A Question Of Agency?

[hawkeyefan]

Ha, oh, man, I'm reading through Descent into Avernus, and I'm only at the first "encounter" of the module, after the party gets dragooned by a guard captain, Zodge, into doing a task. The adventure literally says that Zodge has the authority to draft adventurers in times of need, and can have them executed if the refuse, but prefers to have the do his bidding. So, after the dragooning and the charging of a mission, you get this as the second paragraph of the next section about the mission:

I mean, wow. I have lots of work to do.

How the hell are the players supposed to be remoted interested in following the plot if they're forced on pain of death to comply with it to start?!?

That can be really tough. I’ve included 4 of the WotC published 5E adventures in my campaign, to varying degrees of success.

We started with Lost Mines of Phandelver. This is a solid adventure, with a pretty open approach. It was our intro to 5E, so it worked suitably. The fact that a lot of what happened there became fundamental to our campaign really worked out.

Then Princes of the Apocalypse was next. It’s a decent book and is pretty modular, so it’s easy to lift and repurpose things. We haven’t gotten all the way through; the end of that adventure is pretty huge in scope, so I’ve put that off until later on. Not sure we’ll go with it as presented, but until then, the elemental cults remain in play, with the elemental princes a looming threat.

Then we did Curse of Strahd. I incorporated a lot of backstory into this one, so it had some significant additions. Even with that extra material, the thrust of the adventure was still to confront Strahd, free the souls of Barovia, and escape back to the Prime Material.

Then I thought it’d be fun to do an old school dungeon crawl, so I ran Tomb of Annihilation. Acererak and Chult already figured prominently in our campaign so it was easy to add in the Death Curse and motivate the PCs to get involved. Where things went wrong was in the delving aspect. I just think that as editions have moved on, my players’ preferences have just moved away from that style of play. So it went poorly until I stopped worrying about the skilled play delving style approach and focused on other elements.

Some things are just easier to drop in than others. With Descent into Avernus I think you’ve wisely required the PCs to care about Baldur’s Gate. It’d probably help to run a couple of prelim adventures and establish some NPCs and connections through play and THEN go with the inciting event of the book. But yeah, as presented, it’s a pretty hamfisted attempt to force the PCs into action.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'd be inclined to say that knowing y'all are going to be doing D&D, and then doing D&D, is kinda a good thing. Play the game (and setting) you've chosen to play, I guess.

Exactamundo!

 

[Ovinomancer]

That can be really tough. I’ve included 4 of the WotC published 5E adventures in my campaign, to varying degrees of success.

We started with Lost Mines of Phandelver. This is a solid adventure, with a pretty open approach. It was our intro to 5E, so it worked suitably. The fact that a lot of what happened there became fundamental to our campaign really worked out.

Then Princes of the Apocalypse was next. It’s a decent book and is pretty modular, so it’s easy to lift and repurpose things. We haven’t gotten all the way through; the end of that adventure is pretty huge in scope, so I’ve put that off until later on. Not sure we’ll go with it as presented, but until then, the elemental cults remain in play, with the elemental princes a looming threat.

Then we did Curse of Strahd. I incorporated a lot of backstory into this one, so it had some significant additions. Even with that extra material, the thrust of the adventure was still to confront Strahd, free the souls of Barovia, and escape back to the Prime Material.

Then I thought it’d be fun to do an old school dungeon crawl, so I ran Tomb of Annihilation. Acererak and Chult already figured prominently in our campaign so it was easy to add in the Death Curse and motivate the PCs to get involved. Where things went wrong was in the delving aspect. I just think that as editions have moved on, my players’ preferences have just moved away from that style of play. So it went poorly until I stopped worrying about the skilled play delving style approach and focused on other elements.

Some things are just easier to drop in than others. With Descent into Avernus I think you’ve wisely required the PCs to care about Baldur’s Gate. It’d probably help to run a couple of prelim adventures and establish some NPCs and connections through play and THEN go with the inciting event of the book. But yeah, as presented, it’s a pretty hamfisted attempt to force the PCs into action.

Yep, feel you. I'm not sure playing up BG really works without significant downstream alterations, though -- the game just keeps the idea that you're trying to save BG, but it doesn't really feature anything else about it after the opening. I'm rapidly passing my comfort level with spoilers in a non-spoiler thread, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[FrogReaver]

If we’re talking about agency, then it absolutely is necessary. I don’t see how you can just dismiss that.

