A Question Of Agency?

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think you are using the wrong words to convey your thoughts.

That a particular brand of role playing isn’t required to play a game doesn’t mean that brand of roleplaying isn’t part of the game in which it’s being used. I think what you mean is that it isn’t part of the rule set.

Well, it is a bit more than that, or maybe it is what that implies. It implies that it may not have any impact on the following game state. That is what Pemerton means when he talks about 'pantomime', I believe. I'm with you however in terms of saying when people "play D&D" they include whatever roleplay happens at the table in that activity. I don't think the words are 'wrong', we just have somewhat different views on how things are called. Its probably something we should just agree we don't need to argue about.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, it is a bit more than that, or maybe it is what that implies. It implies that it may not have any impact on the following game state. That is what Pemerton means when he talks about 'pantomime', I believe. I'm with you however in terms of saying when people "play D&D" they include whatever roleplay happens at the table in that activity. I don't think the words are 'wrong', we just have somewhat different views on how things are called. Its probably something we should just agree we don't need to argue about.

Most of the things you find inconsequential impact the game state for me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

I suspect you're defining "the plot" more narrowly than he is.

I'm playing in an adventure path right now. I'll presumably end up at the endstate identical or very similar to other people who play it.

But along the way I'll interact with different people in different ways, I'll have in-character risks they may not have, I'll have interactions with the other PCs that produce potential changes in their relationships, I'll chose different sorts of advancement choices based on my experiences and more.

I suspect to you most of this is trivial, but to me they're still part of the plot that makes a difference. That doesn't mean they have to to you, of course.

 

[Aldarc]

And my point was that you were wrong.

Who has taken what Descartes wrote seriously since the 1800s?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Well.... I think there's a pretty big difference between "Playing to find out how each of a set sequence of combats and encounters goes." vs playing to find out what the cost of my character's determination to build an empire ends up costing him.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

Just briefly scanning the thread and don't have time to comment deeply or anything but this recent line of conversation has me doing a triple-take.

"All roads lead to Rome" is literally the quintessential marker for a railroad. If this statement and subsequent reality about a number of games across a population of tables has somehow now become controversial...we may as well just quit talking about TTRPGs altogether! However, in light of this apparent controversy, I think the deep divide on the issues we've discussed in this thread is starting to crystalize (regarding Force and Agency et al).

I guess the observations/questions I would make/have at this point are the following:

1) Since Force is merely a microcosm of a Railroad (an individual transition of gamestate from a > b where the GM has compelled the trajectory to b, subverting the possibility of divergence via player input), I guess I now understand the divide on the concept there too. So my question would be something like this arrangement:

If the ">" in the formulation of "gamestate a > b" has sufficient "gamestate-irrelevant-variables" (conversations had, battle cries, color of cloak worn, a brooding elf vs a merry elf, "Samantha just popped the question to Amy!") such that it superficially looks different from another group's ">", yet, because of the "gamestate-relevant variables" all of these tables end up at gamestate b from gamestate a (which...the only way this could be possible is if the overwhelming volitional force on play is the will of the GM)...then is that not Force?

2) I guess the only follow-up questions would be:

a) "Do people believe the concepts of a Force/Railroad are phenomenon that occurs in TTRPGs?"

b) "If yes, what in the world is the litmus test (every transition from gamestate a > b has to be a carbon copy for Force and every moment from gamestate a to z has to be a complete carbon copy for a Railroad)?"

 

[TwoSix]

If the ">" in the formulation of "gamestate a > b" has sufficient "gamestate-irrelevant-variables" (conversations had, battle cries, color of cloak worn, a brooding elf vs a merry elf, "Samantha just popped the question to Amy!") such that it superficially looks different from another group's ">", yet, because of the "gamestate-relevant variables" all of these tables end up at gamestate b from gamestate a (which...the only way this could be possible is if the overwhelming volitional force on play is the will of the GM)...then is that not Force?

I would certainly argue it is Force, but I'm not huge supporter of adventure path play. I'm just familiar with it.

My quote above with the slight pushback on Pemerton was only because I think the phrase "find out what happens" can be a little confusing to those not familiar with the context of the terminology.

I'd also say that the idea of a shared experience within the community of using adventure paths must provide some value, otherwise WotC and Paizo wouldn't have been so successful with the module publishing experience. TTRPG play can simultaneously be a railroad and a positive experience at the table, even if the agency is incredibly limited.

a) "Do people believe the concepts of a Force/Railroad are phenomenon that occurs in TTRPGs?"

I would say it not only occurs, it's the dominant MO of the majority of play tables. (Not systems, but tables, since D&D style gaming is the large majority of TTRPG play.)

 

[pemerton]

And my point was that you were wrong.

Which anti-empiricist philosophers do you have in mind?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If the ">" in the formulation of "gamestate a > b" has sufficient "gamestate-irrelevant-variables" (conversations had, battle cries, color of cloak worn, a brooding elf vs a merry elf, "Samantha just popped the question to Amy!") such that it superficially looks different from another group's ">", yet, because of the "gamestate-relevant variables" all of these tables end up at gamestate b from gamestate a (which...the only way this could be possible is if the overwhelming volitional force on play is the will of the GM)...then is that not Force?

2) I guess the only follow-up questions would be:

a) "Do people believe the concepts of a Force/Railroad are phenomenon that occurs in TTRPGs?"

b) "If yes, what in the world is the litmus test (every transition from gamestate a > b has to be a carbon copy for Force and every moment from gamestate a to z has to be a complete carbon copy for a Railroad)?"

I do believe in concept of a force, though don't think it is a bad thing, though it can be used badly, and often is.

But my issue with your formulation is the assumption that there even is a clearly definable game state and then other things that occur in game that are not gamestates. Like 'a brooding elf' is just as much a gamestate than whatever your gamestate A is. Now who cares about the fate of which gamestates is subjective. Perhaps one group of people are really invested in gamestate A, and care a lot whether it is transitioned to B or C, whilst the chitchat that happens while dealing with this is rather inconsequential to them. But to some other group the chitchat might be what they're there for, the question of cheering up the moody elf is the thing they care about, and A to B thing is just inconsequential backdrop to give an excuse for their characters to interact and deal with their interpersonal issues. And a GM can use force to interfere with either, and how much the players care will depend on whether they cared about the decision the force was used upon.

 

[pemerton]

I suspect you're defining "the plot" more narrowly than he is.

I don't think so, because @FrogReaver agreed that in an AP game the group is not playing to find out the plot.

I'm playing in an adventure path right now. I'll presumably end up at the endstate identical or very similar to other people who play it.

But along the way I'll interact with different people in different ways, I'll have in-character risks they may not have, I'll have interactions with the other PCs that produce potential changes in their relationships, I'll chose different sorts of advancement choices based on my experiences and more.

I suspect to you most of this is trivial, but to me they're still part of the plot that makes a difference. That doesn't mean they have to to you, of course.

I imagine this is what he is saying.

Now I assert that, where the game not only includes those things but they are central to determining the nature of the risks confronted by the protagonist, the consequences of their failures as well as their triumphs, etc then the players are exercising agency over a greater and more significant component of the shared fiction.