A Question Of Agency?

[Crimson Longinus]

I think (and I hope @darkbard will correct me if I'm wrong) that a weak system isn't likely to accomplish its intent. Bonds, etc., and Inspiration are weak mechanics, so they're unlikely to affect roleplay.

Yes, sure. But such system is not needed. People can roleplay complex nuanced characters just fine without any system.

 

[prabe]

Yes, sure. But such system is not needed. People can roleplay complex nuanced characters just fine without any system.

I don't disagree, but if you want to build a provide mechanical hooks for roleplay--and it's not unreasonable to want those hooks--the system needs to be sturdy.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Have we now shifted from "directs roleplay" or "controls roleplay" to "affects roleplay?" Because, if so, I'm very interested in this new lens being pointed at D&D and all the things that happen that affect roleplay.

 

[darkbard]

Yes, sure. But such system is not needed. People can roleplay complex nuanced characters just fine without any system.

"Needed" is a strong term, but, even so, I'll disagree. System facilitates outcomes, and I prefer systems that work with rather than against (or are agnostic to) the outcomes that interest me (for the sake of this thread: player agency). Give a player only one tool, say, a hammer (in this case, meaning poor system architecture for facilitating player agency, like GM-gated fiat), and pretty soon every problem begins to look like a nail (ie, solicits the same approach: GM approval of salient changes to the gamestate).

 

[pemerton]

Alignments, bonds, ideals and flaws are absolutely intended to inform the roleplaying and by reading the BW rules, it is clear that beliefs are meant to do the same. "There is no rule that says that I have to roleplay my character with a belief 'I guard the prince’s life with my own' to actually caring whether the prince lives or dies" is a total dishonest copout.

This shows you don't know the game. Do you understand how Mouldbreaker artha is earned?

 

[FrogReaver]

Upthread Frogreaver posted this:

Beliefs in BW impose no more constraint on action declaration and on characterisation than do dead ends in standard D&D.

On the GM side, Beliefs are intended to guide the framing of situations and the narration of consequences. On the player side, Beliefs provide a context for earning artha whether by playing to them or against them.

The closest thing I can think of in standard D&D is alignment. Which is not all that close. 5e Bonds, Ideals and Flaws seem a bit closer but my understanding is that they are not widely used.

Just so I'm clear, it is perfectly legal and in the Spirit of the game to set your beliefs to be something you always play against?

Also, are your beliefs ever forced to change?

 

[pemerton]

Just so I'm clear, it is perfectly legal and in the Spirit of the game to set your beliefs to be something you always play against?

Also, are your beliefs ever forced to change?

I already answered the second question upthread: a player can change his/her PC's Beliefs at will. This is an expected component of game play. The GM is entitled to delay a change if s/he takes the view that it is being done to sidestep rather than confront the immediate situation. (BW doesn't use the a contrast between Action and Transition scenes, but if it did then we could say that players generally are not expected to change their PCs' Beliefs during the resolution of an Action scene.)

There are relatively uncommon circumstances in which someone who does not normally control a particular character might get to set one of his/her Beliefs. There is an Elven song that can have a similar effect: Doom Sayer, intended to emulate (eg) Thingol pronouncing Beren's Doom. And I gave an example upthread - Force of Will. The rules don't themselves say how Force of Will used against a PC should be adjudicated - I chose to treat it as requiring a change of Belief precisely because this does not prevent the player from declaring any action or from characterising his/her PC as s/he likes.

It would be unusual for a player to deliberately choose a Belief just to play against it. It is considered good design to choose Beliefs that are likely, in play, to come into conflict. And it is absolutely considered good play to lean into those conflicts as they start to unfold in play.

In circumstances where a Belief has been foisted on a PC due to (in the fiction) a force or influence outside the character's control and (at the table) someone other than the player of that PC, then playing against it from the start is something the player is entitled to do.

In my game the player who was subject to Force of Will chose to pursue his master's desire for the mage (and then, once the mage was decapitated, switched that - with my concurrence - to a Belief that he would bring the dead mage's blood to his master).

 

[hawkeyefan]

But why would they do that? It would mean they're roleplaying badly and why would you roleplay badly? And if they indeed did all the time, then the GM could just instruct them to change their virtues, as they didn't obviously actually want to play a valorous person.

