A Question Of Agency?

[Ovinomancer]

But the adventure is responding... again whether pre-scripted or not it is a specific response to my actions. And my choice is whether I do or don't play that piety up or rather I go in a different direction with my characterization which may or may not have different results. As long as there is a reasonable way for me to determine the likely effect my characterization will have beforehand, I would argue that is choice with agency... and if we are using D&D as an example insight would be my go to skill for that.

I find it hard to say that the prescripted event is "responding" to anything -- it was drafted before you even though to make the character.

It seems you are looking at a specific type of agency (non-scripted results perhaps). I on the other hand accept that agency can exist even if there is pre-determined results for the exertion of said agency.

There's only player agency -- there's aren't "types" of player agency. The only question is "can the player make a meaningful choice?" Trying to subdivide this into categories of imaginary things the player gets to make choices about is obfuscation of the issue. Here, you can't make a meaningful choice because, at the time you chose it, there was no information it would be valuable nor was there any way you could make it valuable. It's only a happy accident that makes it valuable in your example. Accidental agency is an oxymoron.

EDIT: I am curious when dealing with non-scripted results where the player can narrate success but not failure how does the player measure risk vs reward in order to make a meaningful choice? Especially if the GM is creating the failure state on the fly...

This has been discussed a good bit in this thread -- resources have been linked, discussions, etc. The way risk and reward are presented has been, often, laid out with detail in this thread. The way the player measures risk and reward varies from system to system -- it's not universal. In PbtA games, the move and the character's advancement provides both -- you can see the likelihood of each outcome and understand what each will do. In Blades, there's a pre-roll negotiation on Position (risk) and Effect (reward) prior to the roll, and the player has total freedom to select actions, so they have control over the likelihood of success with this selection. The Burning Wheel method was outlined recently in this thread. Key to all of these is that the GM isn't unbound on failure states -- he's as bound by current fiction and relevance as the players are in narrating success -- you can't just do anything you want.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The games I've seen, there's some mechanical way for the GM to inflict this as damage, because these mental facets of your character (trying really hard to avoid specific game terms) can be staked in tests. This isn't wildly unlike in 5E, the results for failing a Wis save after an hour within a mile (?) of a demon lord, where you can be forced to add a Flaw to your character sheet. The closest I've seen to the kind of thing you're talking about are games that have as part of chargen a requirement that you have mechanical ties to other PCs on your character sheet, and/or a requirement that you have something like the Trouble Aspect later versions of Fate want.

EDIT: Kinda ninja'd by @Ovinomancer

I'd argue that having to choose a Trouble is part of agreeing to play the system -- it's not controlled by the GM at all. I can see disliking having to do so -- if you want heroic fantasy or beer-and-pretzels door kicking, enforceable flaws can be jarring to the concept of play. I wouldn't recommend playing Blades in the Dark or FATE for either, really, as both look to emulate different genres. It's kinda like saying don't play Call of Cthulhu if you're looking for Mission Impossible play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't really disagree with this and the old school trap solving is a good example of the sort of situation where GM adjudication might result the player having more agency than just handling the whole thing via a roll.

Well, 'old school' and 'story teller GM' (1e and 2e respectively) both feature an omnipotent GM with players restricted to describing what their PCs want to accomplish. Either of these might work either way, potentially, though 2e is less likely to. In some sense I think that agency isn't that much at issue in the sense that you could 'disarm a trap' in any of these systems regardless, but in terms of spotting one, yeah, OSR/1e grants more agency, since how you describe going down the corridor should tell the GM if you found a trap or not, and this is a relatively informed decision (IE given that traps are pretty prevalent in dungeons).

 

[prabe]

I'd argue that having to choose a Trouble is part of agreeing to play the system -- it's not controlled by the GM at all. I can see disliking having to do so -- if you want heroic fantasy or beer-and-pretzels door kicking, enforceable flaws can be jarring to the concept of play. I wouldn't recommend playing Blades in the Dark or FATE for either, really, as both look to emulate different genres. It's kinda like saying don't play Call of Cthulhu if you're looking for Mission Impossible play.

