A Question Of Agency?

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, there's some give an take. I see where you're going here, and you're missing that the GM isn't blocking, they're challenging. This is very different from saying no based on your subjective understanding of the fiction. Plus, everything is entirely player facing -- there's no notes or thoughts that haven't yet to show up but go into the evaluations.

No one's ever claimed the GM doesn't have input, they've claimed that input is player facing and tightly constrained. You're building a strawman.

The thing is it is all a difference of degree, not of kind. The GM saying 'no' or just stacking the deck against certain thing are both variations of the same thing, the former just is more obvious. And of course in any RPG, there are situations where someone has to say 'no' be it the GM or other players collectively going 'no silly.' Some things simply are impossible/too stupid/genre inappropriate. And again, of course in any RPG the GM is there to challenge the players, and not just lord over them with their 'unlimited GM authority.' I really don't think it is me who is building strawmen here.

Yes, we've determined that you prefer to solve the puzzle, but that isn't agency. You using your ability to solve the GM's puzzle, according to the information the GM parcels out, going through the wickets the GM designs, and with the approval of the GM doesn't look much like agency, although it can be hella fun.

Lesser agency is not a bad thing. I will be leaning heavily into the agency restrictions that come with running 5e when I start back up next year with, of all things, an published adventure path. I clearly don't have a problem with this -- I plan to run a very fun game and entertain everyone. It will just have less agency than my recent Blades game. It's no big.

Well, I am not going to agree that actually solving a mystery is a lesser agency state than getting to roll the dice to see whether you get to invent a solution to a mystery.

 

[pemerton]

Going to use this post to discuss Framing and Consequences and try to put together a post that will help you understand why the bold word here is a category error and why there was no violation of The Czege Principle.

The word you should be using is propose. Author means fiat. You're stipulating a thing without resistance or recourse to dispute it. That is NOT what is happening in this case. The player is making a proposition and we're going to the dice to find out if (a) that proposition turns out to be a solution to his problem or (b) something else.

Basic play loop:
Step 1: Player proposes some fiction.
Step 2: RNG is successful.
Step 3: Player's proposal becomes fiction.

Regardless of what came before, the moment step 3 gets here the player has authored the fiction. All the RNG is doing in step 2 is picking whether the player got to be the author this time around.

That's not a very good account of the basic play loop of a player-agency-supporting RPG, because it assumes what is false, namely, that checks always succeed.

Here's a better account (it's more generic than @Manbearcat's because not particular to any single mechanical framework):

Step 0: GM frames situation
Step 1: Player declares action for his/her PC - this is a proposal for a change/addition to the fiction as it pertains to the protagonist PC
Step 2a: Either everyone at the table goes along with the player, in which case we're back at Step 0 with the framing further developed, or someone - typically the GM but maybe another player - calls for a check.
Step 2b: Whether by express GM explanation at this point (or perhaps explanation from another player if they are the one who forced the check), or whether it is implicit in the fiction as established so far, there is a sense of what will happen if the check fails.
Step 2c: The check is resolved using the appropriate mechanical process.
Step 3: Depending on the way the resolution panned out, the fiction changes in one of the following ways: the fiction contains the player's proposal; the fiction contains the player's proposal plus some of what had been flagged as a consequence of failure; the fiction contains only the consequence of failure. Whatever the nature of the change, we're now back at Step 0.

This is consistent with [urlk=[URL]http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html]Vincent[/URL] Baker's observation[/url] that I've already quoted once or twice in this thread:

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game (players and GMs, if you've even got such things) have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not. . . .

So look, you! Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.​

Different mechanical systems produce different versions of Step 3 (ie how do different resolution systems lead to that range of possibilities being actualised in game play?). They also produce different sorts of pacing and dynamics (ie how often do the protagonists succeed at all, or completely?)

What they have in common, in these sorts of RPGs, is that they allow player proposals to become part of the fiction without any capacity for the GM to "block" that by relying on hitherto-unrevealed, unilaterally-established components of the fiction.

And to relate this to the Czege Principle: the player is not both posing the challenge and authoring the solution. The GM contribute to framing (see Step 0) and another participant has established the adversity (see Step 2). The player is not just free-narrating his/her way through the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

Well, I am not going to agree that actually solving a mystery is a lesser agency state than getting to roll the dice to see whether you get to invent a solution to a mystery.

Do you have an example of a RPG that works like that?

What is the action declaration you are envisaging? What resolution process?

I think you're just making this stuff up.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've been talking about puzzle-solving from pretty much the beginning of the thread. And I believe am the only person to actually post an example of actual play of that sort of game. So I wouldn't agree that this is something that has not been recognised.

What's at issue is whether it involves player agency. As I've posted, it uses much the same skill set as solving a crossword or the book The Eleventh Hour. (I don't know about the US, but in Australia the recruitment notices for our domestic spy service literally suggest being good at solving crosswords as one of the indicators of aptitude to join ASIO.)

