A Question Of Agency?

[aramis erak]

Yes. I think some understandings are baked into the games, and others are baked into people's preferences regarding games and/or playstyles. I think it's plausible you and I don't have radically different ideas about good faith play/GMing, though we have, I suspect, markedly different preferences as regard playstyle and systems. I'm pretty sure neither of us is entirely wrong;

Aren't the Dragonlance modules a pretty notorious railroad? I've never played them (or, for that matter, read the books) but it's my impression that the modules are pretty specifically about giving players a chance to experience the books as a D&D campaign. Given my feelings about books and TRPG play being very different types and experiences of fiction, that seems like a very, very bad idea.

I've run the first third of the classics edition... in DL5A... and while it's a railroad, it's an enjoyable one that can be seen more like a braided stream than a single pair of tracks, and some notes on more likely plot-changes.

It's less of a railroad than, say, Horde of the Dragon Queen.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

But the answer to that is in your post: old school. Traditional can refer to a lot of things. But mostly I see it referring to rpgs that have traditional mechanics. Of course, it is more complicated than simple narratives of the history provide (just one more reason to be skeptical of 'narrative power'! ), but I think people generally just know what you mean. To refer to things like B/X the term old school is pretty clear I think.

 

[pemerton]

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).

The Orc is part of the framing. So is the wall. The death of the Orc is a change in the fiction as framed. So is the finding of the secret door.

From the point of view of changing fiction, there is no difference. Hence my two short stories, which in their narrative structure are basically identical:

(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.

 

[Fenris-77]

I already agreed the door and orc were similar, so why the repetition of your examples? I'm talking about something else entirely. I'm talking about the genesis of the orc or the door, the agency to add either orc or door to the fiction in the first place. Most detractors of narrative games would probably use the term narrative control.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

Your last sentence doesn't need to be in your above paragraph. Of course it a viable and fun way to play a game. I'm not interrogating "viable and fun."

When we have these conversations about social conflict, people (who disagree with me) cite some arrangement of the following:

1) More capable rhetoricians/logicians should have a considerably better chance of moving opposition off of their position (when in reality its so remote to move entrenched people off of their position that the difference between below average > average > brilliant in terms of rendering and presenting argument is a fraction of the deciding factor in the "to move or not to move" equation). If that isn't some kind of appeal to fidelity to causal logic coupling, then I don't know what to call it.

2) Its fun, meaningful for play, and broadly rewarding (a) for players to formulate and present compelling argument via Free Roleplay and (b) for GMs to adjudicate if their NPCs would be moved/unmoved.

I don't know how much of (1) is a part of your position, but you can't tell me that its anything approaching 0 for you (given your own words throughout the years) even if its considerably lower than (2).

And I can't fathom you coming to the conclusion that (1) isn't a significant part of many/most of the participants in these threads over the years who agree with your overall position.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

They are not reduced simply because mechanics are involved. I am saying they can be. For the reasons I've stated in these examples. And for some things you just need a mechanics to determine what happens. Fair enough. But I don't really consider that agency if my in character choices have less impact than my out of character choices. Or if my choices are all simply out of character choices, like which mechanics to invoke. And where needed the concept of rulings can often be a much more elegant solution than a concrete rule. We've talked a lot about combat but in a style of play where rulings are important, the players are often not simply choosing between swinging a sword at the orc and not swinging one. The player may say, well I want to spit water in the face of the orc before I swing to distract him, and a GM making a ruling could simply rule to assign a penalty to the orc's AC, or perhaps make the orc roll a save or attribute to avoid a penalty or worse outcome on a successful attack.

And again, the reason mechanics with social skills and similar things can be a problem is because of the gap that can arise between what the player says and does in character and what the result of their roll is (to the point that what they say and do in character, may not matter at all, it might just be narrative dressing).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Your last sentence doesn't need to be in your above paragraph. Of course it a viable and fun way to play a game. I'm not interrogating "viable and fun."

lol. I quite like including that sentence thank you very much

 

[Bedrockgames]

Your last sentence doesn't need to be in your above paragraph. Of course it a viable and fun way to play a game. I'm not interrogating "viable and fun."

When we have these conversations about social conflict, people (who disagree with me) cite some arrangement of the following:

1) More capable rhetoricians/logicians should have a considerably better chance of moving opposition off of their position (when in reality its so remote to move entrenched people off of their position that the difference between below average > average > brilliant in terms of rendering and presenting argument is a fraction of the deciding factor in the "to move or not to move" equation). If that isn't some kind of appeal to fidelity to causal logic coupling, then I don't know what to call it.

2) Its fun, meaningful for play, and broadly rewarding (a) for players to formulate and present compelling argument via Free Roleplay and (b) for GMs to adjudicate if their NPCs would be moved/unmoved.

I don't know how much of (1) is a part of your position, but you can't tell me that its anything approaching 0 for you (given your own words throughout the years) even if its considerably lower than (2).

And I can't fathom you coming to the conclusion that (1) isn't a significant part of many/most of the participants in these threads over the years who agree with your overall position.

I would defnitely not sign off on 1 as you have phrased it. And I think I have been very, very clear about this in many of our conversations here. I keep seeing a 'its impossible to simulate reality" straw man in these discussions, and I am quite clearly not coming at this from that level of realism at all (I pretty consistently use the term believability or believable for that very reason, and I have been using it for years).

Not saying things in there may not apply, but your phrasing is not what I am looking for. I want the things my character says and does to matter. I want to feel like if I make a compelling argument, it has more weight than if I make a bad one. And I think most of the time, with most GMs, this is how I feel. It isn't about the person in the group who is an actual lawyer, making the most lawyerly argument and therefore convincing the NPCs or the senate in the game. Again, it is a game. This isn't a serious attempt to simulate reality, it is an attempt to emulate a believable world or genre. And when I invoke logic, I am referring to the GM's judgment being logical, not on the players making logical arguments through their characters (logic doesn't always work, sometimes what works is appealing to what a person wants, rather than appealing to their sense of reason). What I want is for the GM to seriously ask him or herself things like "How would Josephus respond to what Brendan just said to him, based on what Joesphus wants and knows?" when evaluating what I am doing.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

3 things:

1) I was indeed talking about "saying yes" in Free Roleplay.

2) I'm specifically talking about "PCs asking for something hard and/or painful" which is pretty much every meaningful social conflict in a TTRPG. In those situations, the "hit rate" for Face PCs (and the players playing them) is absurd to the point of being more in line with "Down the Rabbit-hole Wonderland" than anything resembling fidelity to a reality featuring position-entrenched opposing parties.

We get all kinds of complaints from certain D&D conversation participants about martial PCs being able to jump chasms or hold their breath or cleave stone or compel enemies toward reckless challenge or cow Kings with force of will (or other genre logic-infused touchstones for martial characters) because it fails to resemble fidelity to a simulation of x (even if x is a High Fantasy reality). However, it seems to me that the hit rate for Face NPCs in Free Roleplay should yield similar incredulity and jar immersion!

Am I crazy?

(Anyone who disagrees with me should not be trusted to run NPCs by the way)

 

[Manbearcat]

lol. I quite like including that sentence thank you very much

I'm sure you like it.

Why do you need to include it when we're analyzing play. It doesn't help me understand your position. It seems to me its just a rhetorical RE-framing device to remind everybody (again) that you feel your playstyle is under attack and appealing to that grievance. If its not that...what is it?

I want to focus on analyzing the impacts of play not your (or anyone else's) feelings.