Yeah. It was a reach, and I think you're right about my preference that my TRPGs be heroic clashing with enforceable flaws (though ones with a random chance of mattering don't seem to bother me as much for some reason).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think it's odd at all. As long as one isn't creating a single point of access to progress around it along with making it uncertain whether any character will actually notice it... it actually serves quite well as a reward for character/build choices. In D&D 5e your score is your indicator, the only difference I see between what you are stating in your post and what D&D provides is that it's not an off/on indicator but instead an indicator with gradations. The DM always has the option of deciding no check is necessary or that a characters skill is high enough that there is no uncertainty. A roll only comes into play if there is uncertainty in whether Joe would notice something... Many like that uncertainty, that feeling of chance affecting the game world, something which an on/off indicator with set results just doesn't provide.

But now imagine a dungeon full of traps, like Raiders first sequence. Using this technique won't really make that very exciting. Your character progresses through the scene randomly setting off or not setting off the different traps depending on what the check value is to find any given one (he may find all, some, or none). In fact in the scene Indy FINDS every single trap. The process you describe would IMHO just mean you'd take 'X damage' (maybe none if you can see/disarm/avoid all of them) on the way in and out. I guess the 'boulder trap', if it triggers, would still be interesting, the rest less so IMHO.

I'm not sure your assumption about how Perception is used with traps in 5e is accurate, at least if one is following the advice and rules in the DMG. The basic structure of trap interacion as laid out in the DMG is...
1. Detect it (Perception check/Passive Perception/Any action that clearly reveals the traps presence) NOTE: Usually some element of a trap is visible to careful inspection
2. Understand it (through skill check or description)
3. Disarm/Foil it (skill check or improvised actions)

The DMG goes on to discuss different Danger levels of traps (Setback/Dangerous/Deadly) and how to set them. As well as complex traps (They have an initiative, a turn, 1 or more actions and creates a dynamic challenge).

If a DM is choosing not to let characters detect or interact with traps via fiction well they are ignoring the DMG advice and system on traps. that's a failure of application of the system not a failure in the system itself.

I'm not sure how what I described diverges from this. You either detect the trap, or else you will surely set it off, right? I assume a Perception Check is the gate for active searching to be successful. I suppose there is room for the party to devise some specific approaches, assuming the GM uses that option.

I think perhaps you are assuming how traps work as opposed to having actually read the section in the DMG on them in 5e as almost everything you are stating in the above section of your post is a part of discovering and disabling traps in 5e. Again if a particular DM chooses to ignore the rules and advice well that's on the DM not the rules system.

I think the rules CAN BE exactly as I've described. This is not going against them AFAIK. In fact I've been through at least 2 5e modules, and that was exactly how they were handled, a check to determine if you saw the trap, and then if you did you got a check to see if you disarmed it. Even if the character picks a specific action related to the fiction describing the trap, a role was called for.

Part of the problem here is that 'the 5e rules' is not a thing. At least not in this regard. Half of 5e's 'rules' are too vague to say there 'is a process/rule' and a LOT of them are optional, including everything to do with skills and checks! Technically you could run a subset of 5e, just the most core non-optional rules, that would handle it essentially the same as OSR. I'm not exactly sure how a thief would work in that configuration, so I don't know if they would still invoke the skill system or some other mechanism to adjudicate 'thief abilities'. If it is the current system, then at least some of what I described is still accurate (and similar to how many people interpreted F&RT even in AD&D even if that was incorrect strictly speaking).