In a RPG, this sort of puzzle-solving ability can be deployed by the players in a pure railroad. There are choose-your-own-adventure and Fighting Fantasy books that use this sort of ability. It is not any sort of agency in respect of the shared fiction.

Well, I think that even solving crosswords involves agency, although in super limited degree. But your choices matter in a sense that if you make wrong ones you fail to solve the bloody thing. But I really don't think a good mystery RPG is comparable. Yes, there might effectively be one 'correct answer' in the end, but there is so much more. As they say, it is the journey that matters, not the destination. There are simply so many differnt ways one can arrive to a conclusion, so many differnt ways that the characters can attempt to gain information. And if the GM has the starting situation clearly designed, they can reasonably adjudicate anything the players might come up. I was in a murder mystery LARP a while ago, and... well, it was not a crossword. I wish I could recall things with sufficient to clarity to describe how it went down, but I simply cannot, there was so many moving bits interacting with each other. Everybody had their own skeletons in their closets, a lot of clues, misunderstandings, screaming, personal drama, pressure to solve the thing before the victim's mafioso father arrives and kills us all. I certainly wouldn't describe it as linear, predictable or as a low agency affair.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Do you have an example of a RPG that works like that?

What is the action declaration you are envisaging? What resolution process?

I think you're just making this stuff up.

The painting example was that. The player needed the thing for their backstory, and by asking whether a random thing they latched on could be the thing they needed they got to roll a check on whether it was.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The thing is it is all a difference of degree, not of kind. The GM saying 'no' or just stacking the deck against certain thing are both variations of the same thing, the former just is more obvious. And of course in any RPG, there are situations where someone has to say 'no' be it the GM or other players collectively going 'no silly.' Some things simply are impossible/too stupid/genre inappropriate. And again, of course in any RPG the GM is there to challenge the players, and not just lord over them with their 'unlimited GM authority.' I really don't think it is me who is building strawmen here.

I'm at a loss, honestly, that you can say that the GM setting an Effect without saying no is the same as saying no. The only way you could think this is if you utterly ignored the way that the Blades player can overcome an Effect setting and instead substituted your understanding of D&D where the GM's call on this is absolute. Which is kinda funny, in a way.

And, no, I'm not at all assuming bad faith on a D&D GM. What I do know is that if they don't think there's a use to the portrait, they don't just charge a cost to see what it's worth to the PC, they say no. This is good play in that paradigm. It is also reducing the player's agency.

Well, I am not going to agree that actually solving a mystery is a lesser agency state than getting to roll the dice to see whether you get to invent a solution to a mystery.

I wouldn't either -- and, as I've said so many times this thread, maybe you should consider that because I agree with you, here. Your shallow understanding of the Blades play loop is leading you to create strawmen. That and you need to win the argument that your game has as much agency as a different game, when that's not a thing to be worried about. It's like pointing out that Blades doesn't have and d20s -- the question is why and how that works, not that not having a d20 makes it a poorer game.

EDIT: my grammar seems to be suffering more than usual, today. I blame the cold meds.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm at a loss, honestly, that you can say that the GM setting an Effect without saying no is the same as saying no.

Both are ways for the GM to push things towards their desired outcome.

The only way you could think this is if you utterly ignored the way that the Blades player can overcome an Effect setting and instead substituted your understanding of D&D where the GM's call on this is absolute. Which is kinda funny, in a way.

And, no, I'm not at all assuming bad faith on a D&D GM. What I do know is that if they don't think there's a use to the portrait, they don't just charge a cost to see what it's worth to the PC, they say no. This is good play in that paradigm. It is also reducing the player's agency.

You just seem going back and worth with this. When I said that in Blades the player can just insert their desired solution when they want and roll for it, you countered that with 'no they can't because GM can do this and that.' And if the GM can do that, then the GM can push the game in their desired direction. And if they can't my first observation stands. So which is it?

I wouldn't either -- and, as I've said so many times this thread, maybe you should consider that because I agree with you, here. Your shallow understanding of the Blades play loop is leading you to create strawmen. That and you need to win the argument that your game has as much agency as a different game, when that's not a thing to be worried about. It's like pointing out that Blades doesn't have and d20s -- the question is why and how that works, not that not having a d20 makes it a poorer game.

EDIT: my grammar seems to be suffering more than usual, today. I blame the cold meds.

Ultimately you don't seem to get that, having narrative power over the setting reduces the ability to be surprised, to explore and make meaningful decisions against that setting. That's not a bad thing in itself and there are various differnt ways this can be balanced, but it is always a trade off. Now if agency just mean 'authority to decide a thing' then yes, Blades probably would have more player agency than more traditional games. But if agency means 'ability to make meaningful choices' then I am not at all sure that it does.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Both are ways for the GM to push things towards their desired outcome.

