A Question Of Agency?

[pemerton]

This is not a persuasive argument, and it honestly seems like a deeply flawed one as well. These points have all been addressed multiple times, from just about every conceivable angle. There appears to be some kind of equivocation going on in your use of contributing to/creating the fiction. I mean if taking something that already exists in the setting, an orc the GM has introduced, and defeating it in combat, is the player having narrative power, well I guess narrative power is a pretty meaningless concept in that case, because it pretty much always arises, in every game ever.

Yes. That is my point.

The fact that you and @FrogReaver differentiate between the "narrative power" to bring it about that Orcs are dead and the "narrative power" to bring it about that walls have secret doors is a fact about your aesthetic preferences. But it doesn't tell us anything about what is involved in creating a shared fiction - because changing a fiction to have the Orc in it be dead is no different an act from changing a fiction to have the wall in it contain a secret door.

But you are using that to build an argument for something much greater (the players having far more control of the setting than the they normally do).

By "normal" you mean as you play D&D?

I've already pointed out that what you describe as not "normal" was contemplated in Classic Traveller in 1977. In precisely the circumstances one would expect, that is, when map-and-key resolution becomes impossible (ie Streetwise checks).

First, the players didn't introduce a dead orc. An orc was introduced by the GM, then it was killed by the player acting through their character's attacks. That isn't narrating a dead orc, that isn't contributing a dead orc to the fiction.

Yes it is. The fiction contains a live Orc. The player declares an action. The action resolves successfully. Now the fiction contains a dead Orc. That is a change in the fiction, produced by the resolution of the player's declared action.

Of course, in the fiction, a killing took place. But in the real world, what took place is what I have just described - the resolution of a declared action which leads to everyone agreeing that the fiction has changed, so as to include a dead Orc where previously it contained a live Orc.

That is successfully attacking and killing the orc through the powers the pc has in the world. Describing this as narrative power, ignores the logical series of steps and succesful actions that have to occur in the setting in order for that to happen.

Presumably the "narrative power" is a power a player has in the real world, not a power a PC has in an imagined world. Your sentence here seems to confuse those two things.

In the fiction, the PC kills the Orc by (let's say) running it through with a sword.

In the real world, the player gets everyone at the table to agree that the fiction contains a dead Orc by declaring an action and then successfully resolving it via whatever method the system dictates (eg in D&D this is the attack roll compared to AC and then the damage roll compared to the Orc's hit point tally).

The secret door is the same: it already existed. The player merely discovers it through an abilty that reflects the character's senses of such things. That isn't the character bringing it about.

The player doesn't discover a secret door. S/he is sitting at a table in someone's living room (or gaming den or whatever).

The PC discovers a secret door. There are different ways this component of the fiction might be settled on. One method - favoured by many D&D players - is for the GM to have already decided what the fiction is going to be, and then the player declaring an exploration-type action (eg I tap on the walls to see if they are hollow or I search for signs of secret doors like movable torch sconces or similar) and if that action resolves successfully (maybe the GM says "yes" because s/he is satisfied that the described action would reveal the fictional detail; maybe the GM calls for a check) then the GM informs the player of the upshot of that earlier decision about the fiction.

Another method - standard for Cortex+ Heroic and Burning Wheel; quite feasible in 4e D&D - is for the player to declare an action and for that to be resolved just the same as the I attack an Orc action. If the action succeeds, now we have a fiction in which the PC discovers a secret door.

And again, if all you mean by contributing to the fiction is using a character's abilities to achieve things in the setting, no one here would disagree with you. But you are making a much bigger point and this appears to be serving as a point of equivocation or blurring. Because what the other side objecting to, isn't players finding a secret door using their characters abilities. The thing the other side objects to, or considers not an element of what they mean by agency, is the player being able to invoke things into the setting like events, like mountains, like doors that were never really there in the first place, by a means outside their character's actual powers in the setting.

Never really there in the first place just means not made up unilaterally by the GM.

No one thinks that, in the fiction of my Burning Wheel game, Evard's tower was brought into existence by Aramin's recollection of it. No one in the fiction thinks that. I trust that no one in the real world thinks that either - that would show a significant failure to understand the story being told (eg it is a story about Aramina recollecting the tales she has heard of the Great Masters).

This is just like in any other fiction - eg no one thinks that the planet Hoth didn't exist when Luke blew up the first Death Star, although when the first Star Wars movie was released no one had dreamed up the planet Hoth yet.

