A Question Of Agency?

[Bedrockgames]

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”?

No, I don't think this is the case. That isn't agency, that is playing the odds. Agency is about not being railroaded or having choices constrained by the GM. What you are describing is more like system mastery. That is a sort of power in the game. But it isn't what I think of when I think agency.

 

[prabe]

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?

I believe there are some people who see the processes as answering slightly different questions: Can I kill this orc? in the one case and Can I find a secret door in this wall? in the other. In the former, your actions can determine whether you can kill the orc; in the latter, your actions cannot determine whether there is a secret door--failure to find it doesn't answer that question.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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

I have. I have been considering your position. But it takes a lot to persuade people. You haven't adopted my worldview just because of an online conversation (and Permerton certainly hasn't). I don't think we are going to see many people changing their minds. What I will say, is I do think, I at least understand why you play the way you do, why you have your preferences, and I have no objection to them. Nor do I think they can't be perfectly satisfying preferences. However on the other side it does feel like our preferences are constantly being undermined by linguistic arguments, to the point that their very existence seems in question.

 

[Fenris-77]

@pemerton - I think the issue at hand is that both the orc and door were already present in the fiction, one alive and the other undiscovered, and the players have changed the state of those things in the fiction but not narrated their presence or absence. That is actually quite different from, say, being able to narrate the presence of a convenient balcony because you rolled really well to jump out of the Duke's window when he discovered you with his wife (as is the case in a game like Houses of the Blooded). To be specific I mean a balcony that was not in any of the GMs plans, maps, or notes, and that only exists because of successes on a die roll allowing the player narrate it into existence.

At least I'm pretty sure that's the sticking point here.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, I don't think this is the case. That isn't agency, that is playing the odds. Agency is about not being railroaded or having choices constrained by the GM. What you are describing is more like system mastery. That is a sort of power in the game. But it isn't what I think of when I think agency.

No, I don't think this is the case. That isn't agency, that is playing the odds. Agency is about not being railroaded or having choices constrained by the GM. What you are describing is more like system mastery. That is a sort of power in the game. But it isn't what I think of when I think agency.

Don’t you think that being railroaded or having choices constrained by the GM is more likely when the player doesn’t have the kind of info I’m talking about?

Do you think that players are more likely to be concerned about being railroaded in combat or outside of it?

 

[prabe]

@pemerton - I think the issue at hand is that both the orc and door were already present in the fiction, one alive and the other undiscovered, and the players have changed the state of those things in the fiction but not narrated their presence or absence. That is actually quite different from, say, being able to narrate the presence of a convenient balcony because you rolled really well to jump out of the Duke's window when he discovered you with his wife (as is the case in a game like Houses of the Blooded). To be specific I mean a balcony that was not in any of the GMs plans, maps, or notes, and that only exists because of successes on a die roll allowing the player narrate it into existence.

At least I'm pretty sure that's the sticking point here.

Got it in one!

 

[pemerton]

I believe there are some people who see the processes as answering slightly different questions: Can I kill this orc? in the one case and Can I find a secret door in this wall? in the other. In the former, your actions can determine whether you can kill the orc; in the latter, your actions cannot determine whether there is a secret door--failure to find it doesn't answer that question.

I've bolded a bit. That claim is not true if the Orc is undefeatable (like the unscalable ice wall). It is true if establishing the modal properties of the Orc is treated as up for grabs among the game participants.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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?

I have not ever taken the position against having the ability to search for secret doors. The only thing I have asserted is that there is a difference between combat and non-combat parts of the game, that combat requires mechanics for the game to function, non-combat doesn't (but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't have some mechanics-----just I can comfortable resolve non-combat aspects of play without mechanics, but not comfortable resolve combat without them). There have been a lot of different arguments about a few different things getting thrown around here, and I have responded to a number of them. But I think my points in response to arguments A and B are beginning to get blurred with my points to arguments C and D. That or I am just growing very weary of this thread and losing sight of my points (which is possible----we are 127 pages into agency and really haven't made any progress)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Don’t you think that being railroaded or having choices constrained by the GM is more likely when the player doesn’t have the kind of info I’m talking about?

No, I think railroading is more common when the GM likes to railroad.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Do you think that players are more likely to be concerned about being railroaded in combat or outside of it?

I think railroading is generally a topic for outside combat. Though you can certainly railroad things like encounters (i.e. these three encounters will happen tonight). But railroading can happen in combat too. For example if you give an NPC plot immunity like the puppet maker in the Ravenloft module the Created had (where he literally can't die no matter what the Players do for plot reasons) that would be railroading in combat. But most times, I think railroading is about "this adventure is going to happen whether you choose the path to it or not".