A Question Of Agency?

[Ovinomancer]

That's a sturdy analysis.

I think there are some players (I'm one) who would experience hard, permanent, mechanical limitations on what their characters feel as dissonant (please don't bring charm spells and the like into this), to the point of feeling as though they had less agency--no matter what other kinds of agency they were gaining elsewhere in the game's mechanics. I think it's reasonable that my feelings about that ... shape my approach to GMing.

I'll agree that there aren't mechanical means for a DM in 5E to make characters feel things (outside the usual charm-spell exceptions), but I've found that a skilled DM can get the players to feel things--and I've found that works just as well, without the dissonance I mentioned above.

I have played games where players could do those sorts of things, and I've run them. I have found that I ended up not liking them as much as a player--mainly because they came with mechanics that imposed emotional/mental states on my character, leading to that dissonance; and some or the victories I achieved by rewriting the world felt ... cheap--or as a GM--my reluctance to generate the dissonance in my players' minds that I find so unpleasant makes me not the right person to GM those games, and I find it easier to keep the world consistent when I only have to remember what I've figured out, not what others have added.

First, thanks for this post. It's a great example of trying to engage the concepts fairly but finding out that you just prefer a different set.

Second, and this is by no means an encouragement to try again -- just an observation, the way you describe these things really says to me that you had a poor experience with them. By that, I mean that they were run or presented poorly. There's absolutely no reason that a game that features more narrative play and that puts at risk things about the character should feel like you're being forced to feel things. That's poor approach by the GM if it was happening. Perhaps the specific game was at fault, although I'm not sure.

Third, yes, absolutely, traditional GM-centered games can definitely engage the feels for the players. I've had those experiences myself. However, when I look at the times that's happened to me in good GM'd games (and it really only happens in very well GM'd games) I see that it's because that GM engaged the things I've indicated I care about already, or want to care about. This is the exact same way that other systems are supposed to work, and if you had a different experience -- ie, you were just told that your character cares about this now -- then you had a bad experience and I'm sorry (in general, for all poor RPG experiences for all systems).

Finally, and again, this isn't an encouragement to try again with a better GM. It's perfectly fine to have gotten a bad taste and not want to spend time or effort to risk just getting that same taste. I can't eat cherries because of an incident in kindergarten. It's entirely psychosomatic -- I enjoy cherries, but only when I don't know they're cherries. Knowing it's a cherry triggers an involuntary gag reflex. It's weird, but I totally get how a bad experience -- however that experience came about -- can throw you off trying a thing ever again.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To me story telling games imply agency over outcome. However, @pemerton's and others gaming philosophy does have a certain principle keeping the players from having agency over outcome - the Czege principle and it's why framing that principle as an absolute whereby one cannot even have a game without it is so important to their conversation. It's the one thing holding back their framework from being collective storytelling.

You've 1) violently mischaracterized @pemerton's approach, and anyone else you've decided to lump into that bin. And 2) shown that you've failed to understand even a simple concept like the Czege principle (which has two requirements, not just the one you mention). It why discussing things with you is so frustrating -- you make no attempt to understand anything that differs from your initial opinion, and then present just absolutely ignorant strawmen in responses. And, yes, this strawman demonstrates an ignorance of a very simple concept (the Czege Principle) and also what must be a studied ignorance if you can even attempt to characterize other's play in the way you do here after all these posts.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You've 1) violently mischaracterized @pemerton's approach, and anyone else you've decided to lump into that bin. And 2) shown that you've failed to understand even a simple concept like the Czege principle (which has two requirements, not just the one you mention). It why discussing things with you is so frustrating -- you make no attempt to understand anything that differs from your initial opinion, and then present just absolutely ignorant strawmen in responses. And, yes, this strawman demonstrates an ignorance of a very simple concept (the Czege Principle) and also what must be a studied ignorance if you can even attempt to characterize other's play in the way you do here after all these posts.

Just interested for clarity here. Is there a landing page for the definitive Czege principle? Looking it up, what I find is "it isn't fun for a single player to control both a character's adversity and the resolution of that adversity".

And then it goes on to say:

There is no single codified version of the Czege Principle. Ron Edwards' post that popularised it worded it as:
creating your own adversity and its resolution is boring
This was very quickly amended by Josh Roby to:
creating and running your own opposition isn't fun
Ben Lehman has also worded it as:
when one person is the author of both the character's adversity and its resolution, play isn't fun
Adam Koebel has stated it as:
satisfaction drops when the player is the author of their own adversity

 

[Bedrockgames]

And, yes, this strawman demonstrates an ignorance of a very simple concept (the Czege Principle) and also what must be a studied ignorance if you can even attempt to characterize other's play in the way you do here after all these posts.

Guys, people in this thread are coming at the game from vastly different points of view and play experience. If you think someone isn't getting a concept as you are using it, I would just clarify it. Because I can tell you honestly there have been posts here, that I just have had a hard time understanding. A lot of these concepts are things that may be very familiar to some posters but not to others. Generally I appreciate clarifications around concepts that are clear

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just interested for clarity here. Is there a landing page for the definitive Czege principle? Looking it up, what I find is "it isn't fun for a single player to control both a character's adversity and the resolution of that adversity".