What outcome do I desire in noting that a spontaneous player ask doesn't fit the current fiction well enough to get a normal effect? You're spinning, here, ignoring things to make a claim that is unsupported by the evidence. For one, I cannot anticipate that a player would make the ask when framing the situation that the players chose for the score (location). Second, I can't block or prevent, all I can do is increase the cost and there only if it fits the open fictional situation at the table. In other words, everything I'm make my decision on is known to the table and should be obvious to all. How this lets me push things to a desired outcome (which I can't even guess what it will be at this point because I don't have the action to tell what could happen on a success or failure) is beyond me.

You just seem going back and worth with this. When I said that in Blades the player can just insert their desired solution when they want and roll for it, you countered that with 'no they can't because GM can do this and that.' And if the GM can do that, then the GM can push the game in their desired direction. And if they can't my first observation stands. So which is it?

That's not what I said at all. I said that they have to fit the genre, and fit the fiction. If it doesn't fit the genre, the table will say no, and we need to have an out-of-game discussion about this -- does the player not want to play within the genre, is there a misunderstanding, is there passive-aggressive stuff that needs to stop right now? If it doesn't fit the fiction, then the cost goes up to try it. Then there's a check. And then, the "solution" is likely just a step in the direction of a solution rather than the end itself. I mean, you did read what I wrote, yes?

And, the dichotomy you're presenting is false. The player can't just whistle up a solution to any problem and roll some dice and get it AND the GM can't easily or secretly direct play. The easily part means it would require a sustained effort by someone gifted in manipulation to do so, because they'd have to engage social engineering approaches -- the game's not going to help them. This is bad behavior outside the game, so it's ridiculous to pin it on the system. The secretly part is the one that most impossible -- everything in the game is in the open and accessible to all. If you can't convince the players to ask for it for you (the manipulation part), then it's going to be obvious what's happening. Just like it's obvious when a player asks for something unsupported by the fiction, it's obvious when a GM starts narrating outcomes similarly.

The worst manipulation the GM can do is soft-pedal things. They can let off the adversity hose and say "yes" more often, or not pay off threatened consequences on a failure. But this isn't driving an outcome so much as it is just trying to be nice to players. You still can't get a preferred outcome over time, you're just letting the PCs off easy when you shouldn't. And, to be fair, this is a hard part of GMing a game like Blades -- you have to keep pouring it on if it's the result.

Ultimately you don't seem to get that, having narrative power over the setting reduces the ability to be surprised, to explore and make meaningful decisions against that setting. That's not a bad thing in itself and there are various differnt ways this can be balanced, but it is always a trade off. Now if agency just mean 'authority to decide a thing' then yes, Blades probably would have more player agency than more traditional games. But if agency means 'ability to make meaningful choices' then I am not at all sure that it does.

LOL, I thought this, too, but I have more surprising in my Blades game than in my D&D games -- because the surprises are surprises to everyone at the table, not just to the players. You're wildly incorrect. And, no, agency doesn't mean authority, although they are related. Having authority over a thing may come with agency, but only if it matters to the game. Having authority to choose to act in-character, for instance, is authority, but not player agency. It's agency in the real world, but not in the game. This is because it doesn't impact the gamestate at all, just your fellow players at the table, in the social space.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Ovinomancer it just sounds like the person who can justify their naughty word the best will get their way. So instead of convincing the GM or trying to work within the fictional reality you need to convince your fellow players that the random item you chose is genre appropriately something that could potentially interest the university (not a hard thing to do as the need was so unspecific.) And yes, this is intentionally uncharitable in the same way as you describe GM directed games.

Oh, and your definition of 'gamestate' still remains incoherent and arbitrary. 'Elf is sad' and 'door is locked' are both equally valid 'gamestates'.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer it just sounds like the person who can justify their naughty word the best will get their way. So instead of convincing the GM or trying to work within the fictional reality you need to convince your fellow players that the random item you chose is genre appropriately something that could potentially interest the university (not a hard thing to do as the need was so unspecific.) And yes, this is intentionally uncharitable in the same way as you describe GM directed games.

Oh, and your definition of 'gamestate' still remains incoherent and arbitrary. 'Elf is sad' and 'door is locked' are both equally valid 'gamestates'.

I don't know what you're imagining, but it doesn't look like anything I've been talking about. You're imagining bad faith -- that a player wants to manipulate or abuse the game is some way. This is saying that dealing with jerks is the system's problem, and that's just silly. If the player wants to abuse the game, this is a problem in any system. In fact, the behavior you're citing here is only one you are pointing out because the default response in a D&D game is for the GM to use the system to handle it -- by saying no. You're citing the GM's authority to curtail agency as a primary way to deal with jerk players trying to manipulate the system in some way. A system, by the way, that makes this amazingly obvious to all of the other players rather than leave it up to the GM to nope.

As for gamestate, I agree 100% that "Elf is sad," and, "door is locked," are both equally valid gamestates. I invite you, once again, to reconcile this with whatever you imagine I think. I'll provide a hint: "elf is sad," requires exactly as much in-character action as "door is locked" -- which is to say none. You do, in D&D, usually have the agency to declare your elf is sad, but in-character acting is orthogonal to this, not an enabler.