A Question Of Agency?

[Fenris-77]

There is a difference between RPGing-as-puzzle-solving and RPGing-as-story-now.

But the idea that there is something inherent to a story about a protagonist finding a secret door that therefore means RPGing must or ought to or even naturally will handle that differently from a story about a protagonists killing an Orc - that is the idea that I reject.

Also, I reiterate that the player does not find a secret door. The player sits at a table in a living room, participating in a story about an imaginary character finding a secret door. In the puzzle-solving approach, the player learns that the GM has decided that the fiction includes a secret door. That's why another description of RPGing-as-puzzle-solving is RPGing-as-learning-what-is-in-the-GM's-notes.

Re the bolded text, I suggested that they were similar, not, different, so I'm not sure what your objection is. I did provide two examples of each that illustrated different levels of agency, but I did not suggest that they were fundamentally different examples.

In the second secret door example it is indeed the player that decided, which is why it's significantly different in terms of agency from the first. It's like the player deciding that there is an Orc there in the first place rather than simply declaring a PC action affecting an existing orc and resolving it via the mechanics and process appropriate to the given game. The term existing there indexes the presence of the 'thing' in advance of player declaration, i.e. in some way established by the GM or adventure text (and then through the GM into the diegetic frame).

Agency is about who decides, something I don't really see in your last handful of replies. I may have missed something upstream though.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

Do you think it would be "bad faith" for a GM to decide that, via Free (unmediated) Roleplay, the PC's opposition is entirely unmoved by their robust and compelling argument when its the profound majority for entrenched opposition to be unmoved by a devastating argument?

It seems to me that the GM that decides (by fiat after Free Roleplay) the Jarl is no longer going to raid the nearby steadings or the King is going to open his gates to the abundance of war refugees or the Pirate Queen is going to relinquish her hostages or the Senate is going to decrease taxes on the underclass while increasing it on the bourgeoise or the Oracle is going to admit her visions are bought by a member of the Elders is almost surely choosing the 1 % outcome (if that...but we can just call it the EXTREME MINORITY OUTCOME if you'd like) regardless of the rhetorical and rationale power of the NPC's interlocutor (the PC)! But then they'll cite fidelity to simulation/causal logic as the precipitating factor in their decision! It seems to me something else is happening!

 

[Bedrockgames]

I would be willing to accept that your use of “traditional” is not meant as a slight or as an appeal to what’s normal, and is instead just your way of saying “the most common”, if you’re willing to accept that stating a game has less player agency is not a value statement.

I think though I have a pretty neutral attitude towards 'traditional' and 'normal', as evidenced by my personal dislike of the term 'traditional' (but my willingness to apply to my style, and by my admission that my whole approach to social skills is outside the norm (so I don't think 'normal' applies to how I play the game at all, just one aspect of my approach fits into the norm). Agency on the other hand, I value, as do you I believe. And I think most of those involved in this discussion understand its value, which is why it is being argued over.

 

[prabe]

Do you think it would be "bad faith" for a GM to decide that, via Free (unmediated) Roleplay, the PC's opposition is entirely unmoved by their robust and compelling argument when its the profound majority for entrenched opposition to be unmoved by a devastating argument?

Ummmm ... maybe? It depends?

Somewhat more seriously, I think it's possible for a GM to have guidance in prep to help them make that decision--maybe it just so happens the PCs are trying to argue the NPC into the one thing they won't do. I'll admit it's not high-agency in the sense of the players being able to control the fiction, but it's plausibly fair. It's fairer if there was some way for the PCs to learn that.

It seems to me that the GM that decides (by fiat after Free Roleplay) the Jarl is no longer going to raid the nearby steadings or the King is going to open his gates to the abundance of war refugees or the Pirate Queen is going to relinquish her hostages or the Senate is going to decrease taxes on the underclass while increasing it on the bourgeoise or the Oracle is going to admit her visions are bought by a member of the Elders is almost surely choosing the 1 % outcome (if that...but we can just call it the EXTREME MINORITY OUTCOME if you'd like) regardless of the rhetorical and rationale power of the NPC's interlocutor (the PC)! But then they'll cite fidelity to simulation/causal logic as the precipitating factor in their decision! It seems to me something else is happening!

Those certainly seem as though there's something consistent with Force at work.

 

[Manbearcat]

Jumping off from my last two posts, I think its incredibly unrealistic and bears no fidelity to a reasonable simulation of our existence for anyone in this thread who disagrees with me to not acquiesce to my compelling and devastating arguments against their positions!

As such, its clear to me that their judgement cannot be trusted to decide via fiat and Free Roleplay whether or not position-entrenched NPCs in their games should be swayed by compelling and devastating arguments against PCs!

Because realism and fidelity to simulation!

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think this is relevant, but it still doesn’t seem to reduce agency. Here, you seem to be placing a high value on the arguments/words chosen by the player to influence the outcome in the game?