And then it goes on to say:

Those (except the last) are just saying the same thing in different ways. The last is a slightly different formulation because it doesn't address solving the player created adversity.

However, the claim that there's not single codified version of the Czege Principle is an odd claim in that Czege said what he said, and others have run with it. This is like saying there's not a single codified version of Einstein's Theory of Relativity because lots of other people have paraphrased it.

 

[prabe]

First, thanks for this post. It's a great example of trying to engage the concepts fairly but finding out that you just prefer a different set.

Thanks for the kind reply. Part of what has made me so frustrated in the past, I think, is that it has sometimes felt to me as though there was an inability/unwillingness to believe that someone could play/read/understand games written around these concepts and ... not prefer them. Which can seem (from the point of view of someone who doesn't prefer them) to be something in the direction of elitist--not saying that's the intent, to be clear.

Second, and this is by no means an encouragement to try again -- just an observation, the way you describe these things really says to me that you had a poor experience with them. By that, I mean that they were run or presented poorly. There's absolutely no reason that a game that features more narrative play and that puts at risk things about the character should feel like you're being forced to feel things. That's poor approach by the GM if it was happening. Perhaps the specific game was at fault, although I'm not sure.

The thing is, in many instances what I'm reacting to are the play examples in the rulebooks. I'll be reading a game book and coming to understand the mechanics, and there'll be a play example (which one can think of as "this is how the game should be played/run") and I'll hear an audible snap when I would completely disengage as a player if a GM did that--if a GM did what the rulebook is telling them to do, essentially.

Third, yes, absolutely, traditional GM-centered games can definitely engage the feels for the players. I've had those experiences myself. However, when I look at the times that's happened to me in good GM'd games (and it really only happens in very well GM'd games) I see that it's because that GM engaged the things I've indicated I care about already, or want to care about. This is the exact same way that other systems are supposed to work, and if you had a different experience -- ie, you were just told that your character cares about this now -- then you had a bad experience and I'm sorry (in general, for all poor RPG experiences for all systems).

I'm inclined to think that lots of folks who play TRPGs are shaped as much by bad experiences as by good ones, when it comes to what they want to play--what they think they'll enjoy. I'm working hard as a GM not to be a negative example.

Finally, and again, this isn't an encouragement to try again with a better GM. It's perfectly fine to have gotten a bad taste and not want to spend time or effort to risk just getting that same taste. I can't eat cherries because of an incident in kindergarten. It's entirely psychosomatic -- I enjoy cherries, but only when I don't know they're cherries. Knowing it's a cherry triggers an involuntary gag reflex. It's weird, but I totally get how a bad experience -- however that experience came about -- can throw you off trying a thing ever again.

Mine is peppermint. Specifically (and it's a trial this time of year) candy canes.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Those (except the last) are just saying the same thing in different ways. The last is a slightly different formulation because it doesn't address solving the player created adversity.

However, the claim that there's not single codified version of the Czege Principle is an odd claim in that Czege said what he said, and others have run with it. This is like saying there's not a single codified version of Einstein's Theory of Relativity because lots of other people have paraphrased it.

I don’t know. This was just the first thing I found. Are those paraphrasing accurate in your opinion?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I feel that perception is not an ideal area to examine agency as it very often is passive or reactive.

Well, the whole concept of 'Perception as a skill' is IMHO problematic. That is, if something is worthwhile to interact with in the story, then gating its appearance on a random check, with the result essentially being a 'change of game state' (IE the narrative goes 'left' or 'right' at this point, figuratively) seems like a very odd idea. I mean, its fine to have an indicator that some characters are 'perceptive' and others are not so perceptive. I can then narrate "As you walk down the corridor, Joe (the perceptive one) spots some odd scrape marks on the floor." Now we have spotlighted this aspect of that character, and that's cool. Joe would also be likely to take an action like "I look for something I can make a torch out of in this area." or "I search for another exit from this room." where success is going to produce the desired result.

The problem is, how perception is used in say, 5e, seems unrewarding. "Oh, you go down the corridor, sorry you take 10 points of damage because you can't see the trap." Huh, yeah, wow. Even if I get a check, the results of failure aren't really interesting. I mean, the cool part is interacting with, and overcoming, the trap, not just being told you were too much of a dolt to even see it, please bandage yourself. This is also what leads to the dull vanilla sorts of traps I see these days. Its just a toll bridge, you pay to walk here. No skill is involved at all! No interesting story is generated, at all.

At least in the old old days before thief skills appeared (or at least before they were interpreted like Perception) you looked carefully at everything (it was assumed in the exploration movement rate). There was no such thing as "not finding the trap." You saw SOMETHING. Now, what is it? How does it work? Can I fiddle with it and make it so I'm safe from it? If it was a small mechanical/magical mechanism, THEN 'remove traps' could be engaged to figure it out and disarm it. The exact wording in Greyhawk is: "remove small trap devices (such as poisoned needles)" So, basically it was just a test of dexterity mixed with some very specific experience with this sort of thing. You couldn't just roll dice to disarm a large mechanical/magical trap, and such things were almost invariably 'puzzles' to at least some degree, requiring reasoning power and several steps in order to overcome. The terminology reflected this, as all types of "puzzle, trick, or trap" were lumped together in terms of their role in the game as challenges.