Maybe because I'm not talking about agency and haven't really been for 4 pages now?

Without the context of agency, what does it help to say “when a player succeeds, they get what they want”?

I've went back to my page 117 and gotten the 2 posts that really started this tangent. Hopefully they help provide you some context and show the stakes around what is actually being discussed (why it ultimately matters).

Nor am I certain that’s even true. There is of course the idea that some games allow a GM total authority to modify or overrule any result, but even aside from that,

One of the biggest complaints brought up by proponents of non traditional style games is that the GM in a D&D game has total authority to modify results, etc. If you are saying that possibility is actually present in many of these games then I kind of feel like I'm being sold a bunch of lies about them. But as you said, that's certainly aside from the current discussion.

I think the GM can potentially have a lot of input on what a success actually means.

I'm curious as to how you think he can? In the games I've been discussing, I've been told that if the player gets true success then he gets exactly what he wanted. I'm not seeing where that leaves room for DM input on what a success actually means?



The quotes that started this tangent:

The character's backstory and how it related to the motivations is good stuff. I definitely encourage that and as a GM that sort of thing will most definitely inform my decision making, albeit not in some formulaic manner. What renders this cool and well thought-out player authored motivation significantly less meaningful, is that the player has the ability to author solution to their quest any moment they want. And sure, they need to roll dice and may fail, but that's still ultimately what's happening here.

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.

Manbearcat here realized the consequences of having a player be able to author the solution to their problems and it's why he refused to call it authorship. My posts since then have been about showing that it is actually authorship - because if it is then this criticism still stands.

 

[FrogReaver]

I kind of think there's too many games being discussed all at once and too many generalities being used about them. It's to the point that it feels like I can't say one thing I've been told about a game without being told some other game doesn't work like this.

I really propose we break apart these kind of a megathread into various threads
Analyzing D&D
Analyzing Bitd
Etc.

I think this would enhance the discussion alot.

 

[Manbearcat]

Manbearcat here realized the consequences of having a player be able to author the solution to their problems and it's why he refused to call it authorship. My posts since then have been about showing that it is actually authorship - because if it is then this criticism still stands.

Are you serious with this?

This is what you think is happening here?

You think you've caught me in some FROGREAVER GAMBIT LOGIC TRAP OMG and my response is an intellectually dishonest one intended to obfuscate because (as you put it upthread) "you've been vindicated?"

Is that seriously what you think happened in that exchange?

I need to know before I respond.

 

[FrogReaver]

Are you serious with this?

This is what you think is happening here?

You think you've caught me in some FROGREAVER GAMBIT LOGIC TRAP OMG and my response is an intellectually dishonest one intended to obfuscate because (as you put it upthread) "you've been vindicated?"

Is that seriously what you think happened in that exchange?

I need to know before I respond.

It would help me answer you if you could hone in on what about my post is not true.

Manbearcat here realized the consequences of having a player be able to author the solution to their problems

Do you not realize the consequences of having a player be able to author the solution to their problems?

and it's why he refused to call it authorship.

Is this the part you object to?

My posts since then have been about showing that it is actually authorship -

I can tell you with certainty this is true

because if it is then this criticism still stands.

Is this not true?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Maybe because I'm not talking about agency and haven't really been for 4 pages now?


I've went back to my page 117 and gotten the 2 posts that really started this tangent. Hopefully they help provide you some context and show the stakes around what is actually being discussed (why it ultimately matters).


One of the biggest complaints brought up by proponents of non traditional style games is that the GM in a D&D game has total authority to modify results, etc. If you are saying that possibility is actually present in many of these games then I kind of feel like I'm being sold a bunch of lies about them. But as you said, that's certainly aside from the current discussion.


I'm curious as to how you think he can? In the games I've been discussing, I've been told that if the player gets true success then he gets exactly what he wanted. I'm not seeing where that leaves room for DM input on what a success actually means?



The quotes that started this tangent:



Manbearcat here realized the consequences of having a player be able to author the solution to their problems and it's why he refused to call it authorship. My posts since then have been about showing that it is actually authorship - because if it is then this criticism still stands.

Because "authorship" as a term means having the authority to place whatever you want within the fiction, like an author does. This doesn't really describe the play loop at all, and looking only at cases where a player has succeeded and moves toward their intended goal is a narrow look. Using "authorship" in this context does not illuminate anything, unless your intent is to play word games and sneak in a switch later on.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It would help me answer you if you could hone in on what about my post is not true.