But why? Wouldn’t Cicero make a compelling argument? Couldn't he do so and still leave his target unswayed? A poor roll here need not mean that Cicero stuttered and babbled like a buffoon. It simply means his opposition was unconvinced.

I don’t see how this reduces the player’s agency if mechanics are involved. They know the odds and can decide to make the attempt, and then the dice decide.

Because agency is about being able to make meaningful choices. My words and political strategies are meaningful choices I am making in play to advance my goals. Isn't more agency enhancing to put power to my actual choices rather than shift them to a mechanic. Now this does require that the GM adjudicate my choices. Which, I would argue, is the very essence of what makes an RPG. It is that on the spot ability of a human hearing what you are trying to do, and then logically applying that to the world. Keep in mind, I may be doing very specific things, like inviting senators to feasts, with the aim of doing putting them in a compromising position, which I can exploit to force them to ally with me. And I may be saying very specific things, as Cicero did, in my speech. Now it is true, people may be unmoved by what I say, and my attempts to put senators in positions where I can essentially blackmail them into voting my way could backfire or simply not work. But if you have a mechanic in place for managing those things, all those specific choices I have made (which are an expression of my agency) have no meaning if a simple die roll can undo them. In fact the only real agency I have is at character creation when I take the relevant social skills, between sessions when I upgrade them. The only other meaningful choice I might have is to use or not use them. Granted some systems might give more weight to things I say and do, and factor those into the mechanic. But that just helps prove my point that for there to be real agency, what I say and do, need to actually matter because those kinds of things in an RPG are all about making meaningful choices. And they are also FUN. There is tremendous fun to be had if you are in a political intrigue campaign like I describe, to actually engage in political intrigue.

 

[Manbearcat]

Ummmm ... maybe? It depends?

Somewhat more seriously, I think it's possible for a GM to have guidance in prep to help them make that decision--maybe it just so happens the PCs are trying to argue the NPC into the one thing they won't do. I'll admit it's not high-agency in the sense of the players being able to control the fiction, but it's plausibly fair. It's fairer if there was some way for the PCs to learn that.

Those certainly seem as though there's something consistent with Force at work.

I don't think I communicated my point clearly (maybe see my silly post directly above?).

If the greatest of rhetoricians and logicians fail to move their opposition at an extreme rate (lets say they convince their interlocuters at a 1/25 rate or 4 % of the time)...why should a game featuring "GM decides/fiat" and Free Roleplay as social resolution yield something nearing a 60-80 % hit rate (or greater) for 'Face PCs (and, more specifically, the players playing them)?"

That doesn't seem like "fidelity to simulation or causal logic" as a guiding principle for GMing!

 

[Campbell]

I personally find the traditional label mildly annoying because most of the games that get included very much represented a break from tradition. Speaking as an OSR fan the GM techniques and playstyle of Vampire as outlined in it's text is pretty far removed from B/X. As is modern D&D.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think I communicated my point clearly (maybe see my silly post directly above?).

If the greatest of rhetoricians and logicians fail to move their opposition at an extreme rate (lets say they convince their interlocuters at a 1/25 rate or 4 % of the time)...why should a game featuring "GM decides/fiat" and Free Roleplay as social resolution yield something nearing a 60-80 % hit rate (or greater) for 'Face PCs (and, more specifically, the players playing them)?"

That doesn't seem like "fidelity to simulation or causal logic" as a guiding principle for GMing!

Most people here are not looking for a simulation of reality. They just want it to be believable enough for a game, and for the GM to be as consistent, fair and logical as they can be. That means if I try to bribe Otto with a Banana and the GM knows Otto loves bananas, it could work. It is ultimately a judgment call of course. But the effect of having the same mind render judgements in a single campaign tends to produce something that feels real and external in my experience. Now if this doesn't work for you it is fine. But this is definitely a viable and fun way to play the game.

 

[prabe]

I don't think I communicated my point clearly (maybe see my silly post directly above?).

If the greatest of rhetoricians and logicians fail to move their opposition at an extreme rate (lets say they convince their interlocuters at a 1/25 rate or 4 % of the time)...why should a game featuring "GM decides/fiat" and Free Roleplay as social resolution yield something nearing a 60-80 % hit rate (or greater) for 'Face PCs (and, more specifically, the players playing them)?"

That doesn't seem like "fidelity to simulation or causal logic" as a guiding principle for GMing!

I think you did; I think I (mis) interpreted you to be complaining about GMs saying "no" by fiat after free roleplay. If you're complaining about them saying "yes" by fiat after free roleplay, then I guess you can reverse my thoughts to defend the GMs who say "yes."

I guess my thinking is that most people need a specific reason to want to be unhelpful. If the PCs are asking for something easy and/or painless, I don't think most people are likely to say "no." But I don't think that's exactly what you're complaining about.