I don’t know. You gave the example of a player who chose a valorous character not wanting to do valorous things and you say the system that would enforce that is no good.

The problem with the system written that it is a completely context free compulsion. It doesn't matter what the situation is or how impossible the dare or the challenge. It also relies on rather specific interpretation of valour, coupling things that are not necessary related. A person who is unlikely to retreat from combat and feels honour bound to accept challenges needs not also be a person who accepts any crazy dare or wants to avenge every trivial slight.

I’m only passingly familiar with the game, and haven’t read it at all. As described here, it sounds like a mess.

And I remind that this part of the system is not supposed to represent anything supernatural, it is just a normal mundane personality mechanic.

Well, if the PCs are demigod like beings, then I don’t know if I’d agree about that. Gods are usually associated with some kind of theme, right? Like they’re the embodiment of war or love or whatever. As such, I can see a system that’s trying to portray that having some mechanics that are meant to bring it to the fore.

But that’s a guess as to the motive of such mechanics. Their application and how they function is another matter.

Yes. Why is that a problem?

It’s not a problem, necessarily. But if we’re examining the level of player agency allowed by a game, and one of the games we’re discussing is vulnerable to GM force and railroading, that certainly seems relevant to me.

It forces an emotional reaction on you. You have control how to exactly interpret it, but still.

So what? People have emotional reactions they don’t want all the time. That happens. It’s the same as a combatant being hurt in combat despite not wanting to be hurt.

This distinction between the mental and the physical is arbitrary.

But can you imagine a roleplaying game where the players have zero agency over the mental faculties of their characters? Because I can't. It would not be in any way recognisable as an roleplaying game.

It sounds kind of like the earliest RPGs, no? Where players were treating their characters very much like pawns, and it was the skill of the player being tested.

I know that’s not really what you had in mind, but that doesn’t make it less relevant.

 

[pemerton]

I don't really know Exalted. @Campbell does.

But the example of a mechanic where one's PC can be required to act valorously, and there is a cost to buying that off, sounds a bit like Pendragon and maybe also a bit like a compel in Fate. (In Pendragon there's no resource that can be spent to buy off the compel.)

The Dying Earth has a similar mechanic where a PC has a rating in 6 weaknesses (I can't remember the technical label, nor all of them - but gluttony and rakishness are two, and I'm pretty sure greed is probably in there as well). The GM can call for a check, and the player has only a limited budget to spend on re-rolls if the resistance check fails.

Classic Traveller has morale for PCs as well as NPCs, and a fail can't be bought off. Burning Wheel has Steel which is a bit like morale but with the GM having more discretion to call for checks; in BW there is no "buying off" a failure but the players have resources they can spend to manipulate their dice pool so as to enhance the prospect of success.

The general function of this sort of mechanic - as I see it - is to help bring it about that the PCs' actions conform to the ingame situation as seen through the lens of personality and genre. So CT has morale - there is a somewhat military focus to the setting and the game - but not greed - the game allows players to take a "rational actor" approach towards acquiring riches. You probably wouldn't want morale as a player-side mechanic in a game aimed at providing a Star Wars-like experience.

In most of these systems players can make some build choices that will help either increase their chance of success or mitigate the consequences of failure: CT is an exception because of the random nature of PC gen.

I don't think anyone thinks that when the morale dice tell you that your CT PC is breaking in combat that that is a high moment of player agency. But that doesn't stop the overall play experience being one of high player agency. Most of the time at the table in a CT game is not going to be spent with the PC in the condition of having just failed a morale check.

 

[prabe]

But the example of a mechanic where one's PC can be required to act valorously, and there is a cost to buying that off, sounds a bit like Pendragon and maybe also a bit like a compel in Fate. (In Pendragon there's no resource that can be spent to buy off the compel.)

I'd had the thought it seemed vaguely Compel-ish, myself. I can see how it might feel dissonant (my word) or jarring (yours, I think) but it's ... moving some in-play agency into chargen, I guess? Doesn't mean a player is gonna like it (I don't, @Crimson Longinus apparently doesn't) but I guess it's a way to introduce an additional (maybe minor) pain point into chargen.