A Question Of Agency?

[Campbell]

I still do not consider the obsession some folks have with narrative control vis a vis this topic. Narrative tools may be utilized to achieve agency over the shared fiction, but are certainly not required. What I think is required is the ability to oblige other players to accept valid contributions to the fiction. Like if I have the fictional positioning so that it would be credible for me to kill the orc, I skillfully make use of it by saying I stab him in the back with my sword while he is engaged with another player's character, and the mechanics say that should die then the orc should die. Just being able to attempt it or suggest it is not enough. There needs to be something binding there - either socially or mechanically. I do not care which.

The two games I consider the most agency rich - Apocalypse World and Sorcerer - lack any sort of narrative tools that players can choose to call on. Several games I consider less agency rich have them in spades.

In the interest of transparency I will admit I have pretty much zero interest personally in exploration for it's own sake. I value sandbox gaming pretty much because of the layered strategy involved. Here's my Gamer Motivation Profile if it helps.

My Gamer Motivation Profile: Action-Oriented, Proficient, Relaxed, Social, Deeply Immersed, and Creative

Want to know your profile? Take the survey!

apps.quanticfoundry.com

 

[Campbell]

On setting details I am a firm believer in John Harper's conception of the line in Apocalypse World. Asking players to describe stuff their character has direct experience with such as relationship to NPCs or factions they might belong to is kosher. Anything outside that lived experience is not kosher.

 

[Fenris-77]

On setting details I am a firm believer in John Harper's conception of the line in Apocalypse World. Asking players to describe stuff their character has direct experience with such as relationship to NPCs or factions they might belong to is kosher. Anything outside that lived experience is not kosher.

WWJHD is pretty much a byword for me. The tavern in my example upstream, in my game, would only be used for a tavern that the player or players we regulars at and which hadn't been seen in play yet. At that point its really just some cool improv between GM and player, playing yes and... until it's cool. I wouldn't ask a player to describe a tavern their character had never been in.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I still do not consider the obsession some folks have with narrative control vis a vis this topic. Narrative tools may be utilized to achieve agency over the shared fiction, but are certainly not required. What I think is required is the ability to oblige other players to accept valid contributions to the fiction. Like if I have the fictional positioning so that it would be credible for me to kill the orc, I skillfully make use of it by saying I stab him in the back with my sword while he is engaged with another player, and the mechanics say that should die then the orc should die. Just being able to attempt it or suggest it is not enough. There needs to be something binding there - either socially or mechanically. I do not care which.

That's fair and in practice some form of such social binding tends to always be in effect. The rules may give the GM freedom to decide the things how they wish, but if the players feel that the GM is not using that power fairly or wisely, the GM will soon have no players.

 

[Lanefan]

In the interest of transparency I will admit I have pretty much zero interest personally in exploration for it's own sake. I value sandbox gaming pretty much because of the layered strategy involved.

Interesting, in that the perspective of very much enjoying (to use your phrase) exploration for its own sake leads me to also value sandbox gaming.

In a true sandbox you can explore as much as you like; and that exploration then informs the strategies and approaches you end up taking to the various challenges (i.e. adventures or adventure hooks) you've discovered while exploring.

 

[prabe]

So, on (2), would it be fair to say that you agree with me that the completely unbelievable (reality-defying...incredulous...whatever you want to call it) "Hit Rate" by Face PCs in TTRPG social conflicts is underwritten by genre logic and what is expeditious/wieldy to attain functional/enjoyable TTRPG play?

If I understand you correctly to say that Face PCs succeed roughly as often as Marital PCs so they are roughly as pleasant to play (or roughly as likely to work as well), then I agree. If I further understand you to be saying this is good (or at least not bad) I agree with that, too.

But I simultaneously don't flinch at martial PCs doing all of the "unbelievable" things I mentioned above (I mean...they can wade into mortal, melee combat against Ancient Red Dragons and somehow survive and slay the beast) right alongside those "unbelievable" Face PCs! Not only don't flinch, it NEEDS to happen for functional, thematically coherent, dramatically fortified TTRPG play.

