A Question Of Agency?

[pemerton]

Why do I need to understand the whole game though?

why can’t I just understand the parts being presented by others?

The odd thing is that you seem to think that you understand what has been presented by others better than they do. For instance, you seem to think that you know better than me what Beliefs are in BW, as a component of character build, and how they work. Although you have no evidence for any of your claims about BW other than what I've told you!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Who decides if the action declared at step 2 is successful? Who decides if the enemy dies? Or retreats?

Is this going somewhere? This particular sub-thread has been going on for so long that I kinda lost the track of what it was about...

 

[pemerton]

Well, I think that's what a lot of discussion boils down to: "We need to have rules that stop a terrible GM from railroading me". And my answer is that if you don't like railroads, don't play with GMs that run railroads.

No. The argument is that we want games in which the players can contribute to the shared fiction. And that there are very-well established techniques, mechanical frameworks and principles that support that.

Another part of the argument is that there are many RPGers, especially those who are familiar mostly with D&D and its derivatives, who appear to freak out whenever those techniques, frameworks and principles are put forward: I've got in mind in particular responses to such components of 4e D&D as skill challenge resolution, magic item wishlists, player-authored quests and even Come and Get It.

The reasons for that response seem to be pretty consistent: any principle or technique or framework that allows the players to exercise control over the shared fiction necessarily limits the GM's control over it. So skill challenges limit the capacity of the GM to unilaterally establish consequences (especially failures); magic item wishlists limit the capacity of the GM to control the fiction of discoveries as well as the mechanics of PC build; CaGI limits the ability of the GM to unilaterally control the positioning, in combat, of NPCs and monsters.

If people want the GM to be able to exercise that sort of unilateral control well they can knock themselves out. But it makes no sense to assert, at the same time, that it is the player who is engaged in authorship.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The odd thing is that you seem to think that you understand what has been presented by others better than they do. For instance, you seem to think that you know better than me what Beliefs are in BW, as a component of character build, and how they work. Although you have no evidence for any of your claims about BW other than what I've told you!

I for one still would love for you to explain why you think that Beliefs in BW do not affect how the character is being roleplayed, because even after reading the BW rules my impression is that they absolutely would.

 

[hawkeyefan]

How not being able to decide how my chracter behaves and acts limits my agency? Should be rather apparent.

I think the questions I posed were about exactly that. I don't think anything is apparent, and that's why I asked.

Is this the point where I according to the forum etiquette am supposed to snap at you that I'm not here to educate you?

I don't think so because I literally asked you about the system since I expect you actually know more about it than I do.

If I had taken your description, made a lot of assumptions about it and then used those assumptions in arguments about the system with you that revealed my ignorance of the system.....then yes, you could point that out.

But seriously, I have the books packed somewhere (two copies of most of them in fact) but I haven't opened them in years. This is why I really didn't want to go into specifics, as I simply do not remember the specifics even though it is one of my most played games. It has been too long.

You get to assign points to your virtues, but regardless of how you assign them at least one will end up as three, even on a starting character.

So if it is up to the player where to assign these points, then placing them in valor means the player is saying "valor is important to this PC", right? So they can approach play knowing this is going to come up.....that when their valor is questioned in certain ways, they may feel bound to respond in a specific manner, unless they can either succeed at a roll to resist that, or spend a player resource to resist it?

Is that understanding correct?

In certain situations yes. And I would rather trust the players to determine whether this was the sort of situation instead of mechanics making that decision for them. People know how to roleplay their characters without the rules doing it for them. And as written, this virtue would literally force the character to commit a suicide against an overwhelming foe.

Does it literally say that? It sounds to me like there is a check of some kind which may allow a PC to proceed however they wish, and then the player may also be able to use a resource to avoid that, right?

And if someone said that their character was valorous, and we trusted them to roleplay that, and they shrugged off every besmirching of their honor or ran from combat often.....aren't they actually saying that their character is not valorous? Aren't they actually NOT roleplaying?

Yes. But it is used for other things and is really valuable. And as it is also main way to overcome conditions imposed on you by social combat. So it might be a choice of being autopiloted by virtues or directed by NPCs. And that was just the mundane stuff. On top of that there is magical mind control and the Solar Exalted (and IIRC other too, but it might be slightly different...) have a curse. They have a 'limit break' track (not a nice thing like in Final Fantasy) that accrues in certain situations and once it gets filled they kinda go mad and lose control completely for a while. And one way to accrue this is to use willpower to resist your main virtue. So it might be a choice between a small lose of control now or larger later. This game really has a lot of mechanics that cause you to lose control of your character one way or another.

Okay, so these elements are an important part of the game, it sounds like. I can see why this game might not be for everyone, for sure. But it also sounds to me like the players will know these elements going into the play, and will build their character in a way that their virtues or attributes will fit the way they'd like to play their PC, right? And then they have ways of mitigating any unwanted effect?

Again, it's hard to say, but it sounds to me like this game is simply enforcing roleplaying of the kind that seems relevant to the theme and genre. So if a player didn't want their PC to feel compelled to action based on honor, then the player would likely not place points in Valor. Does that sound right?

But I say that knowing that I have an incomplete picture of the game and how it's meant to be played. My initial impression on this is that I'd likely agree with you that this is all a bit too much for my liking.

You should use whatever system is most fun for you, but but I really don't believe in systems fixing people issues.

I don't think in this case it would be so much about fixing as preventing.

That the system allows railroading doesn't mean that system results railroading. And if it wouldn't allow railroading, these adventure paths wouldn't exist! (Not a loss for me, but would be for people making them.)

The system may not cause railroading, yes, but it does nothing to prevent it. That's my point. The system is vulnerable to railroading and force. It puts the onus on the GM to avoid doing these things.

