A Question Of Agency?

[Imaro]

Well, I think the consequences of messing with a haunted painting were pretty predictable. I agree, I don't know what the EXACT fictional details are likely to be, never having read BitD. Still, it seemed pretty genre appropriate. I am also guessing the mechanical implications of the fallout from that were in line with what might have been gained (again, kind of guessing, but it seems likely).

So, I think the answer to the second question is that the player could have chosen other sorts of actions. He could have looted some stuff from the place, or I dunno, something. He picked his battle. The fiction could very well have emerged from some D&D-esque type of process, but this type of thing emerges EVERY TIME from something like BitD. It is just as likely the D&D result would have been, "nothing of interest here at all, the painting is worth 10gp." That sort of result might happen in BitD also if the player didn't engage any mechanics, but in that case the game is simply not designed to focus on something that uninteresting. Once you start rolling dice in a game like BitD, stuff gonna happen!

Well that could also happen if the GM in BitD decides no roll is necessary so again whether it's decided on the fly or pre-planned... it's still a GM/DM call insofar as agency is concerned.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm familiar with the setting I've played BitD a couple of years ago as a one shot. You right here have given 3 different possibilities... now let's add to that it could have been guards in the estate that walked in on the character as he was trying to attune to the portrait, perhaps attuning to the portrait momentarily sent a signal for other ghosts out from the estate and they would be arriving in the next scene, perhaps the spirit in the portrait makes the master aware of intruders... or maybe.... well my point is I see a ton of possibilities in that set up and not all of them revolve around poltergeist manifestation, possession or feeding on the essence of the attune-ey.

I don’t disagree. There are other possibilities that he could have gone with but from the excerpt, this was best practices GMing.

He “asked questions and used the answers” and “followed the lead of the player.” The player clearly signaled what they wanted out of this conflict. It’s actually a very good example of the “agency intangibles” that exist in a game like Blades (by a GM doing their job per the system’s principles).

 

[prabe]

Can you describe what you mean by “helpless” here? Are you talking about mechanically (because there are a host of procedures and player-side resources that can be brought to bear in this situation - both pre and post Complication - to mitigate the fallout)? Are you mate saying that you feel like the PC was working from an information deficit in their decision-point? Something else?

I mean that in the same way the PC in the D&D dungeon can't control what blows up in their face (though they can maybe mitigate the risks with careful play) the PC in the BitD Mansion can't control what blows up in their face (though they can mitigate the risks). I mean, if complications don't accrue, BitD fails to work--they're the "beating heart" of the game, after all; so, the game weights the odds heavily toward ensuring they happen. Eventually someone will roll something other than an uncomplicated success, and BOOM.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, I think the consequences of messing with a haunted painting were pretty predictable. I agree, I don't know what the EXACT fictional details are likely to be, never having read BitD. Still, it seemed pretty genre appropriate. I am also guessing the mechanical implications of the fallout from that were in line with what might have been gained (again, kind of guessing, but it seems likely).

So, I think the answer to the second question is that the player could have chosen other sorts of actions. He could have looted some stuff from the place, or I dunno, something. He picked his battle. The fiction could very well have emerged from some D&D-esque type of process, but this type of thing emerges EVERY TIME from something like BitD. It is just as likely the D&D result would have been, "nothing of interest here at all, the painting is worth 10gp." That sort of result might happen in BitD also if the player didn't engage any mechanics, but in that case the game is simply not designed to focus on something that uninteresting. Once you start rolling dice in a game like BitD, stuff gonna happen!

If it happens everything regardless of what the the player chooses is that really agency?

 

[hawkeyefan]

But it was still the GM who decided a roll was possible...

Not exactly. The player said he wanted to check the painting, and the player decided to use Attune to do so. As @Manbearcat explained, that’s an inherently dangerous thing to do. So the player would know what kind of possible consequences they’d be facing.

Then, the GM determines Position and Effect, with the Position indicating the severity if any possible consequences. So if it was Controlled, it would be minimal risk, Risky would be a standard level of risk, and Desperate would indicate extreme risk.

Then the player decides to proceed or not, with all that in mind. They can decide “this is way too dangerous” and back off, or they can follow through.

How is that not informed?

 

[Ovinomancer]

@AbdulAlhazred I have no issues with your analyzation of the game above, In fact it pretty much aligns with how I am reading what happened as well. My issue is with 2 things specifically, the claim that the outcome for failure was foreshadowed to the point that the player knew his risk vs his reward. If the player had known the risk was a soul-sucking painting... or even an attack by the painting would he have made the same choice? I don't know, but if you have no clue what the outcome of failure will be outside of...some bad stuff...does that diminish the meaningfulness of that decision? Again I don't know but if the GM is making it up on the fly after the roll it kind of feels that way to me.

My second issue is that I am failing to see how more agency in this example is being exerted than in a D&D session. The player is looking for something... the DM decided if it was or wasn't there, a roll to figure out if it was magical was made and failure = trap sprung. PC and party attacked. I'm trying to see where the extra agency came in here... where the player shaped the story.

No, this is utterly incorrect, and you've missed some key parts of the explanation. Not that I didn't explain them -- you failed to attach significance to them because you're operating from the point of view of the play your used to.