Looking at this, it seems we agree. I want the guy with the sword to be able to do unbelievable things. I want the guy with the silver tongue to be able to do unbelievable things.

I have a story. We were playing a Star Trek game (this was around 1993, so forgive me if I don't recall the exact game). I was playing the ship engineer, and the crew was tasked with dealing with a raider in a distant system (so no support) that had a technologically advanced ship of unknown origin. Our ship was limited to Warp 4 (or 3, exact number irrelevant), while the raider could achieve Warp 5. While looking through the rulebook, I came across a chart showing how warp levels worked. The warp numbers existed as stable plateaus of power that required a power climb above the plateau level as you approached it, but then fell to the lower power to maintain the warp speed. In looking at the chart, I saw that the power needed to climb over the hump for Warp 4 was higher than the stable power for 5 -- that, in fact, we could get close to warp 5 if we redlined the engines -- at least to give chase enough to find the raider's base.

So, I ran this past the GM, showing the chart, and got the nod that we could try this. I RP'd presenting the possibility to the Captain (another player), and prepared the effort -- we wouldn't be able to chase for long, but we could possibly keep the raider on sensors. The confrontation went as we expected (our ship was slightly more powerful in combat, if slower), and the raider broke off at Warp 5. The captain ordered the chase, I rolled the check the GM and I had discussed, and succeeded! And... the engines immediately broke down and we had to limp to dock.

I didn't play another session.

I wouldn't have, either. From this and your later, further post, he doesn't seem like someone I would have enjoyed playing with.

@Manbearcat - I completely agree with your analysis of 5E vs the other two. It's a big reason I've faded 5E in favor of Black Hack 2E and Vagabonds of Dyfed, both of which, among other things, make all the roles player facing and transparent. I personally don't dip into GM force much at all when I run 5E, but I find the cognitive load a lot higher just keeping on point to avoid doing so, as the system is set up to make that really easy. That comes back to my point above about 'standard' play versus the range in individual variants. The fact that my game doesn't look like the example doesn't mean that example isn't a standard example of play.

I'm wondering what you find about 5E that makes it so hard to run without Force, if we're using the same understanding of it (where the GM changes the outcomes after they're determined). It can be very obvious to frame the fiction so there aren't a lot of options for the PCs, but I'm not sure that's Force as I understand it.

I think I'm another 5E DM whose game looks very far from the "standard 5E game." At least, from inside 5E--it's plausible someone from a different perspective wouldn't see them as very different.

On setting details I am a firm believer in John Harper's conception of the line in Apocalypse World. Asking players to describe stuff their character has direct experience with such as relationship to NPCs or factions they might belong to is kosher. Anything outside that lived experience is not kosher.

Seems as though anything the PCs wouldn't have lived experience with is the GM's to describe? I can live with that, both as a player and a GM.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm wondering what you find about 5E that makes it so hard to run without Force, if we're using the same understanding of it (where the GM changes the outcomes after they're determined). It can be very obvious to frame the fiction so there aren't a lot of options for the PCs, but I'm not sure that's Force as I understand it.

I think I'm another 5E DM whose game looks very far from the "standard 5E game." At least, from inside 5E--it's plausible someone from a different perspective wouldn't see them as very different.

Hard? That's not the word I'd use, I'd probably go with exhausting. The thing with D&D is that the GM gets all the Force cards and is encouraged to use 'em. In the hustle and bustle of a good session it can be very easy to lose sight of the correct rationale for GM decision making and end up slathering on some force just to get some breathing room, or to counterbalance some devious player plan that threatens to upend the apple cart. It won't happen all the time of course, but it happens. The kind of focus I'm good at, and the kind I'm not, dictate that it will happen to me at least occasionally. With a different mechanical environment, PbtA specifically, it never happens. YMMV.

