A Question Of Agency?

[FrogReaver]

I would also suggest, in reference to the @FrogReaver post above mine, that it can indeed be a ton of fun to both explore and create details for a setting at the same time. Provided of course that that is what you wanted to do in the first place. Some people don't want the burden of creation and are going find games that thrust that responsibility upon them less than ideal.

I don't think that it's they simply prefer less responsibility. It's that not having such an ability is necessary for them to achieve the level of fun they want to achieve in exploring the setting.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Lets explore that then, shall we? I was talking about the sort of game where a player might be asked to describe a faction he's associated with, rather than being handed a paragraph by the DM. Or a player being asked to describe the interior of a tavern. Both are pretty standard examples of PbtA type play that I do a lot in my D&D games. What kind of details were you talking about?

I don't think there is anything wrong with this, and I do something like this from time to time, with things like family (not always, but sometimes, and I can always overide something that conflicts with the setting). But my impulse would be to not label this exploration. But let's say you see it as exploration and I say, fair enough, this is exploration, as is the GM creating a world before the game in a way. There is definitely a very real distinction between a player creating a detail for a faction in the world, and a player exploring that faction without having said creative control.

Also while I think most games feature elements of this here and there, I think where it becomes significant is the volume and regularity with which it appears. I might not bat an eye in a traditional exploration RPG where the Gm says to me "tell me about your family in Blue River Valley", basically giving me the freedom to add my family to the setting and create them how I want. But I would bat an eye if we are exploring a dungeon and the GM says something like "tell me about the room you have just entered" (and gives me power to author that room)

 

[Manbearcat]

If someone does they will.

I can't count the number of my posts that haven't been interacted with. I'd say it's par for the course.

Write out a personal play excerpt that details precisely what happened under the hood (not a purple prose "story hour"...an actual post-mortem).

Then reflect on it with respect to the concepts and conversations we've been having here.

Then invite others to evaluate your play and your post-mortem with focused questions.

I will 100 % engage with that (as there is nothing more useful to these conversations).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think that it's they simply prefer less responsibility. It's that not having such an ability is necessary for them to achieve the level of fun they want to achieve in exploring the setting.

I would agree with this. As a player, that doesn't feel like a big burden to me. I think the issue is mainly one of if I am exploring, I typically want that sense of a n external world, and it is harder for me to achieve that if I am designing the world alongside the GM. That said, I do think this does work the otherway around. I am a pretty lazy GM at times, and one of the reasons I love high autonomy games is it allows the players to just run loose in a setting, reducing the amount of prep I need to do and reducing the stress of needing a clear 'adventure'. One of the things I find attractive about the games you guys are describing is it seems to take off some of that load from the GM, so I feel like they would be easier low prep sessions. That impression could be wrong of course, as I discovered Hillfolk had quite a bit of pre-game prep (but it was communal in nature and not the same as a solitary GM laboring away for a week before play)

 

[FrogReaver]

Lets explore that then, shall we? I was talking about the sort of game where a player might be asked to describe a faction he's associated with, rather than being handed a paragraph by the DM. Or a player being asked to describe the interior of a tavern. Both are pretty standard examples of PbtA type play that I do a lot in my D&D games. What kind of details were you talking about?

Sure. I have no problem at all as a player giving the DM a few bullet points and a name to describe a faction if asked. That degree of creating something in the setting poses an insignificantly minor limitation on all the things in the setting I can have fun exploring. It's when the creation is more substantial or more often that it starts getting in the way.

 

[FrogReaver]

Write out a personal play excerpt that details precisely what happened under the hood (not a purple prose "story hour"...an actual post-mortem).

Then reflect on it with respect to the concepts and conversations we've been having here.

Then invite others to evaluate your play and your post-mortem with focused questions.

I will 100 % engage with that (as there is nothing more useful to these conversations).

Don't tell me what to do!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Anyone want to interact with this:



Or this:



That is a LOT of beefy content to interact with in a thread about analysis that should be clarifying to differences/disagreements.

As of yet, its complete crickets.

About your alien invasion example, I think you might be a bit exaggerating the difference between 5e and 4e. Antimagic fields and other fictional elements that cause penalties or prevent actions could exists in either. I have to note that the element that caused disadvantage to basically all rolls seemed to be designed to punish non-caster (or it does, whether the GM intended that or not) as many spell effects just work without a roll and thus are unaffected. Not sure how relevant that is for agency, except that it might have caused some frustration in the players as their sensible-seeming attempts kept failing due this effect.

