A Question Of Agency?

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, if the goalposts have shifted to things that are supposed to merely affect roleplay, we need to revisit the T-intersection example with Bob and Fynn and look at how the GM's description affected Fynn's player's roleplaying. I mean, it was a concrete thing that engaged roleplaying in a way that had an effect, yes?

I think you have missed the starting point of this tangent, which is understandable as it was who knows how many pages ago.
I have no problem with BW's belief mechanic informing roleplay, as personality mechanics go, it is pretty good one. The issue only arose in in a situation where external forces could overwrite the character's belief. That would like if in a D&D game some external force changed your alignment (and yes, I know it can happen in some editions, I am not defending D&D, merely making a comparison.) That would obviously be an external force affecting how the character should be roleplayed, even if there were not explicit rules how the alignment/belief must be roleplayed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think you have missed the starting point of this tangent, which is understandable as it was who knows how many pages ago.
I have no problem with BW's belief mechanic informing roleplay, as personality mechanics go, it is pretty good one. The issue only arose in in a situation where external forces could overwrite the character's belief. That would like if in a D&D game some external force changed your alignment (and yes, I know it can happen in some editions, I am not defending D&D, merely making a comparison.) That would obviously be an external force affecting how the character should be roleplayed, even if there were not explicit rules how the alignment/belief must be roleplayed.

No, I know where it started, I'm just challenging that this is, in any way, unique. Once we're looking at outside forces affecting roleplay, the field is wide open to lots of such things, and the concept quickly becomes mud. I get that you want to limit it to this very narrow and specific example, but that's an exercise of double standards or special pleading -- you can't restrict the new analysis only to the thing you want. If it's a valid analysis, it can be applied to other things. And there's nothing very different from a move that changes a belief to a move that creates a fiction situation that influences roleplaying -- both push the player in a direction for their roleplay. And, those instances are legion.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The same people who say that the players should be able to set agendas for their characters and should be able to direct the play to focus on those agendas also think that the player being able to control the foundational beliefs of their character is not important...

 

[Ovinomancer]

The same people who say that the players should be able to set agendas for their characters and should be able to direct the play to focus on those agendas also think that the player being able to control the foundational beliefs of their character is not important...

This is a bad take. The player chooses how to react to things, and this is an important aspect of play. You mistake the claim that your new mode of analysis -- things that impact how you might choose to roleplay -- is useful. It's, instead, too broad of a brush to be useful, unless, of course, you're just ignoring everything else painted except the point you're trying to make.

I think being able to roleplay my character is important, and I look for this in games I play. This doesn't, at all, stop me from noting that in games where my actions are gated solely by the GM, I have less agency than in games where I have either ability to force the action to resolution via mechanics or a say in how an action could resolve or both. The ability to roleplay my character doesn't go to agency unless you can enact such acting into action. I have this in droves in some other games. In D&D, I have to get the GM's agreement.

 

[prabe]

In D&D, I have to get the GM's agreement.

I promise: This is not a trap.

If a GM pre-establishes agreement (dunno how better to phrase that) does that change where you think agency is?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I promise: This is not a trap.

If a GM pre-establishes agreement (dunno how better to phrase that) does that change where you think agency is?

Not worried about traps because I'm pretty comfortable with my understanding. If you discover something new or incongruent, that gives me an opportunity to re-evaluate. So, fire away!

In this case, I'm not sure it really changes much. If this is an agreement about the themes and tropes expected in the game, I think this is just fine provided the explanations are of reasonable completeness. This is exactly what happens when I run Blades; we all agree to the tropes and themes of the game and carry on. It's what happens when someone suggests play 5e -- there are a lot of these baked into the system, despite any claims of the malleability of the setting material, the game itself hard codes a lot of this. So, no, I don't really find an agreement to play a game to be much of a problem because we have to agree to play a game to even look at agency within the game.

What I'm speaking of here is the GM decides core resolution mechanic present in the D&D-alike game set. Any game that features the ability for the GM to determine, based on their own take of the fiction only, whether or not an action fails (ie, action negation) you have an issue with player agency. And, again, this might not be a problem! I think D&D is very clearly an autocracy, with the GM seated on the high chair, but you can have benevolent dictators that are pleasant as well as tin-pot dictators that are not. If I'm more concerned about being able to put what I want in the game, though, no amount of benevolence from the dictator is going to satisfy that -- it's going to rub wrong, at best. This is, as best as I can tell, where @pemerton, @Campbell, @Aldarc sit -- they don't care to find out how nice the autocrat is going to be, they want to have a say that's impossible in such systems without GM approval. I'm less adamant, probably because I'm usually the autocrat in this situation. I can say that the last time I played 5e, I was rubbed wrong by a good number of things, usually involving GM negation of actions or PC interests. I even ran across an old text message conversation with one of the other players where this was being discussed and I was very unsure how I felt that my character was still alive because it was a clear use of GM Force. I mean, I liked my character, but....