So, yeah, maybe, depending on what you call '5e rules' you could be partly correct, but I think my analysis still largely stands and doesn't involve some gross misrepresentation of the game. It certainly DOES represent how a lot of D&D has been played, and how many modules seem to think it is played.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

I would answer this by saying that a basic use of 5e, with skills, simply gives the player a couple of chances to roll dice, at most. That is, maybe a perception check, and then maybe an Investigate check to understand what he's looking at, and perhaps a Thieves Tools check to actually disarm. While the GM could certainly give more detail and accept 'ad hoc' solutions additionally, this is the most limited in the sense of the player having license (or at least need) to describe specific courses of action vs fairly generic "I use my skill."

If the whole process is ENTIRELY gated by fiction and description, at least up to the point where the PC's deftness or highly detailed experience with specific things (small clockwork devices for example) then the player has more freedom to describe what he's doing in detail, react to descriptions of what happens/is found, etc.

HOWEVER, this again does bear back on the 'level of detail' discussion from earlier. The 'density of agenda' deployed in respect to the trap is obviously greater. This is good in terms of a narrative where we desire 'cool traps' and thus want to focus on that. Should the desire be to go focus on something else, then we would expect equal amounts of agency to accrue to that end instead.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I see your point. Agency has to do with the type of process, not the specific content of a given fiction. Still, it isn't wrong to say that a detailed narrative trap sequence is more empowering to the player WRT that sequence.

 

[Lanefan]

In what RPG can that "play-acting" not take place?

It's a baseline.

Yet we're being told by some that said baseline - which in itself incorporates a decent amount of agency given a competent GM - holds no real agency at all.

 

[Imaro]

I find it hard to say that the prescripted event is "responding" to anything -- it was drafted before you even though to make the character.

Doesn't matter if you personally find it hard to say...it gives a pre-scripted response to my input.

There's only player agency -- there's aren't "types" of player agency. The only question is "can the player make a meaningful choice?" Trying to subdivide this into categories of imaginary things the player gets to make choices about is obfuscation of the issue. Here, you can't make a meaningful choice because, at the time you chose it, there was no information it would be valuable nor was there any way you could make it valuable. It's only a happy accident that makes it valuable in your example. Accidental agency is an oxymoron.

Yes you expressed how you felt about there only being one type of agency earlier in the thread and yet here we are with meaningful choice that can be acted upon and because it has a pre-scripted response dependent upon the action chosen you seem to be claiming it's not "real" agency. I want to avoid going to internet definitions and yet the actual definition of agency makes no distinction in pre-scripted vs. freeform. That is wholly a differentiator that you prefer so either you have to accept that pre-scripted results have no bearing on forms of agency or you are by your own admission differentiating types of agency... which is it?

The meaningful choice is to play up (leverage) or not play up (not leverage or leverage something else) the characterization of piety to the Moon goddess. Its a meaningful choice because it changes the game state and choosing to leverage another aspect of your characters personality or characterization could change it in a different way. Again I see inklings of preference in your reply. the fact that you are not aware of whether agency will be available through a choice at some future nebulous time has no bearing on the fact that in the moment we are speaking to in the example above agency and meaningful choice are exhibited through characterization and leveraging of said characteristics in the fictional space.

This has been discussed a good bit in this thread -- resources have been linked, discussions, etc. The way risk and reward are presented has been, often, laid out with detail in this thread. The way the player measures risk and reward varies from system to system -- it's not universal. In PbtA games, the move and the character's advancement provides both -- you can see the likelihood of each outcome and understand what each will do. In Blades, there's a pre-roll negotiation on Position (risk) and Effect (reward) prior to the roll, and the player has total freedom to select actions, so they have control over the likelihood of success with this selection. The Burning Wheel method was outlined recently in this thread. Key to all of these is that the GM isn't unbound on failure states -- he's as bound by current fiction and relevance as the players are in narrating success -- you can't just do anything you want.

Let's look at BitD for a moment since I have played it and am familiar with it to a limited degree... IMO the most important thing is that the GM has final say in whether a die roll is required, setting Position(how risky a players action is to pull off), Effect (How effective a given action will be to resolve a specific circumstance) and Consequences (The dangers that arise in a specific circumstance).

