A Question Of Agency?

[Bedrockgames]

Where there are fewer mechanics for players to rely upon and instead they have to guess at the GM’s judgment? And where the GM can simply declare things are “impossible” or similar in a way that he can’t get away with in combat? Not without being called on it if the players are aware?

You don’t think that these things may be connected even though you think railroading is more of a concern outside of combat?

No, because those very mechanics can undermine the actual choices the players make through their characters.

Yes, there are bad GMs who simply declare things as impossible because. But that isn't what a GM should strive to do. What I am saying is, when a GM does their job right, the players have agency (and I think more agency than they would have if you give them GM powers, or mechanics to make sure the GM is playing fair). Also this isn't a simple game of guessing what the GM will judge. I get some people don't like this style, and dismiss it as mother may I or magic tea party. But again, when it is functioning as it should, you are making choices that feel like they have a logical outcome in the setting.

The solution to railroading isn't to give players more powers. I can solve all railroading by giving every player character an endless wish spell. That is a very crude solution. The real solution is for GMs to not railroad.

Again, I think a lot of this does boil to the level of trust people are comfortable giving to a GM.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Where there are fewer mechanics for players to rely upon and instead they have to guess at the GM’s judgment?

Can you give a concrete example of what you mean here ?

 

[Fenris-77]

@pemerton - the difference is between the player finding a secret door that was already there (GM planning etc), and rolling well enough that the player gets to decide themselves that yes, there is indeed a secret door in that wall.

If you don't think there's a difference between those two in terms of agency then we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Just to give an example of what I mean: builds. Optimized builds are great for allowing a player to realize a character concept in play (I want to be a great thrower of knives). I don't think that is agency though. I see agency as more focused on the character. This is more about the authorship. So I am drawing a distinction there.

I think that character building is related to agency in the sense that if I wanted my PC to be a great thrower of knives, then I likely know what abilities or skills I should be choosing, and that those choices will matter.

I think I know what you mean about that not necessarily being about character, but it may be. Think of duelists or outlaws like Billy the Kid for whom that stuff was (at least in popular fiction) of utmost importance.

So if I want to be the fastest gun in the west, I know what I need to do as a player. There are tons of rules that would likely inform my choices, and which would then come up in play, and I can interact with those rules in ways that I understand.

What if I want to be the smoothest talker in the west? Well....I hope I’m a smooth talker in real life, because otherwise I’m gonna be guessing a lot at what the GM has in mind.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think that character building is related to agency in the sense that if I wanted my PC to be a great thrower of knives, then I likely know what abilities or skills I should be choosing, and that those choices will matter.

I think I know what you mean about that not necessarily being about character, but it may be. Think of duelists or outlaws like Billy the Kid for whom that stuff was (at least in popular fiction) of utmost importance.

So if I want to be the fastest gun in the west, I know what I need to do as a player. There are tons of rules that would likely inform my choices, and which would then come up in play, and I can interact with those rules in ways that I understand.

What if I want to be the smoothest talker in the west? Well....I hope I’m a smooth talker in real life, because otherwise I’m gonna be guessing a lot at what the GM has in mind.

My point is you wanting to be the fastest gun in the west, isn't about agency, it is about you wanting to author a character who is the fastest gun in the west. Agency, it I think, is more about the character being able to make meaningful choices (i.e. not be railroaded) in the game.

In terms of smooth talker, I think this is actually a very complicated area of play. It is also one where I have been talking separately about my own personal preference in terms of what I like, and what it means for agency. Whether having a smooth talker skill, or having the player simply roleplay being a smooth talker adds agency is going to vary a lot. On the one hand, giving me a skill, means I can consistently perform as a smooth talker through the mechanics. On the other hand, if I, the player, realize this would be a good argument to convince Hawkeye's character about my character's views on agency, and I make that good argument, but then I roll a smooth talk skill and fail horribly.....I think that would be giving me less agency.

When it comes to skills like "smooth talker", I get my preference is a little outside the box. The point I have tried to make here, just in terms of my preference, not in terms of agency, is that I really prefer play where the words the players speak in character matter more than their skill roll. And I like for players to interact with the setting and the NPCs as directly as possible. On the other hand, I also understand that these kinds of skills, for the time being, are the norm. So the solution I have come to, both in terms of my own game design, but also in terms of how I run games with social skills, is for the players words to always matter. If the players talk to a guard and ask a question, I respond based on what they said. But if I have some doubt (or feel that their characters exceptional social talents, or weak social talents, should weight the outcome, I will call for a roll). My general rule of thumb is when I have doubt about the outcome, I ask for a social skill roll (and players don't ask to make social skill rolls).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think that character building is related to agency in the sense that if I wanted my PC to be a great thrower of knives, then I likely know what abilities or skills I should be choosing, and that those choices will matter.

