A Question Of Agency?

[Crimson Longinus]

Sorry, but this is utterly confused. How on Earth can putting the entire decision process into the GM's hands generate more agency than a die roll that the player is aware of, can plan for, and can call for?

Because in such situation the every nuance of how you do it can matter, instead of being just binary do you want to roll or not. Social situation are another common example of situations where this matters.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Someone either said or strongly implied that the characterization and personality of one's character, and things done as a result of that, are either not agency or not enough agency (I forget which); and either that same person or someone else ran with this and got to - the term used was 'play-acting', I think - isn't a valid part of the game, as that person defined 'game'.

Needless to say, this was - and is - being challenged.

How is it being challenged?

Is there a RPG that you can site that does not allow a player to give characterization and personality to their character?

I don't think that this was dismissed as meaningless to the experience of the game.....indeed, many people may play solely for this purpose. But is it something that some games allow and some do not? Or is it simply safe to accept this as a baseline of playing a RPG?

It's not that it isn't a valid part of the game.....it's that it is not a necessary part of the game as it relates to agency. As was stated, if I'm playing in an old school dungeon crawl Gygaxian game, and I never once emote for my character or speak in character or describe my character's emotional state or any of that, I nevertheless have agency to direct my PC through the game, and choose my actions accordingly, treating my PC entirely as a pawn.

The freedom to craft a personality and to express it is present in every RPG, and so is not a meaningful measure of player agency.

 

[Aldarc]

I can absolutely understand your preference, even if I don't entirely share it. I do think that the times when some kind of emotional state is imposed on a PC are meant to emulate the kind of response you describe above as a player. It's not about mind control so much as evoking a feeling.

Now, I don't want to assign a motive to this, but I would expect that at least a part of this response is about the idea of "no one else controls my PC but me" which seems so ingrained as to be absolutely assumed by many in the discussion.

Yeah, I think these emotion/passion mechanics are an extension of the simple idea that your character can be mechanically affected by the fiction, albeit extended to their internal states. The mechanical weight is there so players can't just ignore this emotional state, particularly if there was a conflict of interest between the "emotional state" roleplaying and the "Play to Win" roleplaying decision.

Absolutely not, this sort of thing is the best! But I use this as stepping point to try to better explain my dislike of certain sort of personality mechanics. Can you feel a feeling on command? Some people genuinely can, but I most definitely can't. The feelings my character feels are result of my mental model of them interacting with the situation and me immersing to that. So if that process produces one feeling but the mechanics say the character should feel something else then that's jarring and I can't immerse to that.

But isn't that acting and roleplaying? This is what actors do when they immerse themselves into a character. Sometimes the fictional situation of the character an actor plays goes in a different way than the actor themselves may feel in that moment, but the skilled actor's job is to embrace the change and adapt their performance accordingly.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Allow me to disagree: the "decoupled RP" is the game, in those moments.

If you wish to define 'the game' as only being those bits where mechanics are involved, that's up to you; but I don't hold with that definition. To me the game is everything that goes on in-character, whether rules-bound or not, along with the mechanical things the rules make us do at the table.

Will they?

I can think of many a time when those 'rules-free' sessions ended up with at least one PC dead (usually courtesy of some cursed treausry item or other). 'Being back next week' is not guaranteed.

That said, yes; sometimes the best (or worst) of these do approach soap opera in a way, with all the attendant affairs of the heart and so forth. I think it does the game a great discourtesy not to allow these the time to play out.

I've never heard of any RPG ever played where mechanics weren't involved when PC survival was at stake. I mean, sure, there is the apocryphal "rocks fall on your head, you're dead." but I hardly think you're defending that as a paradigm of play...

And I never said it is impossible or categorically unwelcome to play out whatever you want by RP. My own rules that I use for "D&D-like play" (based loosely on 4e) have 'interlude' as a mode of play. ANYTHING can happen in one that isn't 'conflict germane to the players' without any dice or any other restriction whatsoever, it is just free 'spiel'. If some sort of tension arises in that process I would expect it would virtually have to be about some conflict that someone cares enough about to toss dice over, and then play switches modes to 'challenge'. I guess maybe there's some 'grey area' that might exist? I haven't run into that problem. Its hard to see where the GM wouldn't just let the player decide what color grandma's house is if that's an element of free RP, why choose that as a point of issue? In fact HoML doesn't really have a defined way of resolving such a thing, it is just basically assumed that its an unimportant detail, set dressing. Frankly I'd just go with the "whomever states it first wins" kind of resolution if it ever came up...