Fiction is authored. That authorship takes place in the real world, at definite times, through definite processes. The secret door is not more "real" because the GM first thinks of it rather than a player; or because the GM thinks of it yesterday rather than today.

There is something seriously wrong and specious about this argument. I may be missing some fine detail here or there, or not fully analyzing the problem but I think it is very clear that dead orc assertion is a hugely flawed one.

The only flaw here is that you seem unable to disentangle your preferences about distribution of authorship or "narrative" power in RPGing from a general analysis of what authorship actually involves.

That apparent inability is most obviously manifest in your repeated description of things that happen in the fiction as if they happen in the real world, and things that happen in the real world as if they happen in the fiction. Which I actually find quite odd.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes. That is my point.

The fact that you and @FrogReaver differentiate between the "narrative power" to bring it about that Orcs are dead and the "narrative power" to bring it about that walls have secret doors is a fact about your aesthetic preferences. But it doesn't tell us anything about what is involved in creating a shared fiction - because changing a fiction to have the Orc in it be dead is no different an act from changing a fiction to have the wall in it contain a secret door.

In both these cases, the orc and the secret door exist. The player in the case of the orc, kills it with an action. The player in the case of the door, finds it through an action. Those are both different from the player declaring there is a dead orc present, or declaring there is a door present.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That isn't an easy thing to assess. And I am not sure how useful assessing it is to be honest. Just off the top of my head, there is a difference between violent, physical action, and social ones. But there are probably lots of other reasons behind why these two feel very different to me in play. All I can tell you is I find it very easy to adjudicate social interactions, puzzles, exploration without mechanics (sometimes I like having mechanics for some of those things, but it never feels completely necessary). With combat it is totally different. At the end of the day, again, we can try to provide you with explanations for why these things just land differently with us. But I don't know how useful that is to be honest. I think one can fall into the same trap that occurs when you try to identify what you it is you don't like about a particular game or edition. I've done that, and it has led me astray many times. Because that kind of insight isn't easy to come by. It is very easy to misidentify the cause, or to miss an important nuance. But the important thing, really is the end result. So any distinctions I can provide are provisionary and not as important as the fact that I just know from playing that I am comfortable having no mechanics for one, but not comfortable having no mechanics for the other (on either side of the GM screen).

I think it’s absolutely fine to have the preference you have. I’d likely even understand some reasons you might have offered.

But, without knowing any, all I can comment on is that I think perhaps you should give some consideration to this difference. If player agency matters to you, set aside the fictional differences of combat and social actions and instead look at them as player actions.

Don’t you think that player agency is at its highest when the players can direct the outcome through the game’s mechanics? When they know “if I attempt action X, I likely have these odds to succeed, and if I do, I will achieve Y”?

Seriously....just consider this idea and how it may relate to agency.

 

[Bedrockgames]

By "normal" you mean as you play D&D?

I've already pointed out that what you describe as not "normal" was contemplated in Classic Traveller in 1977. In precisely the circumstances one would expect, that is, when map-and-key resolution becomes impossible (ie Streetwise checks).

We've covered this ground before. And this is was largely a throw away word in the sentence (I could have just as easily have said 'as they often do', as they' typically do'). I simply meant, the way people have traditionally, and typically played the game. Now that can change. What it is normal changes with time. Maybe in ten years, the norm will be players having greater narrative control. I don't think it is yet the norm.

Something existing in a game in 1977, doesn't mean it was the norm. Again, we've had this discussion already. I have said, people often simplify the history of RPGs, and that there was plenty of variety. But that doesn't mean it was typical in the 70s and 80s, for the players to wield narrative control.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes it is. The fiction contains a live Orc. The player declares an action. The action resolves successfully. Now the fiction contains a dead Orc. That is a change in the fiction, produced by the resolution of the player's declared action.

Of course, in the fiction, a killing took place. But in the real world, what took place is what I have just described - the resolution of a declared action which leads to everyone agreeing that the fiction has changed, so as to include a dead Orc where previously it contained a live Orc.

You are simply wrong here. The player isn't narrating anything. The player is taking an action. The player doesn't say "I kill the orc". The player says "I swing my sword" then rolls, then the GM tells them to roll for damage if they hit and then the GM tells them what the outcome of that hit is. Again, this is a really bizarre argument. The player isn't exerting control outside their character on the setting, they are acting through their character within the setting. This distinction is pretty clear I think. I just find this argument incredibly specious.