So, I hope this addresses your question? If not, feel free to ask again.

 

[prabe]

Not worried about traps because I'm pretty comfortable with my understanding. If you discover something new or incongruent, that gives me an opportunity to re-evaluate. So, fire away!

I figure it also helps that we're (I think) past arguing, eh?

So, I hope this addresses your question? If not, feel free to ask again.

What I think I was getting at was if the DM only uses their ability to say no as a plausibility check (no, you cannot hit the moon with an arrow from your bow) does that change how much agency the players have? It seems at least to move in the direction of "say yes or roll the dice."

Here, I note that the only time I think I've flat out said "no" in my 5E campaigns was when someone tried to check Wis(Insight) on a near-deity specifically called out as inscrutable.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I figure it also helps that we're (I think) past arguing, eh?

What I think I was getting at was if the DM only uses their ability to say no as a plausibility check (no, you cannot hit the moon with an arrow from your bow) does that change how much agency the players have? It seems at least to move in the direction of "say yes or roll the dice."

Here, I note that the only time I think I've flat out said "no" in my 5E campaigns was when someone tried to check Wis(Insight) on a near-deity specifically called out as inscrutable.

Oh, absolutely. If you're violating the genre expectations, then the action shouldn't be considered. This should usually be dealt with out-of-game, though, I think.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I figure it also helps that we're (I think) past arguing, eh?

What I think I was getting at was if the DM only uses their ability to say no as a plausibility check (no, you cannot hit the moon with an arrow from your bow) does that change how much agency the players have? It seems at least to move in the direction of "say yes or roll the dice."

Here, I note that the only time I think I've flat out said "no" in my 5E campaigns was when someone tried to check Wis(Insight) on a near-deity specifically called out as inscrutable.

Sorry for the second reply, but I don't think your example sunk in the first time I read it. I would find your specific use to be the exact kind of agency reduction I was talking about. The GM has used their understanding of the fiction to negate an action that isn't genre inappropriate (I assume (WIS) Insight use isn't). This isn't really a genre violation, it's a GM's understanding violation. That the GM's understanding comes from material they've adopted for use doesn't really evade this, because they GM chose that material and the GM is using it as their own. Effectively, in this moment, there's only the GM's call.

Shoot the moon, though, yeah, that's outside the bounds of a lot of game concepts (not all, though), and if it is a genre violation, then it should be discussed, but not, I think, via in-game mechanics or choices.

 

[Campbell]

I promise: This is not a trap.

If a GM pre-establishes agreement (dunno how better to phrase that) does that change where you think agency is?

To me this is what system is - a shared set of expectations that we all agree to. The level of formality does not matter. The shared commitment to a fiction that is emphatically shared, the social permission and expectation that everyone will play with integrity and in a way that is present (instead of built on preconceptions), and the ability to address when we feel like someone else is disregarding fictional positioning are all paramount to me. They do not have to be addressed by formal systems. I have experience playing and running mostly freeform games as well as more formal systems.

I personally have a preference for more formal systems because I like games and I like to play them well. I also really value the experience of feeling the social context that exists in the fiction in a more meaningful way. Anything that can aid in that process is a boon. As a drama geek I highly value any tools that can help me feel the pressures my character feels. In most mainstream games I often feel the tension between playing optimally and playing with integrity. In games like Masks they are much closer together.

Earlier upthread @prabe mentioned instead going for getting an emotional response directly from the player instead of their character. I personally some very negative experiences with that both in theater (as an actor) and in roleplaying games. For me a certain amount of distance is required to embody (not portray) a character. I need to be able to address the character on its own terms as a person. In order to do that justice I cannot replace my emotions with theirs. I need to be able to be present in their social context as much as possible.

So a lot of my philosophy on this stuff is pretty well represented by this Joaquin Phoenix video


I do not believe in strong preconceptions of who our characters are or the way the world works. I believe in establishing a fiction, seeing where it leads, and being present in the moment. I find that when a game can shake those preconceptions it can lead to more present play where play becomes less performative and more like curious. I find the right system can aid in that process if we let it.