searched the keep for the lady they couldn't find her, and hence reported to Sir Blackpool that "Upon my honour, your fiance is not in this castle!"

<snip account of Sir Gerran and Sir Justin routing the assailants>

From their vantage point in the lighthouse Morgath and Lady Lorette could see the army of Toulouse retreating, and so they returned to the castle and re-entered through the secret tunnel. Lady Alia was the first to find them upon their return, and she spoke with Sir Morgath to discus the next steps - having already decided that he was more sensible than the Sigobertians.

They decided that they should present Lady Lorette as the (now widowed) Countess of Toulouse, which she was happy to go along with; and that she should come under the protection of the (newly ascended) Duchess of Bordeaux. Lady Lorette suggested that Sir Morgath should send for a regent from York, so that she could travel with him on his adventures; while Alia took the view that she should stay in the castle to manage it and rule the ducal lands. This suggestion was presented to Sir Gerran and Sir Justin, who agreed subject to two conditions: that the castle should fly the standard of St Sigobert as well as that of the duchy; and that Lady Alia should marry Sir Gerran to cement the alliance of the Duchy and the order. (It had already been established that the order did not require chastity of its members - Sir Justin is married to Violette of Warwick.)

So the session ended with the wedding being agreed to and preparations having to be made. With discussions of how much crusade might be financed by mortgaging a duchy and a county. And with Sir Morgath's player lamenting that they could have had the company of a battle-maiden [ie Lady Alia] and now have an ingenue (or seductress?) instead. He did have the sense, in character, to make sure that the messengers sent to York to discuss the matter of the regency should also bring him back a token of his wife Elizabeth, which he hopes will help him remain faithful despite his feelings of attraction to Lady Lorette.

At the end of that previous session, Morgath had sent to Britain for a token of Elizabeth, so as to try and fortify his resolve.

<snip the lead-up to the wedding of Sir Gerran and Lady Alia>

At some point during these various events I had told Sir Morgath's player that a messenger had returned from Britain with news that a token of Elizabeth was to come; and around now I told him that his huntsman Algol, recruited during the wedding festivities for Sir Justin had arrived accompanied by three women - Lady Elizabeth travelling somewhat incognito with two handmaidens. The messenger had told her of Sir Morgath's adventures and feats of derring-do, and she (being "Gullible about knights and noblemen" as per the NPC description in the scenario where she was introduced) had decided to come and join him in his adventures. I took the opportunity to remind Sir Morgath's player of his longing for Lorette (as the description of the Incite Lust special effect says, "This can be a cruel Special Effect to use, especially if the object of lust is unattainable" or, in this case, illicit) but he held firm. I can't now recall whether I insisted on any checks at this point, but one did come up later

<snip>

Sir Morgath rode with his huntsman and his wife, while Sir Gerran hunted with his trained falcon that had been a gift given to him by the Duke of York at Sir Morgath's wedding. Lady Lorette - who has Riding and Hunting skill - also joined the hunt, as did Lady Alia. I can't remember all the details of this, but Lady Alia rolled poorly while Sir Gerran rolled OK. And impressed both by his performance in the melee and his hunting prowess, Lady Lorette put the moves on him. I resolved this as his Presence vs her Presence + Glamourie, ruling that if she doubled his total the seduction was total. I can't remember now whether I offered him a bonus die for Alia being also nearby on the hunt; but I don't think Gerran's player took any bonus. Total seduction ensued, and the wedding the next day was a formal rather than exuberant affair.

(Sir Justin's player noted that he had had an inkling as to what the true "hunt" might be, hence his decision to pray instead.)

<snip>

Sir Gerran had taken some steps to establish a system for the villagers to have their concerns heard at the ducal court, but these had not had time to become imbedded and enculturated in any way. And while their were brothers of St Sigobert - the Bordeaux chapter - there, they would perhaps face hostility from the established church hierarchy. After discussion with the other players, and reflection, he decided that what was really needed was Alia's personal loyalty to him (ie Sir Gerran) and his cause. So he spent his certificate to Incite Lust in her towards Sir Gerran. And so a few days after the wedding, the Lady Alia came to Sir Gerran to explain that her heart had warmed towards him, and that their marriage might be consumated after all.

She then expressed some desire to travel with Sir Gerran on his quest - she is battle-trained - but he persuaded her to stay and rule. (This was resolved as Sir Gerran's Presence vs difficulty factors that I set, I think using his Oratory at one point - from memory it took two or three attempts to persuade her, calling upon a different consideration each time.)

So when the PCs and their entourage (enlarged, as I rolled some relatively arbitrary dice to see how many new men, impressed by their chivalry and prowess, had joined their crusading mission) set out for Marseilles via Toulouse, they were confident that they had left the Duchy in as good a state as they could, under the rule of Lady Alia. Although Morgath's player was lamenting that if he had a Storyteller Certificate he would use it to Suppress Lust, so that Sir Morgath would be free of his longing for Lorette. When I suggested that my handling of the situation as referee, and the awarding of certificates, was fair, the player disputed that proposition - "But it is fun", he allowed.

At Toulouse, Sir Morgath persuaded Lady Lorette that she should stay there, where she was Countess and vassal to Sir Gerran's Duchy and Lady Alia. I think this involved checks, although I can't remember the details - I don't think it was that hard. But I did think that Lorette might seek a parting embrace, or more, from Sir Morgath her rescuer - and called for the same Presence vs Presence + Glamourie as had been rolled during the hunt. Morgath's player rolled 2 successes, while I rolled 3 - so no seduction in the strictest sense, but I did describe a passionate kiss. When Sir Morgath rejoined his entourage, Elizabeth noted his tousled hair but nothing more.