The player has final say over Which actions are reasonable as a solution to a problem & What actions generated experience for them.

First let me say I don't find this radically different in responsibility assignment from a trad game. The player decides the action they are taking a in a situation and the GM is still deciding if a roll needs to be made, how difficult the roll will be to make, how effective the roll will be if it succeeds and what the consequences are for a failed roll. Are there more gradations than D&D sure but is the general structure on that different not really IMO. The biggest difference is BitD alklows the player to decide xp generation and it doesn't want you to pre-plan things. Which does garner some confusion in me around your differentiation in agency in something like D&D vs BitD. The GM is deciding the same things the only difference is whether he has the leeway to make them up on the fly or pre-plan.

All that aside though, if the BitD GM is making this all up on the fly dependent on the roll at the time... how does he telegraph to the players what the consequences of a failed roll will be before they choose to go for it? Yes there are some restrictions on the GM's choice but they are broad enough that there still could be numerous consequences arising from the same action dependent upon what the player rolls. Is this what playing to find out means because if so it seems one's ability to make a meaningful choice is reduced since one cannot know the consequences for ones actions until the roll is made.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm frankly surprised that you, @FrogReaver and @Lanefan assert that a campaign can be a total railroad and yet players have all the agency that is appropriate - ie the ability to characterise their PCs, say stuff in character, and declare actions.

Even a campaign that's a total railroad still contains that - to use your term - baseline level of agency; and for some players that's enough.

Personally, I greatly prefer a situation where that baseline is augmented by the players-as-PCs also having the agency to decide what to do/where to go within the setting, i.e. fewer or even no rails; but this can vary situationally even within the same campaign. For example in the game I play in we have four (count 'em!) different parties on the hop; and without much pre-planning on anyone's part all four of them have just come in form the field at the same time and to the same home base*. So now we, as a great big collective of characters, get to decide who does what next, and in what groups; and as at least a dozen of those characters have individual goals they want to pursue in the meantime I suspect the next several sessions at least are going to consist of what would often be thought of as downtime activity.

* - and if having that many disparate PCs all in one place - some of whom actively dislike each other - ain't a recipe for fireworks, nothing is!

That doesn't seem like a very useful way of approaching the idea of agency. And it seems to affirm and even encourage an approach to RPGing where the function of the GM and his/her "plot" is to provide a stage or setting for the players to perform their PCs in ways that are largely detached from that "plot".

Either I'm missing something, or you're saying something I agree with: the GM provides the setting and the players then do what they will with it.

In one other active thread (the "last session" thread) we see a GM complaining about the player in Curse of Strahd who won't just go up to the castle and fight Strahd even though everything points in that direction. In another active thread we have the OP of this thread asking about whether or not the GM should allow an Elf into his/her GoT-inspired campaign. To me, these all seem to be manifestations of the approach you are affirming.

I'm fine with the first of these - if the PC doesn't want to fight Strahd it's 100% the PC's choice to make; and let the in-game consequences of that decision fall where they may. (I haven't been following that thread so if there's further nuances I'm unaware of such)

As for the second: given that a) without a GM there isn't a game and b) IMO things like "no Elves" are entirely the GM's call to make, I'm largely on the GM's side on that one.

 

[Lanefan]

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).

OK, so different approaches, same overall result. Cool.

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 agree that's the most satisfactory outcome. It can also be near impossible to pull off, particularly if the PCs' agendae are conflicted. For example, in the game I play in one of my PCs has had as her goal since forever to either become Empress of [Rome] or die trying. I somewhat suspect another PC has over time quietly developed the same goal, either for herself or one of her close relatives. Sooner or later those goals are going to come into direct conflict - we can't both be Empress - and that's gonna be fun.

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.

This makes a difference, for sure. My background is big long sprawling campaigns with lots of PCs (and some players) coming and going and focus on any given aspect also coming and going.