A Question Of Agency?

[FrogReaver]

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 think 2 things.
1. there's still a scope issue. Being at a dead end is going to affect my roleplay in one moment or one scene at most. Your character's beliefs are going to shape your roleplay over the whole campaign.

2. Whether or not you wish to acknowledge it, there's a difference between the physical and mental that gets brushed aside by you as if there is no difference at all.

 

[aramis erak]

I disagree. It might be possible to understand a game you read but don't play, or a game you play but don't read, but I don't believe it's possible to understand a game you neither read nor play.

EDIT: And I don't believe it is possible to analyze what you don't understand.

Oh it's quite possible to analyze something you don't understand. Engineers do it often, scientists daily. In fact, the whole point of science is to analyze what's unknown so as to make it known.

The thing is, while you're right that having neither played nor read a game makes understanding abnormal, it's not an absolute, and whether the understanding is sufficient for the purpose of the analysis is different than the ability to make valid judgements based upon 3rd party data.

For example, I'd lay odds that Pemerton would, based upon my explanation, be able to judge that TNE is unlikely to be a better Traveller game engine for himself than Classic Traveller. And, without reading his mind, all I have to do to make that analysis is see what he's posted in this thread. For that purpose, it's a valid analysis.

But for purposes of discussing whether the Virus should be able to take over a hand computer, he'd not have enough info from this thread to make a valid decision. (I'm also certain he's other data.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

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?

So, if a player already can contribute infinite contributions to the fiction then allowing said player to contribute 1 more thing to the fiction really isn't more contributions.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh it's quite possible to analyze something you don't understand. Engineers do it often, scientists daily. In fact, the whole point of science is to analyze what's unknown so as to make it known.

The thing is, while you're right that having neither played nor read a game makes understanding abnormal, it's not an absolute, and whether the understanding is sufficient for the purpose of the analysis is different than the ability to make valid judgements based upon 3rd party data.

For example, I'd lay odds that Pemerton would, based upon my explanation, be able to judge that TNE is unlikely to be a better Traveller game engine for himself than Classic Traveller. And, without reading his mind, all I have to do to make that analysis is see what he's posted in this thread. For that purpose, it's a valid analysis.

But for purposes of discussing whether the Virus should be able to take over a hand computer, he'd not have enough info from this thread to make a valid decision. (I'm also certain he's other data.

I find this badly framed -- scientists and engineers analyze things the don't understand yet by collecting data on the issue, not taking someone else's word for it and running with that. Especially if the person whose word they take then tells them that it's wrong. I might have some inkling of this, as I am an engineer.

As for your opinion on what @pemerton would do, perhaps you're correct, but this isn't really a good analysis of @pemerton's thought process so much as it is a rough guess you've formed from other things. Humans are wired to detect patterns, so this isn't surprising, but it's also one of the very things the scientific process is supposed to filter out, given enough time and enough dead scientists.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I don't think you need to defend yourself at all -- there's not charge laid. That sounds like pretty normal play, and you hopefully had lots of fun with it. That it's a lower agency due to the GM judgement gating of actions doesn't, in any way, evaluate worth on it's own. Only you, with your own preferences, can take that information and make that call. I think it's a useful analysis, though, in that we can look at that play and see where differences arise so that we can then assign different value to them.

I mean, I just ran a poll of my group to see what they wanted to do after the holiday break. I was pretty sure we were headed back to 5e, and indeed that was the vote, so it's definite. What surprised me is that they voted to change tracks on the campaign and wanted to run through one of the recent published adventures! So, now I get to pull apart the selected AP (Descent into Avernus) and restructure it so it works with the group, because WotC doesn't write adventures for my group very well at all. I'm actually looking forward to the challenge -- how do I strip out most of the railroady aspects while keeping the theme? How can I let the players drive the play instead of going through the adventure wickets? Etc, etc. I think, after the recent stint of Blades, there's a desire to turn off a bit and coast through some door kicking with my entertainment on top. I can do that, even though I'd more prefer not doing the AP. Compromise -- enough fun all around. And, even though I will be restructuring the adventure, this is 5e, so I will absolutely be wielding the GM's authority -- benevolently, of course.

