A Question Of Agency?

[prabe]

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.

Oh, no worries.

I will say in my defense: They knew she was a Fey princess, and they knew she was the Keeper of Secrets.

 

[prabe]

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.

I think analyzing/reacting to TRPGs as though they are plays is ... complicated, because the people around the table are simultaneously authors, actors, and audience (I know at least two of those are RPG stances, but that's not what I mean). They're creating, performing, and watching the emergent story which is the result of gameplay. Obviously, your experiences are your experiences, and your preferences are yours as well--I wouldn't say it's always a good idea to pull at the players' emotions: that's certainly a matter of knowing your audience.

 

[Lanefan]

How about if a player contributes to the shared fiction in another way? Let’s say they have an idea for a goal for their PC and maybe it involves a church of some obscure god and an artifact stolen from the PC’s family.

So the player has added an organization to the fiction and possibly a deity and an artifact and some conflict between that organization and the PC’s family. This is also material that can be explored through play; the GM can pick up these threads and weave them into the unfolding fiction.

Now I know you might start twitching at the mere thought of this, but rest assured plenty of games allow this.

Sure, I get that; and it's cool to have a player thinking this far ahead. In a solo game this would flat-out rock.

In a group game, however, if each player independently comes up with a similarly elaborate series of ideas that don't inter-relate with anyone else's ideas* then everyone has more or less stated they want to do their own thing and the GM is left trying to herd cats; even more so if the things a given player wants to do are of limited or no interest to anyone else.

Taken a step further, in a group game where the general expectations are a) more than one PC per player (such that they can be cycled in and out at the player's choice) and-or b) at least a moderate degree of PC lethality the GM is further left not knowing which cats she'll have to herd at any given time.

On top of this, the GM is trying to fit in any ideas she might have (she gets to have ideas too, right?).

This sounds like a powderkeg of a party, ready to split apart at a moment's notice.

That said, if only one or two players have such ideas and the others are willing to simply go with the flow the obvious risk becomes that those one or two players will end up dominating the game, getting all the spotlight time, etc.

Recipe for at-the-table disaster, I'd say.

* - and if they do inter-relate with other players'/PCs' ideas, chances are very high it's going to appear contrived.

So, knowing that such a game would also allow a PC to open its mouth and speak and for the player to describe the PC and give them personality....knowing that it also allows this most basic form of contribution that you choose to celebrate....would you say that this game allows more contribution to the fiction from the player?

If not, why not?

It allows more contribution to the fiction from the player. My position is that at some point this becomes more of a bug than a feature.

 

[pemerton]

Yes. It further supports the idea the beliefs are supposed to affect roleplay.

If the GM tells the players that their PCs are at a dead end, that will affect roleplay: as per @FrogReaver's post upthread.

In general, the state of the fiction - both internal and external elements of it - will affect roleplay.

I thought you were talking about dictating or mandating or in some fairly strong sense limiting roleplay.

EDIT: Ninja'd by @Ovinomancer.

 

[Lanefan]

I agree that D&D has gradually reduced the importance of alignment, in the forms of penalties for players who disagreed with their DMs over what those two words on the character sheet meant. As you might guess from that construction, I don't have a problem with that.

As to Bonds, etc.: I think the intent was to reward players who, e.g., actually played to their Flaw.

So the consequences have gone from a penalty for going outside your box to a reward for staying within it. Still means that the system is trying to affect your roleplay.

The biggest problem is that the reward is Advantage, which is ... pretty easy to get (and doesn't stack (and is the primary mechanic for altering difficulty)) so the incentive isn't all that great;

Yeah, one of the things that made me not adopt 5e (which during development I really did have high hopes for) was the massive overuse of the Adv-Disadv mechanic.

 

[pemerton]

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...

See, now you're shifting back from "affects roleplay" to "sets the agenda". Which one are you arguing?

In my BW game, because a PC was ensorcelled by a dark naga that PC took on a Belief about bringing the mage Joachim (and later, Joachims' blood) to his master. Who set that agenda? Why was there a dark naga in play at all? Who set that agenda?

 

[Campbell]

For those who do not prefer formal systems for psychosocial stuff what would your response be to another player or GM if they wanted to discuss how you have been playing your character or a given NPC? Would you hear them out?

 

[Campbell]

@Lanefan

Most of the time when discussing play where players set their agenda for their individual characters we are assuming a single character per player and no cohesive group of player characters. Instead you simply have relationships between the characters that intersect. There also tends to be less adventuring and more just living exciting lives. That's how Apocalypse World, Sorcerer, and Burning Wheel often work.

Sometimes in the case of games like Blades in the Dark or Masks there will be shared goals. I am currently running a Scion Second Edition game. In that game our nascent children of the gods are part of a band linked together by fate. In order to build their legend they must do so together. Basically to increase Legend everyone must complete a personal short term deed, a personal long term deed, and a shared group deed. There is no advancing more than one rung above your bandmates so it's in your interest as a player as well as in the fiction to help them pursue their personal goals.

 

[FrogReaver]

For those who do not prefer formal systems for psychosocial stuff what would your response be to another player or GM if they wanted to discuss how you have been playing your character or a given NPC? Would you hear them out?

I would.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is incoherent. Of course more or less agency matters in analysis of relative amounts of agency!

Of course. If something so obviously stupid sounding comes out of my mouth it's likely that it's not what I'm saying at all

What I am saying is that analyzing relative amounts of agency between games is meaningless because more or less agency doesn't make for a better game nor does it tell us anything actually important about how the game plays.

The only reason you care what has more agency or less is that you believe you like games with more agency. I believe that if you'd engage that part of the conversation (and I think you do below) that you would realize you don't actually prefer more agency. There's only certain kinds of agency you prefer.

What I stated was that one's preferences regarding such relative amounts is a side issue and should not impede clear analysis (although clearly it can when those who have no experience with such player agency-granting games misunderstand how such games actually function in practice and why that is so!).

Analysis serves a purpose though and knowing what has more or less agency serves none.

IMO, you are misconstruing my analysis of such games being different from your analysis of them as meaning I misunderstand how such games function.

Perhaps a more precise framing of my own preference is for one in which players and GM are equal contributors to the shared fiction (no hierarchy distinguishing them) with clear system restraints upon when and how each exercises their agency, that the players don't suffer the illusion of agency gated behind GM approval.

I think that's a fair characterization.

You are correct that the kind of shared storytelling game (not really an RPG in the precise sense of the term) that you imagine would probably not meet my criteria for an enjoyable game (where is the drama in setting one's own challenge and its outcome?), but that imagined game is nothing like the kinds of games I play and enjoy.

I agree. But I'm not using it to say you like it, I am using it as an example of a game you dislike that has even more agency than the ones you like - essentially it shows the determining factor of the games you enjoy isn't related to overall amount of agency.