A Question Of Agency?

[prabe]

I could imagine a GM-less Cthulhu game, for example. We already know that in the end the PCs are going mad/getting eaten by shoggoths/becoming haunted by Hounds of Tindalos/etc. I think it would be pretty easy to generate scenarios that could be played through without a GM, and most of the game would revolve around A) which of the mythos tropes you encounter and the fun of describing them, and B) which of the above fates actually catches up with any given character.

That sounds alarmingly like Fantasy Flight's "Arkham Horror" and related games (co-op board games), though those have ways for the players to actually win.

Also, I find them less enjoyable the more they try to play like TRPGs (a feeling I also have about Gloomhaven).

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

So there's a conflict between what you want the character to feel and what the character may actually feel? I don't quite follow how this would break immersion.

Certainly the character, in the fictional world, would not want to feel fear (let's say), right? They feel it despite not wanting to feel it. Which would by kind of in line with how the player feels, right?

I mean, ultimately, you as a player like what you like and don't what you don't, so I get it, but I'm just trying to follow your description.

 

[prabe]

The thrust of my post is not convincing you to like Fate. It's about TTRPG writing.

Sorry. My point was more than understanding a game and liking it are two different things, and I was talking about Fate because I think I understand it better than games I haven't played.

 

[Imaro]

Again, I beg to disagree. As evidence, I'll point to the published adventures, which call for naked perception checks to detect traps in areas.

I don't think you're disagreeing with me. I think your citing more examples of user error vs system issues...not sure what that proves. If I can show people running BitD or Fate incorrectly, does that really say anything about those systems?

 

[Aldarc]

I don't really see how this follows. There's no element of that principle which talks about players vs GMs. All that is required here for collective storytelling is a split of responsibility between whomever poses a challenge and whomever it is aimed at/resolves it. Those could both be players. PvP for example is perfectly feasible in accordance with Czege.

I think there are other issues with GM-less games. They can be, and have been, resolved in various ways I guess. I've not really explored this type of play myself, but I'm guessing that what @aramis erak is saying gives us some pointers. We could potentially distribute parts of the BW GM role amongst players, but then that would kind of imply a certain divergence of their aims would be needed! @pemerton also addressed the 'supervenient role' of 'big picture' that would need to be addressed as well. My guess is that GM-less games are mostly restricted to less open-ended types of scenarios where the logic of the situation largely drives overall play and pacing. I could imagine a GM-less Cthulhu game, for example. We already know that in the end the PCs are going mad/getting eaten by shoggoths/becoming haunted by Hounds of Tindalos/etc. I think it would be pretty easy to generate scenarios that could be played through without a GM, and most of the game would revolve around A) which of the mythos tropes you encounter and the fun of describing them, and B) which of the above fates actually catches up with any given character.

If you are curious, the base game of Ironsworn is free on DriveThruRPG. It's essentially a modified PbtA Engine.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Again the assumption is that the scene events happen the same way... that's the incorrect assumption.

If I play my character as an extremely pious follower of the Moon goddess when interacting with the chieftain of the Moon Tribe Drow and the adventure has it noted that a character who shows reverence for the Moon goddess may be able to convince the chieftain to help him by providing allied warriors while an arrogant one will gain his ire and he will try to hinder him by locking him up... those are two different ways the scene events can take place depending on characterization.

Again, all your doing here is engaging with the prepared text -- you've selected the right trait to trigger a turn to a different page in the book. Did you do this purposefully? Not really, it's just the GM providing a blind benefit because it interests the GM or was provided to them via the prepared text. This isn't a meaningful difference in the trajectory of play, and it most certainly doesn't involve player agency -- it's entirely up to the GM to initiate this or even consider it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think you're disagreeing with me. I think your citing more examples of user error vs system issues...not sure what that proves. If I can show people running BitD or Fate incorrectly, does that really say anything about those systems?

You're saying that the officially published adventures are doing it wrong, consistently so? I mean, while I'm highly sympathetic to that idea, I haven't exactly seen much (if any) criticism that the published adventures aren't following the guidance you're claiming here. That's a steep hill to climb to claim that the adventures are examples of user error that consistently.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

No, not at all! The path matters, for sure. My point in this is that we can look at two games after the fact, one of which is an absolute railroad and the other consisted of the GM abdicating things on the fly and all participants playing to find out what happens.

In both of those games, the players may be absolutely free to add characterization and a sense of backstory and personality to their characters. Would you agree that this is true?

If so, then isn't it clear that it is not just the construction and expression of a fictional personality for a PC that constitutes player agency? Doesn't it mean that those things (all things, really) have to actually matter to the outcome of play?

Doesn't whether the PC's personality and expression change the game state really determine that? In a game where charming someone vs intimidating someone vs appealing to their intellect are differentiated in how they affect NPC's ones personality and expression could have very meaningful effects on agency and choice.

It's possible, sure. But it is not essential to agency. Meaning, that it can happen without changing the game state, right?

This is why declaring that the ability for a player to breath life into their PCs through personality and characterization is an indicator of agency is false.

 

[Imaro]

Again, all your doing here is engaging with the prepared text -- you've selected the right trait to trigger a turn to a different page in the book. Did you do this purposefully? Not really, it's just the GM providing a blind benefit because it interests the GM or was provided to them via the prepared text. This isn't a meaningful difference in the trajectory of play, and it most certainly doesn't involve player agency -- it's entirely up to the GM to initiate this or even consider it.

I'm not constructing an entire scenario here just a quick example so you may need to extrapolate certain things... but yes it would probably be possible to learn the Moon tribe worships... surprise, surprise... the Moon goddess and thus I make the choice to play up my piety.

I made the choice to play my character with those characteristics vs others which had a meaningful effect on play... whether the results are pre-scripted or not shouldn't matter as long as what I did caused a game state change through the choice I made.

 

[Aldarc]

Sorry. My point was more than understanding a game and liking it are two different things, and I was talking about Fate because I think I understand it better than games I haven't played.

No need to apologize. I appreciate your candor in these discussions, and I agree. And sometimes these opinions regarding games can change over time. For example, my own "relationship" with the Cypher System has been somewhat on the decline. I think part of that decline rests in a growing sense that there is a disconnect between how Monte Cook imagines/sells the system and what it actually does well.