In this example, the painting started as mere color -- a descriptive element to reinforce the theme of a haunted, abandoned manor house. It was the player's interest that made it more, and the player's choices that determined how that fiction would flow. When the player asked after the painting, I asked what they were interested in. They wanted something their friend at the University would value, and that friend liked occult things, so only at this point did the painting begin to resolve into something more that color -- it was the player's intent that did this. Since the player was in the process of trying to switch their vice from gambling (fighting) to obligation (University), this was a major thing for the PC and so requires testing if you're following the game rules and principles. Had the player stated they were looking for something valuable to pawn, then we'd have gone down that route, and I might have said sure, 2 coins, but it's bulky, you'll have to ditch some equipment, mark 1 slot and you have a 2 coin treasure. But, no, the player wanted something occult, and they wanted it to be significant enough to move towards their goal of switching vices (had this succeeded, the player could have used it for a few free slices of that particular clock). THEN the player choose how they were going to tell, and took a very risky action of a 0 dice Attune attempt -- directly reaching out to the ghost field, a dangerous activity in better conditions, to do so. Why did they do this? Because this was important to that character and the player enjoys taking risks (Blades is almost like enabling this player!). So, this entire line was led by the players choices. Change one of those choices and the result changes, dramatically.

As for different consequences, yes, I could have, but I was bound to honor the intent of the action -- the action the player chose involved the ghost field, so consequences should flow from this. Further, this was one of the first actions of the score and the Engagement roll had been very successful, so I was bound to not increase risk or consequence without first shifting the position, which is why there was a step between the painting going hostile and the player suffering any consequence. I think I did explain this poorly -- the player's intent with their action wasn't to flee, but to successfully escape the power of the painting while still maintaining the painting. They tried to rip it from the wall under the theory this would disrupt the effect if it wasn't grounded into the haunted house's power. And, had they succeeded, that's exactly what would have happened. But, they failed, so they didn't rip it from the wall nor did they escape, and Harm was leveled. Had they just chosen to run and abandon their intent with the painting, that feels to me like a sufficient failure already -- they didn't get what they want, but they're not hurt.

All that said, it is tiring to try to present a play example that illustrates a number of differences from traditional play and have the other side insist that, while they have either no or almost no (a one-shot a few years ago?) experience with the system that they can definitively tell it's just like the games they play. It's not. I mean, I run 5e -- we're rotating back to it after the holiday break -- alongside Blades, so maybe, just maybe, I'm in a position to be actually able to note the differences. It's certainly frustrating to be gainsaid by someone that doesn't even understand the core principle of how Blades play operates on player choices as if they have a better understanding thanks to a one-shot experience a few years ago than I do, who ran it (almost) every week for the last 8 months or so.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If it happens everything regardless of what the the player chooses is that really agency?

Again you show that you don't understand what's happening. This is the kind of play espoused by @Lanefan, and others who value sandbox play where PCs aren't special. It's the exact opposite in games like Blades -- nothing happens unless the players choose.

 

[Manbearcat]

Well that could also happen if the GM in BitD decides no roll is necessary so again whether it's decided on the fly or pre-planned... it's still a GM/DM call insofar as agency is concerned.

This is not true. Non of this is arbitrary or GM discretion. There are conditions that trigger an Action Roll (1 and 3 below are both in play here) specifically and Goals, Actions, and Principles that guide the GM broadly.

BitD p 163 TRIGGERING THE ACTION ROLL

1) Player character attempts a challenging action that might be dangerous or troublesome.

3) Someone grabs the dice and gets all excited about making a roll.

(2 isn't relevant here).

Goals, Actions, and Principles in play in this excerpt:

BitD pages 187-196 RUNNING THE GAME

Play to find out what happens.

Bring Doskvol to life.

Ask Establishing/Provocative/Leading Questions > Provide Opportunities > Follow Their Lead.

Telegraph Trouble Before It Strikes (then) Follow Through.

Paint the World with a Haunted Brush.

Let Everything Flow from the Fiction

Don't Block.

Be Curious.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yes, sure. But so what? All it means that it really didn't matter which object they poked, once they chose to poke something in a manner that required a roll it meant it could explode on their face. I really don't see this as increase of agency, possibly even the opposite.

You've just described the core play loop of Blades in the Dark; "choose to <do something> challenging, dangerous, troublesome, or signal to the GM that you're excited about this potential conflict, roll dice, and see if it "explodes in your face" (or not)."

As to agency (or "even the opposite"), who was following whose lead in @Ovinomancer 's play excerpt? A sincere appraisal of that question takes "possibly even the opposite" behind the woodshed.

 

[FrogReaver]

You've just described the core play loop of Blades in the Dark; "choose to <do something> challenging, dangerous, troublesome, or signal to the GM that you're excited about this potential conflict, roll dice, and see if it "explodes in your face" (or not)."

As to agency (or "even the opposite"), who was following whose lead in @Ovinomancer 's play excerpt? A sincere appraisal of that question takes "possibly even the opposite" behind the woodshed.

That being the core play loop of blades in the dark doesn't remove the criticism. Nor does focusing on who initiated the situation. There's no doubt there's a choice involved and the choice was the players - what challenging thing will I do? But choice alone is something I think we all agree is not enough to provide agency. It must be meaningful choice. At the end of the day you are speaking about the challenging thing that was chosen as if that choice didn't actually matter. Maybe there's some way which it does - in which case I would love to hear that.