My main observation was how you described 5e method of assigning DCs and such as 'arbitrary' compared to clear level appropriate guidelines of 4e. It is funny, because I would describe them as completely opposite manner. In 5e the DC actually represent something concrete, they're reflection of the fictional reality, whereas in 4e they're just arbitrary and do not represent anything concrete beyond being sufficiently challenging to the players (I think they tried to walk back that in some of the later material.)

Now, considering that you were running a scenario written by someone else, containing a lot of atypical elements, I can understand how it might feel 'arbitrary' in that context. What is the proper DC (or even skill) for operating alien hoverboard in D&D? Who the hell knows, there normally even aren't alien hoverboard in D&D! But with a GM who has a good mental picture of the setting, consistent(ish) approach for assigning DCs and players who are familiar with this it is not arbitrary. The same task will have the same DC regardless of the level of the character attempting it.

As for the second quote, I am not quite sure what your point was there. If it was to point out that in 5e there are many differnt way in which the GM could apply force if they so chose, then that is not in dispute.

 

[Fenris-77]

Sure. I have no problem at all as a player giving the DM a few bullet points and a name to describe a faction if asked. That degree of creating something in the setting poses an insignificantly minor limitation on all the things in the setting I can have fun exploring. It's when the creation is more substantial or more often that it starts getting in the way.

Like much of this discussion it's a sliding scale, and we all have a comfy spot on it. I tend to keep this sort of thing to people, places, and factions that the character in question has some sort of connection to and I lean into a lot more in session zero and early in the game than I do later on. That, I find, tends to encourage interaction with the setting rather than discouraging it, YMMV of course. The mysteries need to be mysteries or they aren't fun to explore, that is certainly true.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Lets explore that then, shall we? I was talking about the sort of game where a player might be asked to describe a faction he's associated with, rather than being handed a paragraph by the DM. Or a player being asked to describe the interior of a tavern. Both are pretty standard examples of PbtA type play that I do a lot in my D&D games. What kind of details were you talking about?

Interestingly even though the latter is much more trivial, I'd find it far more jarring. The former is basically a character backstory, the latter is a thing the character is experiencing right now. If I was asked to describe the faction at the moment we're meeting them, that probably would be similarly jarring though.

I was playing in a Runequest... Heroquest? Well, in a campaign set in Glorantha couple of years ago, and before we played we communally created our tribe; choose their beliefs, assets, allies, enemies, surrounding geography etc. It was fun, it was fine. I think it made everybody more invested in the tribe. But once the play began it run 'traditionally'.

A lot of this depends on timing. As a player, I generally don't want to be authoring the reality that I am supposed to be experiencing at the same time. I can do it just fine, I do it in GMless freeform RP all the time, but I prefer the GM to do it in situations where they're around. It will be genuine exploration then and it feels that I am actually making decisions against some objective reality instead of just making stuff up.

 

[Manbearcat]

Don't tell me what to do!

I feel...like...this might be a kind of a pun...joooooke? Like a microcosm of the agency dispute tee hee?

Or...is this serious?

About your alien invasion example, I think you might be a bit exaggerating the difference between 5e and 4e. Antimagic fields and other fictional elements that cause penalties or prevent actions could exists in either. I have to note that the element that caused disadvantage to basically all rolls seemed to be designed to punish non-caster (or it does, whether the GM intended that or not) as many spell effects just work without a roll and thus are unaffected. Not sure how relevant that is for agency, except that it might have caused some frustration in the players as their sensible-seeming attempts kept failing due this effect.

My main observation was how you described 5e method of assigning DCs and such as 'arbitrary' compared to clear level appropriate guidelines of 4e. It is funny, because I would describe them as completely opposite manner. In 5e the DC actually represent something concrete, they're reflection of the fictional reality, whereas in 4e they're just arbitrary and do not represent anything concrete beyond being sufficiently challenging to the players (I think they tried to walk back that in some of the later material.)

Now, considering that you were running a scenario written by someone else, containing a lot of atypical elements, I can understand how it might feel 'arbitrary' in that context. What is the proper DC (or even skill) for operating alien hoverboard in D&D? Who the hell knows, there normally even aren't alien hoverboard in D&D! But with a GM who has a good mental picture of the setting, consistent(ish) approach for assigning DCs and players who are familiar with this it is not arbitrary. The same task will have the same DC regardless of the level of the character attempting it.

As for the second quote, I am not quite sure what your point was there. If it was to point out that in 5e there are many differnt way in which the GM could apply force if they so chose, then that is not in dispute.

Alright, good deal. Something to engage with.

I don't have time to respond now, but I'll review in full and respond tonight.