So, I guess it isn't bad to have "Perceptive" be a trait, and it can have a 'degree of ability' associated with it, call it training or whatnot if you will, but it would be intended to flag how the narrative could proceed, not as a 'gate' that your character had to pass through to get a preset 'reward'.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, the whole concept of 'Perception as a skill' is IMHO problematic. That is, if something is worthwhile to interact with in the story, then gating its appearance on a random check, with the result essentially being a 'change of game state' (IE the narrative goes 'left' or 'right' at this point, figuratively) seems like a very odd idea. I mean, its fine to have an indicator that some characters are 'perceptive' and others are not so perceptive. I can then narrate "As you walk down the corridor, Joe (the perceptive one) spots some odd scrape marks on the floor." Now we have spotlighted this aspect of that character, and that's cool. Joe would also be likely to take an action like "I look for something I can make a torch out of in this area." or "I search for another exit from this room." where success is going to produce the desired result.

The problem is, how perception is used in say, 5e, seems unrewarding. "Oh, you go down the corridor, sorry you take 10 points of damage because you can't see the trap." Huh, yeah, wow. Even if I get a check, the results of failure aren't really interesting. I mean, the cool part is interacting with, and overcoming, the trap, not just being told you were too much of a dolt to even see it, please bandage yourself. This is also what leads to the dull vanilla sorts of traps I see these days. Its just a toll bridge, you pay to walk here. No skill is involved at all! No interesting story is generated, at all.

At least in the old old days before thief skills appeared (or at least before they were interpreted like Perception) you looked carefully at everything (it was assumed in the exploration movement rate). There was no such thing as "not finding the trap." You saw SOMETHING. Now, what is it? How does it work? Can I fiddle with it and make it so I'm safe from it? If it was a small mechanical/magical mechanism, THEN 'remove traps' could be engaged to figure it out and disarm it. The exact wording in Greyhawk is: "remove small trap devices (such as poisoned needles)" So, basically it was just a test of dexterity mixed with some very specific experience with this sort of thing. You couldn't just roll dice to disarm a large mechanical/magical trap, and such things were almost invariably 'puzzles' to at least some degree, requiring reasoning power and several steps in order to overcome. The terminology reflected this, as all types of "puzzle, trick, or trap" were lumped together in terms of their role in the game as challenges.

So, I guess it isn't bad to have "Perceptive" be a trait, and it can have a 'degree of ability' associated with it, call it training or whatnot if you will, but it would be intended to flag how the narrative could proceed, not as a 'gate' that your character had to pass through to get a preset 'reward'.

While not directly fun, Traps of the style indicated can be very mood inducing. And while maybe not the best way to arrive at this feeling they can give players a sense that danger is around every corner which often can enhance the experience. They also give players players something that can be particularly interesting to overcome ( though not the you take 10 damage style ones)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If the one PC ends up in effect dragging the others around to do this, then yes.

But it'd be fairly trivial for me as GM, on seeing this, to drop occasional clues and hints about the brother, even if done in off-session emails or whatever, if needed; and eventually work in that some adventure where the party goes up against a cult for other reasons also ties into the lost-brother scenario (maybe the brother's one of the defenders the party are up against).

What I don't want to see is a series of sessions get bogged down by this one PC looking for his brother while everyone else does nothing; and IME that's often how these sort of things end up playing out.

Agreed. My preference, though, is that this as much as possible happen as a side effect of whatever the party as a whole is doing, if that makes sense.

And if five or six PCs have similarly-personal yet disparate goals, trying to weave them together into something that can be more party-based can be a bear....even more so if any of those goals are in direct conflict with each other.

This just gets into the techniques of this sort of play. So, I agree that I would 'work things in' in terms of possibly framing scenes that relate somehow (maybe not exclusively) to the 'brother plot'. Noting that the PLAYER is probably also able to bring this focus, maybe he makes some 'Streetwise' checks here and there which lets the player to either invent or elicit some information (In Dungeon World it would elicit information most likely for example, in BW the player might specify the information I guess).

Obviously no one character's specific plot/agenda can dominate all of play in a game that features parties of PCs. Presumably the most satisfactory techniques are A) providing progress on multiple agendas in one scene, B) relating successive scenes to different agendas, C) linking the agendas of different PCs to each other in some way. I'd note that a LOT of 'narrative games' are fairly niche and just basically focus on a fairly narrow set of things, so most action in the game relates to everyone. In a 'Cthulhu Game' most everything would relate to the cosmic horror/mystery which is unfolding and affecting all the PCs. Any specific agendas are somewhat secondary in this kind of milieu and would probably just come up as elements of various scenes. You are searching for your brother, at some point you find his tattered journal. Later his distorted face appears on the surface of the horrible monster, along with all its other victim's visages, yup, monsters suck!