 

[pemerton]

On the matter of analysis being discussed between @aramis erak and @Ovinomancer:

Anyone who is well-trained in an intellectual field knows how to push/project their understanding into new fields on the basis of their existing knowledge. Some are better at it than others. People who are good at this are also good at recognising their limits, adjustimg/correcting based on feedback from (i) people who are already experts in the new field or (ii) actual data/experience.

I don't find it to be very common for someone to (i) know a new field only from someone else's account of it, and then (ii) on the basis of that tell the other person they've got it wrong. This seems to suffer from one obvious methodological flaw: it depends on treating the person as a reliable source of information (because they are how one learned about the new field) and yet arguing that they are not a reliable source of information (because they are wrong).

Which is what seems to be happening in this thread.

 

[Ovinomancer]

On the matter of analysis being discussed between @aramis erak and @Ovinomancer:

Anyone who is well-trained in an intellectual field knows how to push/project their understanding into new fields on the basis of their existing knowledge. Some are better at it than others. People who are good at this are also good at recognising their limits, adjustimg/correcting based on feedback from (i) people who are already experts in the new field or (ii) actual data/experience.

I don't find it to be very common for someone to (i) know a new field only from someone else's account of it, and then (ii) on the basis of that tell the other person they've got it wrong. This seems to suffer from one obvious methodological flaw: it depends on treating the person as a reliable source of information (because they are how one learned about the new field) and yet arguing that they are not a reliable source of information (because they are wrong).

Which is what seems to be happening in this thread.

I didn't "love" this post, because that's not the right feeling, but I wish there was a "strongly endorse" version of like for moments like this.

 

[FrogReaver]

On the matter of analysis being discussed between @aramis erak and @Ovinomancer:

Anyone who is well-trained in an intellectual field knows how to push/project their understanding into new fields on the basis of their existing knowledge. Some are better at it than others. People who are good at this are also good at recognising their limits, adjustimg/correcting based on feedback from (i) people who are already experts in the new field or (ii) actual data/experience.

I don't find it to be very common for someone to (i) know a new field only from someone else's account of it, and then (ii) on the basis of that tell the other person they've got it wrong. This seems to suffer from one obvious methodological flaw: it depends on treating the person as a reliable source of information (because they are how one learned about the new field) and yet arguing that they are not a reliable source of information (because they are wrong).

Which is what seems to be happening in this thread.

One can believe your accounts of the mechanics and how the game flows are correct while believing your analysis based on those things is flawed. There's nothing illogical about that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

All I can say here is that this may be your concern. Perhaps you’ve attempted this and it’s gone as you describe here. If so, then I don’t blame you for feeling that way.

But please trust me when I say that this style of game actually exists and functions perfectly fine.

Also, you bring this up a lot....why do you always assume that players won’t care about stories related to other players’ characters? It seems a bit bizarre.

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.

Why would you assume multiple PCs and high lethality?

Honestly, my group crafts their PCs together, even when playing games that don’t require that (some games do). So we talk all this stuff out, splitting the creative burden up and sharing it.

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

Depending on the game, sure. My 5E game has a good deal of GM plot stuff. I tend to craft it around the players and what they want to see and their characters’ desires and goals. And the way we approach play gives them a lot of freedom. So I don’t plan too strongly, and I do a lot of improvisation.

For Blades, all I do is introduce some of the factions as potential antagonists....and then the game and players take it from there.

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.

You’re wrong.

Let me ask you....if I were to tell you how your game was likely to fall apart, would you really give that opinion much thought? Should you?

It allows more contribution to the fiction from the player.

Thank you.

My position is that at some point this becomes more of a bug than a feature.

That’s fine. I’d recommend trying a game like it at some point to actually experience it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So, if a player already can contribute infinite contributions to the fiction then allowing said player to contribute 1 more thing to the fiction really isn't more contributions.

I don’t know exactly how to respond to this.

I mean, ignoring the faulty logic that a player can contribute in an infinite capacity, I suppose I’d say that infinity plus one is indeed more than infinity. I guess?

I mean, it’s pretty absurd, but we can go with that, sure.