 

[Campbell]

@prabe

I'm also firmly in the camp of the GM retaining authority over scene framing. I just think there are times when it makes sense to cede some of that authority in a principled way.

 

[prabe]

Hard? That's not the word I'd use, I'd probably go with exhausting. The thing with D&D is that the GM gets all the Force cards and is encouraged to use 'em. In the hustle and bustle of a good session it can be very easy to lose sight of the correct rationale for GM decision making and end up slathering on some force just to get some breathing room, or to counterbalance some devious player plan that threatens to upend the apple cart. It won't happen all the time of course, it happens. The kind of focus I'm good at, and the kind I'm not, dictate that it will happen to me at least occasionally. With a different mechanical environment, PbtA specifically, it never happens. YMMV.

Fair enough. Your phrase "increased cognitive load" implied more difficulty. I can definitely see (and I agree) that different brains/minds will find different things to work well/easily. I can also see how having a lot of balls in the air might make it harder to keep from applying Force, if the game's systems were interacting with your mind in such a way as to make applying Force easy.

I find running 5E to be the opposite of exhausting, to be honest, but that's in the horses-for-courses basket.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Couple of things. I don't play 5E, and I don't play much D&D anymore. So this isn't about 5E or D&D when I say 'coming from without". This is about more sandbox, living adventure, situational adventure, world emulation style play, when I say "coming from without".

Right. My point is that I’m not trying to guess at what kind of play you’re talking about. I very much understand it.

But we seem to have a very different concept of agency. My understanding is the crowd saying Blades in the Dark, which by the way, I have not played, so I am only going by your descriptions of it (and to be clear, I am interested in trying Blades in the Dark at some point), is that Blades in the Dark increases agency because it gives players more narrative control over in game outcomes (it is possible I am confusing this with another game that came up, so if so, I apologize).

I think it’s more than that. The game does give some narrative control in some ways, but it’s more about the way the game functions and how much it puts in front of the player. All dice are rolled by the players. Players get to choose the relevant Action that they’ll roll. They state the goal of the action. The GM then sets Position and Effect, but the players are encouraged to offer their input. The players have a lot of resources they can bring to bear on an action; they can Push for an extra die or for Effect, they can get an Assist from a teammate, they can accept a Devil’s Bargain.

The GM doesn’t wield power to unilaterally declare a failure. Their focus is more on crafting consequences; establishing risks and inflicting consequences.

Even just the content of a session. In my game this week, there was nothing that was set prior to the session. We had some possible ideas of what the crew may do based on prior events. The players decided that they needed to make some coin so that they could improve their crew’s standing. So we quickly established some possible means for high paying scores. This put them at odds with a new faction, one if high standing. They wound up making a good amount of coin, but now they’ve annoyed a powerful faction. One I hadn’t previously introduced and only came into the mix because they needed a lucrative target.

All this is to say that any narrative power held by the players is in addition to these things.

That is fair if you like that. Having more control over narrative outcomes definitely is an innovation in gaming that provides an experience not had in games that don't provide it. But I wouldn't label that agency. Like some of the other posters on my side, when we've encountered those kinds of mechanics, they actually seem to upset out sense of agency. Now I don't want to oversimplify because a lot depends on context and specifics. And not having played blades in the dark, maybe there is something special about the way it is implemented that I would see in play. But speaking general, when we talk about agency, we are thinking of your ability to play the character without being railroaded.

I think any attempt to railroad things in Blades would be obvious to the participants. This is why I’m of the opinion that it contains all the agency if the kind you’re describing (autonomy as @Campbell phrased it) and then also the kind I’ve been describing.

You should try it out some time. I think a lot of it is easier to grasp once you see it in play.

But I think the problem is there are two kinds of agency being discussed here. Though it would take away from the setting agency I am talking about.

I don’t think that it does so in any meaningful way.