A Question Of Agency?

[pemerton]

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?

I have not read the BitD rulebook. I know that the system was, in a general sense, inspired by Apocalypse World. And John Harper has posted many blogs about AW - I linked to one just upthread in which he discusses consequences.

So I'm going to guess that the "telegraphing" in BitD works very much as it does in AW. And AW at least has pages of discussion of principle and illustration of them being used in play to address this point.

The most basic of those principles is that hard moves build on soft moves.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

My reason for spelling out this example is to make the point that there is a long history in RPGing of expecting players to be prepared to play characters whose mental lives differ from their own.

Yes, and? It is basically the point of roleplaying.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, and? It is basically the point of roleplaying.

Well, upthread some posters seemed to be saying that a GM-established consequence that my PC is in love with the Queen was a burden or limitation on roleplaying.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Right. So you're just making stuff up. This is why @chaochou and I are finding it hard to take your claims seriously.

I have actually posted, multiple times in this thread, that it did not affect the players portrayal of his PC. And I was there.

If you do a search using the site Search function on "pemerton" as poster and "Force of Will" as keyword you'll be able to find the relevant posts in this thread and read them.

I read it (also glanced the BW rulebook) and I still do not understand how these beliefs wouldn't affect how the PC is portrayed. They seem to be foundational values of the character, so it would be pretty terrible roleplaying if they wouldn't show in the roleplay in any way.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, upthread some posters seemed to be saying that a GM-established consequence that my PC is in love with the Queen was a burden or limitation on roleplaying.

Yes it is. And if I chose this as my character's emotional state myself it wouldn't. Like if I choose what my character does I have agency but if the GM chooses what my character does I have way less. Pretty basic, right?

 

[pemerton]

Yes it is. And if I chose this as my character's emotional state myself it wouldn't. Like if I choose what my character does I have agency but if the GM chooses what my character does I have way less. Pretty basic, right?

In Classic Traveller I don't get to choose my PC's INT or EDU. It is all determined randomly, via initial stat generation and then the "lifepath" system.

That was the point of my post not far upthread, which you seemed to find unremarkable.

Is there a difference between I (as my PC) am not very bright and I (as my PC) am in love with the Queen that I'm missing?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In Classic Traveller I don't get to choose my PC's INT or EDU. It is all determined randomly, via initial stat generation and then the "lifepath" system.

How unfortunate. I definitely wouldn't like that, I hate random character generation. Though it is still not quite the same thing than my issue with the 'impose love' thing, albeit not completely unrelated either.

Is there a difference between I (as my PC) am not very bright and I (as my PC) am in love with the Queen that I'm missing?

In this specific instance it is how we arrived to that situation and when.

Presumably the character was randomly generated some time before the game, and I've had plenty of time to form my mental image of that character to make it work in my head (and if I couldn't, I hopefully would have an option to say, 'no, this is not the sort of character I want to play.') But as least as the 'impose love' scenario was originally described, it was happening during the game, and if that is not working for me at that moment, then that's a problem, I don't have several days there to get my mind in the right place. Though what you said earlier about the GM 'selling' the idea applies. It is perfectly possible that the GM could manage to present the situation so that it would not be jarring (though unless they're psychic, far from guaranteed.) But if they could do that, then the mechanic was unnecessary in the first place.

Furthermore, character creation and actual play are generally treated as separate things. Even if I would accept the lack of agency in character generation and be OK with creating a random character, it doesn't mean I would accept lack of agency over my character in the actual play.

 

[Campbell]

So I think social expectations are often disregarded in our analysis of play where in actual play they are an overwhelming part of play (even if we do not speak on them). What we can expect from the people we play with and when it is socially acceptable to call someone else out on their own play are fundamental.

For me personally a big part of what games like Exalted 2e, Masks and Monsterhearts offer is social permission to play out those more emotionally tumultuous scenes. It creates a social currency that would otherwise not be there. Likewise the presence of character specific carrots and sticks in moves like Go Aggro and Seduce or Manipulate in Apocalypse World helps to create a social environment where we can more safely have these tense exchanges between player characters. It gives us permission to act in ways that go against our encultured sense of how tabletop RPGs are played.

 

[chaochou]

You all tell me about the game. I analyze what you are telling me as if it was true. Unless you are intentionally misleading or doing such a poor job of explaining it to me then it’s not ignorance. You may disagree with my analysis, but that’s not really ignorance is it?

No, you don’t analyze it as if it were true. You gainsay what you are told. Big difference.The moment you are told nothing your empty posturing is revealed.

So again, show us from examples of your own play the claims you are making with regard agency in Monsterhearts or Burning Wheel. Your choice.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Nope it's like checking to see if an ancient sword of alien make found in an illithid lair is magical and because my roll to see if it's magical failed... it's actually sentient and reaches out with magical psychic powers and feeds on my mind... Yeah I guess being in an illithid lair and it being of alien make COULD foreshadow a failed inspection will lead to being mind drained by a sentient sword.... I guess... if you say so...

Isn't this all pretty much like a D&D game where the PCs hear there's a ravine filled with monster-infested caves. They go there, and they enter the first cave, and there are, wait for it.... MONSTERS! Not only that, the monsters are at least mildly aggressive and fairly dangerous to the level 1 PCs. Nobody could complain about this, and I think the same is true for this BitD scenario (never played myself, but it sounds pretty genre appropriate, etc.).

I mean, the BitD example illustrates a lot more than just this, because the B2 example above is stock, the PCs get to choose exactly one main activity, going to the Caves of Chaos and fighting monsters. The type, number, motives, etc. of said monsters, and the treasure they possess is totally defined by the B2 module (or the DM could alter it, then the DM). Nothing in the PCs backstory, personalities, etc. is going to alter that one bit. In the BitD example the player drove the whole thing. It was about what he wanted it to be about (within the limits of genre and fiction).