Having arrived in Sicily as pirate-quelling heroes, the PCs and their band got a good reception. This included an invitation to dinner by a local dignitary, Sir Ainsel - which was in fact the entry into an episode from The Episode Book, the Feast of Sir Ainsel. Except instead of Sir Ainsel being a rogue who serves an enemy of Camelot (as per the published scenario) he was a rogue in league with the pirates who would happily try and stop crusaders reaching the Holy Land. As per the scenario, he tried to get the PCs drunk (which worked for at least one - the drunk Sir Morgath at one point proclaimed Lorette of Lothian, Lady of Toulouse, as his love, rather than his wife Elizabeth (who was sitting with him at the dining table); I can't now remember about the other knights).

However, rhe minstrel Twillany remained sober, and when he saw the treacherous host about to strike he threw a dagger at him, rolled very well (from memory seven successes on seven dice) which killed Sir Ainsel outright.

<snip>

Meanwhile Twillany assured Elizabeth that Morgath's proclamation of love for Lorette was only a ruse designed to gull Sir Ainsel into thinking that he was drunk and harmless.

Sir Morgath's player is obliged to have regard, in his play, to the fact that his PC longs for Lorette. This is why he sends for Elizabeth (to fortify his resistance). This is why it's fair for me to call for a check at their parting. This is why when he sneaks her out of the castle without telling the other PCs he is not in any sense being a "disruptive player" (whatever exactly that might mean). This is why, in free roleplaying, he has his drunk PC proclaim his love.

My view is that those extracts do not support a suggestion that this player is under a burden on his agency any greater than you come to a dead-end in front of you. It's part of the shared fiction that he has to engage with, but (as the play reports show) he has a pretty wide scope of action declaration within that constraint.

 

[FrogReaver]

OK, fair enough, in D&D or in Diplomacy there are no rules or even process really (I think Diplomacy has a time limit on each turn, though it is common to change it) to govern this. Literally anything goes, I can lie, steal, spy on people, etc. in Diplomacy (actual laws and common decency obviously place limits here). The only thing of substance is the game board situation, and my orders for the turn. In fact I recall that in one Origins Diplomacy tournament I was in one of the players slipped fake orders for another player into the other players clipboard and they got turned in. There was a bit of a controversy on the legality of that, since it was impinging on the structure of the game. I think they decided it was a bridge too far, rolled the turn back and accepted the orders the player claimed were genuine.

Anyway, clearly the GM plays this role in D&D, they can't interfere (mostly) in this roleplay, but what exactly it means substantially is a bit unclear. Where it feels like it merges with play, to me, is exactly where "the rubber meets the road." That is, when a player acts out his character convincing a storekeeper to give him a bargain, then that looks like a part of the game, he saves some gold, which is part of the game state. OTOH it is rare these days for this sort of thing to happen without some dice being rolled. At that point, did the 'play acting' really impact the game? It might impact the other players, and thus their PCs. Still, I find all this to be a bit tenuous. I think it is fine to say, in common parlance, that this is 'part of the game', it is certainly part of the activity of playing. So it is meaningful to the participants. I still see a really useful distinction here though. I also have a desire to make all these things into one whole

I’ll meet you in the middle. I think There is a distinction but the word game I think is already too overloaded to help capture it.

i think the concepts of homeogenous and heteroegenous may apply more aptly.

some rpgs are heterogenous mix of game mechanics and roleplay. I think your preference is for a more homogenous mixture (assuming one actually exists).

 

[pemerton]

Off topic but that’s a very unconvincing argument. The whole point of descartes is that thought requires a thinker or an “I” that is doing the thinking.

I know the point. My point is that he's wrong. (For the full argument, see the history of empiricist philosophy from Berkely through Hume through the authors I mentioned.)

 

[prabe]

I don't think you have much familiarity with BW.

You are absolutely correct. What I know of how BW works in play, I know from your descriptions of it. Thanks for explaining this facet of the game.

The same goes for Prince Valiant, of course--both my unfamiliarity with it, and my thanks for explaining it.

 

[pemerton]

I'd push back on that a little. I mean, I can play a Final Fantasy game to "find out what happens", and what happens is going to be the same thing that happens to everyone else that plays the same game, but our experience of it will be different. Discussing an adventure path is much more akin to discussing a movie that's been seen by both.

It's obviously quite different than playing to make something happen, which is closer to what I think the ideal is for player-driven play.

Well, in the FF context the game designer isn't finding out what happens.

In a parallel RPG context, the GM isn't finding out what happens.

Of course in a railroad or a puzzle-game the players can play to find out what it is that the GM has already decided! But the slogan play to find out what happens is applying to the GM as well as the players.

You think what happened in their games was the same? Even with the same major plot points and major battles I would bet their games were fairly different. Different things happened. Different characters did different things. Etc. Playing to find out doesn’t have to be playing to find out the plot.

So what are you finding out?

If the plot was the same, then what is the nature of those different things that happened?

 

[FrogReaver]

I know the point. My point is that he's wrong. (For the full argument, see the history of empiricist philosophy from Berkely through Hume through the authors I mentioned.)

And my point was that you were wrong.