A Question Of Agency?

[Bedrockgames]

@FrogReaver

Please do not tell me what I mean.

I am specifically addressing that in the face of limited transparency when it comes to social situations and information gathering it can become damn near impossible to tell if the GM is playing with integrity. It's these areas of the fiction where illusionism finds its nesting ground. If the GM is not meaningfully constrained by fictional positioning either socially or mechanically how can we say that players have the power to enact meaningful change in the shared fiction? They can plead before the GM/DM, but a medieval peasant does not have agency over their own life because they can petition their lord to enact change for them.

Also operating in information environments means it is much easier to enact change. To shape your environment.

Because if the GM isn't engaging in illusionism, then their choices can be meaningful. It is really that simple. This is one of the reasons why it is important for the Gm to cultivate trust with players and to demonstrate. If you are running a high agency sandbox with living NPCs for example, then the players are not going to have full access to information the GM may have about those NPCs. But the GM is either honestly engaging what the PCs choose to do or not, honestly considering the PCs words and actions or not. Obviously a GM can use that lack of transparency around say NPC motivations, to indulge in illusionism, but most GMs I meet who play this way are simply not doing that.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think most common situation would be when there is something that the player doesn't know about the situation that prevents the thing from succeeding in the manner envisioned by the player. I think trying to find food in the necrotic death zone was used as an example of such earlier in this thread, though that was rather extreme case of it. When attacking the orc, perhaps the orc is actually an illusion, and instead of harming an orc (because it doesn't exist) a hit reveals the illusion as character's sword passes harmlessly through it (this or something very similar certainly has happened in many a game, probably in yours too.)


Good question.

In this thread a lot of different GMing principles have been bandied about. I think many of them are laudable and applying them most of the time might indeed be a good idea. Most of the time. Roleplaying is such a complex affair, that that I am personally very sceptical of axiomatic principles that should always be followed (beyond always making sure that the players are not actually traumatised and other such real life safety concerns and good manners.) A thing can be a good idea 99% of the time, but that 1% will happen and then you need to 'break the rules.' I don't feel that unliving block of text such as game rules document can sufficiently capture the nuance needed for such decision making and take into account every possible situation. I feel that it is best if an actual human being makes that call. As a GM I want to have the power to make such calls, and as a player I trust my GM to use their power wisely.

@hawkeyefan

I'm going to go with this answer. It's better said than I would have been able to do.

 

[Bedrockgames]

They can plead before the GM/DM, but a medieval peasant does not have agency over their own life because they can petition their lord to enact change for them.

I think this attitude around GM power is at the heart of so many of these disputes. Needless to say, I would not frame traditional GM authority as players being peasants to a lord. This is a game. The point of GM authority isn't to enable the GM tyrannizing the players or holding some kind of power over their lives, it is so you can have a person positioned to do what no computer, board game, or system can do: adapt to what the players are trying to do so they can explore a living, breathing world. The Gm is meant to be a referee of an elf game, not a feudal lord.

 

[Campbell]

I think this attitude around GM power is at the heart of so many of these disputes. Needless to say, I would not frame traditional GM authority as players being peasants to a lord. This is a game. The point of GM authority isn't to enable the GM tyrannizing the players or holding some kind of power over their lives, it is so you can have a person positioned to do what no computer, board game, or system can do: adapt to what the players are trying to do so they can explore a living, breathing world. The Gm is meant to be a referee of an elf game, not a feudal lord.

I just fundamentally disagree that players have as much influence over the end result as in more transparent games. That's the point of gamist play - you need to find the right levers to gain that information. You need to be clever in order to navigate the obstacles placed in front of you. When this is done in a more transparent way it can be a ton of fun.

 

[FrogReaver]

I just fundamentally disagree that players have as much influence over the end result as in more transparent games.

Then let's explore that.

What does more influence over the end result look like? What does less influence over the end result look like?

Or put another way - How do we measure influence over the end result? Can we all even agree on how that is to be done?

That's the point of gamist play - you need to find the right levers to gain that information. You need to be clever in order to navigate the obstacles placed in front of you. When this is done in a more transparent way it can be a ton of fun.