 

[pemerton]

In both these cases, the orc and the secret door exist. The player in the case of the orc, kills it with an action. The player in the case of the door, finds it through an action. Those are both different from the player declaring there is a dead orc present, or declaring there is a door present.

Here are two (short) stories:

(1)
Morgan Ironwolf came upon an Orc. They fought. Morgan killed the Orc with her sword.

(2)
Morgan Ironwolf came to a wall. She searched it, thinking that there might be a hidden way through it. She found a secret opening in the wall.​

Each story has an initial situation, a moment of rising action, and then a resolution. There is no difference in narrative structure. There is no difference in the manner by which or degree to which each sentence follows from the previous. Neither is more or less contrived than the other.

Thought of as a RPG, each begins with some framing, then contains an action declaration, and then contains a resolution of that action in which the protagonist has succeeded.

I understand that you prefer the resolution process in (2) to be different from that in (1). But there is no explanation of that preference which turns upon a difference of narrative structure or "narrative power". Because it identical in each.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Presumably the "narrative power" is a power a player has in the real world, not a power a PC has in an imagined world. Your sentence here seems to confuse those two things.

In the fiction, the PC kills the Orc by (let's say) running it through with a sword.

In the real world, the player gets everyone at the table to agree that the fiction contains a dead Orc by declaring an action and then successfully resolving it via whatever method the system dictates (eg in D&D this is the attack roll compared to AC and then the damage roll compared to the Orc's hit point tally).

That isn't narrative power. That is power over your character's actions. The player is merely deciding to attack the orc or not, not negotiating whether the game contains a dead orc. The orc happens to die as a result of the actions the player character has taken. This is a bad argument. Period. I don't know what else I can tell you, except you keep repeating something that is failing to persuade me and the people you are trying to persuade.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Here are two (short) stories:

(1)​

Morgan Ironwolf came upon an Orc. They fought. Morgan killed the Orc with her sword.​

​

(2)​

Morgan Ironwolf came to a wall. She searched it, thinking that there might be a hidden way through it. She found a secret opening in the wall.​

Each story has an initial situation, a moment of rising action, and then a resolution. There is no difference in narrative structure. There is no difference in the manner by which or degree to which each sentence follows from the previous. Neither is more or less contrived than the other.

Thought of as a RPG, each begins with some framing, then contains an action declaration, and then contains a resolution of that action in which the protagonist has succeeded.

I understand that you prefer the resolution process in (2) to be different from that in (1). But there is no explanation of that preference which turns upon a difference of narrative structure or "narrative power". Because it identical in each.

I am not following you at all here. I think you are misunderstanding what I am arguing.

 

[pemerton]

You are simply wrong here. The player isn't narrating anything. The player is taking an action. The player doesn't say "I kill the orc". The player says "I swing my sword" then rolls, then the GM tells them to roll for damage if they hit and then the GM tells them what the outcome of that hit is.

That isn't narrative power. That is power over your character's actions. The player is merely deciding to attack the orc or not, not negotiating whether the game contains a dead orc.

The player declares an action. It is resolved. Now the fiction contains a dead Orc.

In the other case, the player declares an action ("I search for a secret door"). It is resolved. Now the fiction contains a secret door discovered by the PC.

The structure is identical. I don't care whether you classify either or neither as a case of "negotiating" or a case of "narrative power". Those are your phrases, not mine.

The point is that there is no difference in process. The difference is about subject matter: you are happy for players to declare actions the resolution of which settles the question is this Orc dead or alive? but you are not happy for players to declare actions the resolution of which settles the question does this wall contain a secret door?

 

[pemerton]

I am not following you at all here. I think you are misunderstanding what I am arguing.

I am not having any trouble following you. You are confusing a difference of subject matter for a difference of process.

EDITed to elaborate:

You and @FrogReaver seem to be asserting that because there is a difference of narrative/authorship process in the Orc case and the secret door case, this justifies different resolution methods - roughly, roll the dice vs GM decides.

My point is that there is no difference of narrative/authorship process. I have illustrated this several times, most elegantly with my two short stories about Morgan Ironwolf.

Hence there is no "natural" or "normal" difference of resolution methods.

What is different is topic or subject matter: eg Orcs being killed vs secret doors being discovered. And you want these different subject matters to have different resolution methods.

Where does that preference have its origins? As far as I can tell, in wargaming, where some subject matters (say, terrain) are dealt with via map-and-key, while others (say, does this army retreat under fire) are dealt with via rolling dice.

If a RPG is not a wargame, nor about architectural puzzle-solving, then what reason is there to adhere to that preference?