Do you not realize the consequences of having a player be able to author the solution to their problems?

Ah, here's that switch I was talking about. This isn't a question of asking what the problem of having a player achieve movement towards their intended goal in the fiction on a success, but a different position where the authorship is standing in for a broader ability to unilaterally author outcomes.

But, some games actually do this (not any under current discussion), and work quite well for their stated purposes. So, curiously, what do you imagine the consequences are? I've got 10 doughnuts to the dollar that it's mired in a specific play approach.

 

[Manbearcat]

It would help me answer you if you could hone in on what about my post is not true.


Do you not realize the consequences of having a player be able to author the solution to their problems?


Is this the part you object to?


I can tell you with certainty this is true


Is this not true?

Ok, that is exactly what I thought. I wish you would just come out and call me a "dishonest, ideologically-entrenched douche" rather than implying it and then bouncing the ball back in my court as you've done in the lead sentence above.

Alright.

1) I brought up "RNG as epithet" because in the gaming community (not software development or wherever you're trying to draw jargon from), its pretty much exclusively used as an exasperated exclamation when someone feels that an aspect of a game (deep deck + draw mechanics, or a large and swingy dice game) highlights the noise of the RNG aspect sufficiently to damage the game's ability to distill the signal of skilled play.

Whether you meant it in the clinical RNG bent of software development (or whatever) and therefore just meant it as a descriptor (rather than the neutral "fortune resolution" as I've always used it and most everyone else has), is besides the point for why I included it.

I included it because its extremely important in a conversation about agency (maybe not to you or your point...but it absolutely is important as a fundamental aspect of the conversation).

Now, moving on from that.

2) It was unclear to me what your hypothesis was until that last thing you posted where (a) you appear to think you have read my mind and (b) your brutally incorrect inference that I was being intellectually dishonest has led you profoundly astray.

Because you haven't explicitly said it yet but you've hinted at it significantly above, I'm assuming what you're attempting to demonstrate is the following formulation:

* The Czege Principle states that authorship of your own success at defeating an obstacle isn't fun.

* "Isn't fun" here can be subbed out for "yields a meaningless decision" which can then be extrapolated to "authorship means no agency has been expressed."

I now think that is what you're trying to do.

Unfortunately, this is a complete non-sequitur. It is a fundamental misunderstanding and subsequent misappropriation of the axiom (which I'm sure someone has already told you along the way but I haven't read a lot of the thread lately).

The reason why I included all those extra steps in the Play Loop? ITS BECAUSE THEY'RE FUNDAMENTAL TO THE FORMULATION OF ALL OF THIS:

1) The Czege Principle is about NO INTERMEDIARY BETWEEN <OBSTACLE> - <MOVE> - <OBSTACLE DEFEATED>. It is about AUTHORSHIP VIA FIAT.

For instance:

GM THINKING: "This damn Spellcaster <OBSTACLE> is going to wreck my perfectly planned mystery/encounter/metaplot. I know! I'll leverage my exclusive access to the offscreen and unestablished backstory to erect this block! <MOVE>"

GM IN PLAY: "You cast your Scry/Teleport/Fly/Charm spell and nothing happens. It must be an Anti-Magic Field! <OBSTACLE DEFEATED>"

This is the Czege Principle at work.

LITTLE KID PLAYING: "I'm Indiana Jones! DUN DUH DUNT DUUUUH! Oh no, a Pit Trap! <OBSTACLE> "Oh look! A chandelier <makes whip crack noise> <MOVE> DUN DUH DUNT DUUUUH <pantomimes swinging across and landing on the other side>!<OBSTACLE DEFEATED>

This is the Czege Principle at work.

THIS is why proposal (and then consult the intervening procedures to determine if this proposal is actionable) is the correct word. NOT AUTHORSHIP.

The Czege Principle is about skilled play (and agency being an attendant feature of that). This dovetails precisely with my point about RNG above. "RNG" (the epithet) is a thing because it reduces the distillation of Skill Play. Coming up with an obstacle and making a move by fiat to defeat it "is not fun" because it is THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SKILLED PLAY.

EDIT - Ninja'd by @Ovinomancer : "unilaterally author outcome" is another way to put it. This is why "proposal > consult intervening procedure to determine if it is actionable" is the correct formulation.