I've no real idea what any of this means.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't feel that unliving block of text such as game rules document can sufficiently capture the nuance needed for such decision making and take into account every possible situation. I feel that it is best if an actual human being makes that call. As a GM I want to have the power to make such calls, and as a player I trust my GM to use their power wisely.

Do you have any actual examples you can share?

The general example you gave of the illusory orc is interesting, but not exactly the most meaningful example; meaning that the target of the attack is still removed as a result of the successful attack.

Do you have any other examples?

That's a strange definition of agency. If the peasant acted and his actions resulted in his life being spared then he most certainly had agency. Heck, if there was even a chance his actions would have spared him, it's still agency.

Having the option to beg isn’t exactly the best example of agency, is it?

 

[aramis erak]

All models are wrong but some are useful. People who (a) have a forensic knowledge base within a given field/trade archetype/discipline, (b) significant experiential data to rely upon, (c) and a reasonable measure of awareness of their own cognitive biases and limitations will tend to make extrapolations and inferences that are less error prone (not correct but "correct-er") than those that possess less of (a), (b), (c).

Ah, the old "science is bogus" argument. A reduction to the absurd...

Every model is incomplete, but wrong isn't true of most.

 

[hawkeyefan]

At the end of the day this is a game, and it is one with uncertain outcomes of actions (that is part of the excitement. Combat is an area where having rules is handy because that is a spot you are likely to see much more divergent interpretations of what should be the outcome (should my sword have hit? why this time but not last time? etc). My overall point though is combat is a part of the game, it definitely feels like I need to rules. On the other hand, I don't need rules for non-combat stuff as much (some spots I like it, but many spots I think the game works better without rules).

So do you think that the additional rules for combat help facilitate agency? That the structure gives the players some ability to influence things and a sense of the odds they have for doing so? Is the GM also generally constrained to allow actions in combat, and bound to honor the results?

Do players in D&D and similarly structured games approach combat with a better sense of how things will go than they do other areas of the game,

Do you think that it’s solely trust in the GM that gives them such a feeling? Or do you think that having defined rules and processes helps?

I’d love to hear what you and others have to say.

 

[Manbearcat]

Ah, the old "science is bogus" argument. A reduction to the absurd...

Every model is incomplete, but wrong isn't true of most.

Uh. No actually! And given that myself and my partner are scientists that would be doubly odd!

"All models are wrong but some (most if you'd like) are useful" is a straight-forward statement: "In proportion to parameterization being incorrect (and there is always going to be mis-parameterization...even if just due to degree but not due to lack of understanding the phenomena), the model is going to diverge from observations at some point...but that doesn't make them cease to be useful."

 

[Bedrockgames]

So do you think that the additional rules for combat help facilitate agency? That the structure gives the players some ability to influence things and a sense of the odds they have for doing so? Is the GM also generally constrained to allow actions in combat, and bound to honor the results?

Do players in D&D and similarly structured games approach combat with a better sense of how things will go than they do other areas of the game,

Do you think that it’s solely trust in the GM that gives them such a feeling? Or do you think that having defined rules and processes helps?

I’d love to hear what you and others have to say.

I think combat rules don't really add or take away agency. I would have to think about it some more. But I suspect different types of players will feel differently about how much having combat rules enhances or detracts from agency.

What I will say is I think combat is one area where it is really necessary to place constraints on the GM, while I think it isn't in other parts of the game. As a GM I wouldn't want to have to decide if Hector's gladius stabs the minotaur or not, I would want dice to determine that for me. However I have no problem having to decide if Hector's clever insult infuriates the minotaur.

Keep in mind though, in D&D, traditionally, the GM still has final say. The 1E DMG, I am pretty sure, specifically allows for fudging of results behind the screen. Fudging is a dirty word because it gets abused, but there are places with any mechanics for the GM to step in if the result is just boneheaded for some reason (it is the human element to correct the machine). Personally, I take a slightly different approach to fudging (I let the players know why and when I am fudging and I almost never do it----and it is almost always because the mechanics have gone off the rails in some significant way).