Also, observation about builds. They are great, if you have a group of players who know how to make them to get the characters they want. A game of 3E for instance, where builds can really vary in terms of power, it could be interesting with that kind of group. But if you have a mixed group, that includes people who aren't good at builds, or who don't like builds, they are going to struggle to make characters that do what they want compared to other players in the group. So, if we do consider this a form of agency, and I don't, but lets just say for the sake of argument this aspect of play is, then I think you could say the mechanics and the requirement of system mastery can actually reduce agency at times. It is sort of the opposite problem that you have with my social skill preference (where players who are not smooth talkers themselves could struggle to play a smooth talker).

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, because those very mechanics can undermine the actual choices the players make through their characters.

How so?

Yes, there are bad GMs who simply declare things as impossible because. But that isn't what a GM should strive to do. What I am saying is, when a GM does their job right, the players have agency (and I think more agency than they would have if you give them GM powers, or mechanics to make sure the GM is playing fair).

I don’t think the players having GM powers is necessary. I think that’s just one means toward agency.

What does a “GM doing their job right” mean? I mean, if the rules don’t work to prevent railroading, and there are few or no GMing principles to guide a GM, then how do they know they’re doing things right?

Also this isn't a simple game of guessing what the GM will judge. I get some people don't like this style, and dismiss it as mother may I or magic tea party. But again, when it is functioning as it should, you are making choices that feel like they have a logical outcome in the setting.

To the GM. They feel like they have a logical outcome to the GM. And if the players agree, then things are okay. I think this is largely how my experience with 5E has been. My players and I know each other well.

But that doesn't mean that sometimes someone doesnmt disagree about what is a logical outcome. Or that there can’t be more than one logical outcome, which I think is the bigger deal. Most actions or events, prior to their resolution, would appear to allow for any number of outcomes.

What then?

If it’s “GM decides”, that’s a perfectly valid choice for play. It makes sense in the role of GM as referee to allow them to make judgment calls. I understand that decision.

But it absolutely takes that agency from the players. Whatever logical outcome they had in mind, which may be equally or perhaps even more plausible, matters not.

The solution to railroading isn't to give players more powers. I can solve all railroading by giving every player character an endless wish spell. That is a very crude solution. The real solution is for GMs to not railroad.

Again, I think a lot of this does boil to the level of trust people are comfortable giving to a GM.

No it’s not trust. I agree that can be a part of it....and honestly I think trusting the other participants is a hugely important thing. But if we’re going to say that there’s one thing that can be done to end railroading, saying “don’t railroad” does nothing.

If we were going to do one thing, I’d say changing the rules to make railroading less certain/expected/likely/possible would be the best thing.

Can you give a concrete example of what you mean here ?

I think I may just have done that with the “fastest gun in the west/ smoothest talker in the west” post. I was typing that up as you posted this.

I’m sure I can come up with more if you want another example.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You represent your "side" as being a longstanding tradition from which @pemerton and other advocates for player-facing gaming deviate, and yet you feel so aggrieved by our discussions on an online forum that you must defend your preferred gaming modality's honor from our "besmirchments"?!? I mean, really?

Just another point about this. The point of using the term traditional is both convenience of language and descriptive. It isn't to place it in a hallowed tradition that can't be changed. In fact, I actually dislike the language of "traditional" because I think it makes the style play sound stuffy or rigid. But it is an easy way to distinguish between more progressive styles of play. I think where we get in trouble is equating these terms with their political counterparts (i.e. progressive heavy metal isn't about healthcare reform, and traditional heavy metal isn't about family values----they are terms describing how the medium is approached. I would think both you and Pemerton would think of your styles, and the designs you prefer as being on the more innovative or progressive side of things (which would put them in a less traditional box I would think).

 

[pemerton]

I agree. If the GM can determine that a wall is unscalable, then the GM can determine that a given orc is unkillable. The latter case is seems likely to be a GM (or adventure designer) acting in bad faith; the former might be, depending on the situation (remember: I said "without magic or proper equipment"). I don't think a GM determining if and where any secret doors are is likely to be acting in that kind of bad faith.

What counts as good or bad faith depends (doesn't it?) on prior commitments and understandings.

If I sit down to play the Dragonlance modules, then presumably it's agreed that Kitiara can't be killed by a few lucky bowshots (to get the damage high enough let's suppose they're from an Unearthed Arcana bow specialist at point blank range) early in the module series.

If I sit down to play a standard game of Burning Wheel, then the GM deciding that there are no secret doors and thus not allowing the action to be resolved in the normal way is acting in bad faith.

I don't see Orcs, ice walls or secret doors as being a priori different as far as unilateral GM decision-making is concerned.

 

[Manbearcat]

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

I posted a pretty big 5e play excerpt here and examined it under 5e and what it would look like under 4e and Scum and Villainy (a Forged in the Dark system).

Could you take a look at that and respond with respect to "a GM liking to railroad (deploy Force sufficiently)" vs "enabling/allowing a GM to railroad (deploy Force sufficiently)." That post should show how many vectors there are for deploying Force that persists in 5e vs the other two systems. The differential is massive.

You don't think latitude vs constraint has a role to play?

You don't think mandate vs verboten has a role to play?

You don't think opaque vs transparent has a role to play?

You don't think unsystemitized (Rulings not Rules) vs codified has a role to play?

You don't think GM-facing vs player-facing has a role to play?