A Question Of Agency?

[prabe]

Hence, if the system either requires Force or enables Force and the GM's propensity to deploy Force is a function of time, then its damn near certain that agency will decrease as campaigns grow in length.

You are thinking that incidences of Force accrue? As in, having had less agency in one instance, you continue to have less in future instances even if no Force is applied? I'm not sure I agree with that, but I'm not sure I disagree with it, either, and I'm surely not inclined to argue about it.

 

[Manbearcat]

You are thinking that incidences of Force accrue? As in, having had less agency in one instance, you continue to have less in future instances even if no Force is applied? I'm not sure I agree with that, but I'm not sure I disagree with it, either, and I'm surely not inclined to argue about it.

Just to be clear, that isn't what I'm saying directly above. I'm saying "if Force deployment is a function of time, then more instances of Force will be occur in a game that is longer than another game."

Now, to address your point directly above, I would say the following:

1) A singular instance of Force will have a 1st order effect (this thing happened right now rather than that).

2) The significance of that 1st order effect will depend upon both (a) the stakes at the moment of deployment and (b) the downstream effects:

* Sam isn't dead, Cindy and Sam aren't dead, everyone isn't dead.

* We've gained/lost an asset(s)/alliance/enemy (The ranch-hand Timmy I had a d8 Relationship with in Dogs has been killed or turned against me, I lost 1 Coin/4 extra HP/spent 1 Adventuring Gear to make Camp and in DW to recover from the changed situation)

* The immediate situation subsequent to the one we're in becomes more/less dire or changes entirely (instead of being down a PC and having to deal with flagging resources because the fight went several rounds longer and we've still got a lot more dungeon to explore...we're much less tapped).

* Setting changes substantially (or less so) as a result (a Threat in AW is activated/created, our Lair in Blades is gone, etc)

* PC build or ethos or directives change as a result (a Belief in BW, a Bond in DW, Nature had to be tapped in Torchbearer, a Downtime Project has to be initiated in Blades, etc)

* Temporal or spatial changes occur as a result (a journey is now required, we've been ported to n)

3) As one instance of Force turns into a 2nd instance of Force (and so on), the trajectory of play becomes more and more perturbed from what it would have authentically have been if no Force was deployed. Consequently, agency becomes more wrested from the players to the GM (and upon some fault line, a Railroad emerges which cannot be recovered from).

 

[Bedrockgames]

"Argumentation" in this thread has officially jumped the shark.

This thread IS the shark

 

[zarionofarabel]

Just to be clear, that isn't what I'm saying directly above. I'm saying "if Force deployment is a function of time, then more instances of Force will be occur in a game that is longer than another game."

Now, to address your point directly above, I would say the following:

1) A singular instance of Force will have a 1st order effect (this thing happened right now rather than that).

2) The significance of that 1st order effect will depend upon both (a) the stakes at the moment of deployment and (b) the downstream effects:

* Sam isn't dead, Cindy and Sam aren't dead, everyone isn't dead.

* We've gained/lost an asset(s)/alliance/enemy (The ranch-hand Timmy I had a d8 Relationship with in Dogs has been killed or turned against me, I lost 1 Coin/4 extra HP/spent 1 Adventuring Gear to make Camp and in DW to recover from the changed situation)

* The immediate situation subsequent to the one we're in becomes more/less dire or changes entirely (instead of being down a PC and having to deal with flagging resources because the fight went several rounds longer and we've still got a lot more dungeon to explore...we're much less tapped).

* Setting changes substantially (or less so) as a result (a Threat in AW is activated/created, our Lair in Blades is gone, etc)

* PC build or ethos or directives change as a result (a Belief in BW, a Bond in DW, Nature had to be tapped in Torchbearer, a Downtime Project has to be initiated in Blades, etc)

* Temporal or spatial changes occur as a result (a journey is now required, we've been ported to n)

3) As one instance of Force turns into a 2nd instance of Force (and so on), the trajectory of play becomes more and more perturbed from what it would have authentically have been if no Force was deployed. Consequently, agency becomes more wrested from the players to the GM (and upon some fault line, a Railroad emerges which cannot be recovered from).

Oh bloody hell! Now I'm not sure if I run railroads or not! Stop messing with my head!!!

 

[prabe]

Just to be clear, that isn't what I'm saying directly above. I'm saying "if Force deployment is a function of time, then more instances of Force will be occur in a game that is longer than another game."

That was about what I thought you were saying, and I don't disagree with it.

As one instance of Force turns into a 2nd instance of Force (and so on), the trajectory of play becomes more and more perturbed from what it would have authentically have been if no Force was deployed. Consequently, agency becomes more wrested from the players to the GM (and upon some fault line, a Railroad emerges which cannot be recovered from).

While I believe this can happen--the trajectory of play can be perturbed--I don't think it's useless or worthless to consider the amount of agency at a given instance, leaving the total perturbation aside.

 

[prabe]

Oh bloody hell! Now I'm not sure if I run railroads or not! Stop messing with my head!!!

As has been said: If you care enough to worry about running railroads, and you don't want to, you're probably doing fine.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As has been said: If you care enough to worry about running railroads, and you don't want to, you're probably doing fine.

Eh... maybe. I mean, if you've only ever run D&D then there might be some blind spots where you're running a railroad, but it looks so familiar you can't tell. I mean, not a hard railroad, but still. APs are this, but usually not called out as such -- when they are, there's a contingent that decries the appellation.

 

[Manbearcat]

Oh bloody hell! Now I'm not sure if I run railroads or not! Stop messing with my head!!!

Tell me more. What do you think (a) about what I've written above and (b) how it interacts with your lead post.

That was about what I thought you were saying, and I don't disagree with it.

While I believe this can happen--the trajectory of play can be perturbed--I don't think it's useless or worthless to consider the amount of agency at a given instance, leaving the total perturbation aside.

I agree its not useless. Its very much useful in fact. But mostly its useful to discern (a) where the fault line lies with your group (some groups, like my primary group, are EXTREMELY sensitive to any deployment of Force) and (b) to do a proper post-mortem of your play to examine its true effects.

 

[prabe]

Eh... maybe. I mean, if you've only ever run D&D then there might be some blind spots where you're running a railroad, but it looks so familiar you can't tell. I mean, not a hard railroad, but still. APs are this, but usually not called out as such -- when they are, there's a contingent that decries the appellation.

Sure, I suppose it's possible to accidentally run a railroad--though I think not wanting to run one makes it a good deal less likely. I definitely don't think the level of concern about it @zarionofarabel has expressed is at all consistent with running an intentional railroad.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Tell me more. What do you think (a) about what I've written above and (b) how it interacts with your lead post.

Well as a total improv GM, every time I add a component to the narrative I am applying Force, right? Simply because there is nothing written in stone before it hits the table. That means every single time I add a component to the narrative I am subtly nudging the narrative in the direction I want it to go. That means the longer the narrative progresses the more and more it becomes what I want it to be and less what the players want unless there is a mechanical way for them to also apply force, right? So if I am using a "traditional" system like D&D I'm a full on railroading machine by, say, session five. So with my particular style I would have to stick with systems that allow the players to Force the narrative in their favor, right?!?!?

Ahhhhh!!! I love/hate this thread!!! It's messing with my head!!!