 

[prabe]

I think this is a really interesting point.

When this happens, and the DM evokes some kind of emotional response from you that hadn't been there a moment before, do you feel like you've lost control of yourself? Do you feel like something has been imposed on you?

Honestly, no more than when some piece of narrative art moves me to some feeling or another. Sometimes it feels more manipulative than others, in either case.

I can absolutely understand your preference, even if I don't entirely share it. I do think that the times when some kind of emotional state is imposed on a PC are meant to emulate the kind of response you describe above as a player. It's not about mind control so much as evoking a feeling.

Now, I don't want to assign a motive to this, but I would expect that at least a part of this response is about the idea of "no one else controls my PC but me" which seems so ingrained as to be absolutely assumed by many in the discussion.

I think part of it is that the character is me in the game, and telling me, e.g., you (character) have an uncontrollable passion for Guenevere when I (player) don't generates ... I'll stick with dissonance; and I'll stick with that dissonance feeling like a lack of agency, even if I'm willing to concede that technically (the best kind of correct) it isn't. Hope I'm being clear.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No one has said that, what are you even talking about?

The idea that characterization is an expression of agency, and yet characterization can happen in a railroad just as simply as it can in any other RPG.

If adding such characterization is a form of agency, it's not one that means a whole lot if it can happen in a game that would be described as a railroad.

 

[Imaro]

I feel you're eliding some very important bits -- in the above, you're assuming that the GM is using their discretion in a specific manner which isn't actually required. I'll agree it's good GMing, but that doesn't change that when looking at how the game actually functions, all of the above is up to the GM. The GM determines if there's auto-success, auto-failure, or uncertainty. If uncertain, the GM calls for the check and sets all particulars for that check. Once the check is made, the GM has sole authority to narrate the result, and is not actually restricted in doing so except possibly by the social contract at the table.

I'm assuming the GM is following the rules and advice in the DMG...which I noted below what you quoted. I don't think I'm arguing against the DM deciding success, auto-failure or uncertainty. Of course I don't find that decision point any different then say a game like BitD where you only ask a player to roll if something is at stake otherwise it is an automatic success or failure.

Once the check is made in a D&D game, and we are assuming a non-disingenuous GM, the result of said would determine success or failure which in itself would restrict the GM's narration.

If you present a play example only from a specific adjudication, then you're missing how else it can work. And I utterly disagree that a GM choosing to not let characters detect or interact with traps via the fiction is ignoring DMG advice at all -- the game explicitly says all of this is up to the GM's judgement and gives the GM explicit authority to determine that a given course of action fails outright. Should they do this? Different question, and here I'll agree with most of what you post -- it's good advice.

It also states what is common and expected (thus advice not law)... so I disagree that a DM is following the advice given if she disregards or goes against what is suggested... even if it is within her rights to do so.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In Diplomacy I'd let that go all day long! If players aren't careful enough with their orders to a) check them on handing them in and b) keep close watch on them (as in have them physically in hand!) between writing them out and handing them in, I have no sympathy whatsoever.

In a real war, it'd be the same as if enemy spies intercepted orders heading out to the field and replaced them with different.

Hehe, yeah, I'm with you on that too. I thought it was a slick move. I think the concern was just more about what kind of shenanigans they were willing to have going on during the con than anything else. Some people felt it was 'against the rules' because the rules do talk about players turning in their orders. I think it was more of an 'avoid controversy' decision than a 'what is cool' decision. I still dream of winning the final round as Italy, that would pretty much establish one as the uttermost king of Diplomacy for all time...

 

[prabe]

I think we've discussed this, and it's hard to glean play from examples if you're not already in the mindset. Honestly, from experience, it's really hard to quickly present all of the things that go into a play experience such that the zeitgeist is grasped.

I agree we've discussed this. I think it's arguable that the presentation of some of these games is less-than-ideal if the rules (including play examples) don't convey how play works.

 

[Imaro]

The idea that characterization is an expression of agency, and yet characterization can happen in a railroad just as simply as it can in any other RPG.

If adding such characterization is a form of agency, it's not one that means a whole lot if it can happen in a game that would be described as a railroad.

You're assuming the only thing that matters is the ending as opposed to the path that leads you there. In other words even if the campaign's ending is set, the road to it isn't necessarily set in stone and can be changed by something as simple as characterization.