First of I don't think that being physically hurt* and being attracted to someone are comparable things. This system definitely tells the player how their character feels and in turn how to roleplay them.

No. It does not do that, or not all of it. It says they have an emotional response, yes. However, it also says that their reaction is up to the player. It says that they should be honest about it, and roleplay accordingly. But what does that mean? It's up to the player to decide.

There is no difference between physical harm and emotional response in this way. Both are unwanted, both are imposed on the PC from outside forces, but the reaction to them is up to the player to decide.

Now I fully admit that this system is way subtler that the Exalted one. I'd simply say this is a better made system that gives the player leeway how to interpret things. It still is not the sort of mechanic I like. Furthermore, unlike in Exalted where virtue mechanics and social combat are just one small facet in the game and can easily be amended/overruled/ignored by a sensible GM, my understanding is that Monster Heart is basically built around this kind of mechanic, it is central to the whole game. So in that sense it would be an bigger issue for me. None of this is saying that it is a bad game, I get what they're doing and why. But it is still trading the sort of agency that I care about a lot to get those results, so it is unlikely that I would like this game.

I honestly don't know. I haven't played Monsterhearts at all (the genre isn't my cup of tea). I agree with you that what they're going for is very genre-specific and that it fits. I don't know all the details that go into it, so I really can't say if this is all that big a limit on player agency. I don't think you and I agree about that because I don't agree that having consequences imposed on my PC is limiting my agency as a player; it's simply part of the game.

But the rule as described mentions Strings, and I don't understand their role in the game and how they come about. I'd likely need to know about those as well in order to understand the whole thing and evaluate it as a whole.

* (That being said, being able to control the physical integrity of your character would be a form of agency. It is not something most games have, but it could in theory exist. In certain types of freeform roleplay it does exist, also in some LARPs)

Blades in the Dark allows for mitigation of Harm through the use of Armor, and also through a Resistance Roll, which would most likely result in some accumulation of Stress. This is a player resource that can be used in a variety of ways, including reducing Harm as I've described.

It woudl seem to work remarkably similar to the willpower resource from Exalted. Odd that you view one as an increase in agency, but the other not as such.

Why do you think that is? Do you think it's because you've been conditioned to think of physical consequences to your character as being "normal" and a common part of a game, but mental or emotional consequences should be left entirely up to the player?

Or do you think it's something else?

 

[FrogReaver]

Who decides if the action declared at step 2 is successful? Who decides if the enemy dies? Or retreats?

Misread so edited: The player whose turn it is determines what action. In combat mechanics determine whether most actions are successful (a player could attempt something not covered under the combat actions and the DM would have a say in determining success or failure or calling for a roll in that scenario - or in the case of an NPC, the DM chooses the action and mechanics determine if it is successful.

 

[FrogReaver]

No. The argument is that we want games in which the players can contribute to the shared fiction. And that there are very-well established techniques, mechanical frameworks and principles that support that.

I think in principle we want that same thing, we just want it done explicitly through the in game character.

Another part of the argument is that there are many RPGers, especially those who are familiar mostly with D&D and its derivatives, who appear to freak out whenever those techniques, frameworks and principles are put forward: I've got in mind in particular responses to such components of 4e D&D as skill challenge resolution, magic item wishlists, player-authored quests and even Come and Get It.

Which IMO goes back to the desire to limit a players ability to contribute to the shared fiction to their in game character. I think we agree that doing this gives the game a different feel and experience?

The reasons for that response seem to be pretty consistent: any principle or technique or framework that allows the players to exercise control over the shared fiction necessarily limits the GM's control over it.

I agree with the principle just not that it's the reason for what you are describing.

So skill challenges limit the capacity of the GM to unilaterally establish consequences (especially failures); magic item wishlists limit the capacity of the GM to control the fiction of discoveries as well as the mechanics of PC build; CaGI limits the ability of the GM to unilaterally control the positioning, in combat, of NPCs and monsters.

Agreed. I would just add that just because something is not in the GM's control doesn't mean it's in the player's control either. A game mechanic may control something.

If people want the GM to be able to exercise that sort of unilateral control well they can knock themselves out. But it makes no sense to assert, at the same time, that it is the player who is engaged in authorship.

I would say that a player controlling a player character is engaged in authorship. They are adding details about their character to the shared fiction. Of course it's not the same extent of authorship over the shared fiction that a player that can introduce details about other fictional elements has.

 

[FrogReaver]

The odd thing is that you seem to think that you understand what has been presented by others better than they do. For instance, you seem to think that you know better than me what Beliefs are in BW, as a component of character build, and how they work. Although you have no evidence for any of your claims about BW other than what I've told you!

Surely you can see how one can disagree with your analysis of what the mechanics and play examples presented mean in relation to agency while fully understanding everything you presented about them?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Surely you can see how one can disagree with your analysis of what the mechanics and play examples presented mean in relation to agency while fully understanding everything you presented about them?

I can absolutely see this, but the fact remains that you have a very poor grasp of the mechanics and play examples and lack anything near full understanding. This isn't because you disagree, it's because you're just wrong about what's happening.

 

[FrogReaver]

It might be helpful to frame some of these interactions in relation to D&D with house rules.

So let's say there's a D&D game with a house rule that says - upon their character finishing a long rest a player gains 3 points that they can use to add some fictional element to the game (restricted if it will impugne on any of another player's traditional D&D agency.)

This game has all the agency of D&D and additional agency of creating fictional elements.

But more agency alone isn't enough to make a better game despite some agency being required to have a game in the first place. Instead what makes a better game is if you like the game experience more.

So the more I'm thinking about it, all this talk of what is agency and what isn't doesn't actually seem very useful. It doesn't actually matter what is more or less agency. It does matter if it has the kind of agency that creates the game experience I like - but that's about the extent of agency mattering.