A Question Of Agency?

[pemerton]

A repeated thing in this thread:

Posters who seem to have little or not experience with Burning Wheel or comparable systems insist on a contrast between the following two moments of resolution:

(1) GM announces, You come upon an angry Orc, player declares I attack the Orc, then the combat mechanics are engaged, and the upshot is that the Orc is killed;​

(2) GM announces, You come upon a wall blocking your way, player declares I search the wall for a secret way through, then the exploration mechanics are engaged, and the upshot is that a secret way through the wall is discovered.​

The contrast is drawn in terms of (2) involving the player authoring a secret door or exercising "narrative power" whereas (1) is said not to involve the player authoring the death of an Orc or invoking "narrative power" in respect of that state of affairs.

But no actual explanation is given of the difference. And I think that comes down to the fact that these posters (eg @FrogReaver) have not actually played Burning Wheel or Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP or similar systems.

The lack of experience manifests itself in the fact that those posters appear not to distinguish between (for instance) the following two sorts of resolution process:

(A) The player declares I search the wall for a secret way through, the GM sets a difficulty using the appropriate system framework for doing so, the dice are rolled, and - if the player succeeds - the upshot is that a secret way through the wall is discovered;​

(B) The player declares I search the wall for a secret way through, then plays a token or fate point or similar limited-use authorial-fiat resource, and the upshot is that the a secret way through the wall is discovered.​

There also seems to be a continuing failure to distinguish the following process, which is not a resolution process at all but a type of framing process:

(C) The player, without declaring any action for his/her PC, says I think it would be cool if there was a secret way through the wall, then plays a token or fate point or similar limited-use authorial-fiat resource, and the upshot is that the shared fiction includes there being a secret way through the wall.​

@FrogReaver, which system(s) does Burning Wheel use? Which system(s) does MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic use? Which system(s) does Fate Core use? Which system(s) does Dungeon World use?

 

[Ovinomancer]

A repeated thing in this thread:

Posters who seem to have little or not experience with Burning Wheel or comparable systems insist on a contrast between the following two moments of resolution:

(1) GM announces, You come upon an angry Orc, player declares I attack the Orc, then the combat mechanics are engaged, and the upshot is that the Orc is killed;​

(2) GM announces, You come upon a wall blocking your way, player declares I search the wall for a secret way through, then the exploration mechanics are engaged, and the upshot is that a secret way through the wall is discovered.​

<snip>

I see a possible place of disconnect. Let me expand these for "mainstream" games (ie, D&D-sphere games):

1a) the GM has notes that say the orc is killable.
1b) the GM has notes that say the orc is unkillable.

2a) the GM has notes that say a secret door is findable
2b) the GM has notes that say a secret door is unfindable.

These are the cases for "mainstream" games. I think the disconnect is that 1a is an implicit default judgement and not thought about as an explicit decision by the GM. This is further reinforced by the rarity of 1b -- most GMs do not consider rendering the orc unkillable because it violates their understanding of the game's social contract. However, 2 is the reverse: 2b is the implicit default assumption and it's 2a that's the exception. As such, when someone introduces 1c or 2c -- let the system decide -- then there's a massive disconnect because the assumed positions of 1 and 2 are inverse of each other and therefore cannot be the same. The reality is that there's only an assumption of what the default state is, and also the assumption that a default state must exist.

I might, just might, be speaking from experience.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Bedrockgames thanks for the detailed response. I think I am familiar with this kind of open sandbox approach that you’ve described.

I have a few questions in the interest of discussion.

For the Ogre Gate Inn campaign, how did you handle when things shifted to a generational approach? Like, how were brides/husbands found and courted, and so on?

We basically kept playing the same way. Brides and Grooms were handled in specific circumstances, so it varied. Generally these were also political alliances. One character married the daughter of another sect leader for example. And there was a courtship as I recall. Romance is a big part of the campaigns. It helps give characters roots to the setting.

For the 87 Killers campaign, do you think having a strong central theme helped focus the players? Like that core idea gave them the framework to craft goals and desires and so on? Was it an obstacle for any player?

I think it was an attractive focus for players. The moment I said wuxia meets Goodfellas, they were all on board. I don't what that says about focus generally (most of my campaigns start less focused and become more focused as they develop). I don't remember this one being an issue for any player.

Finally, with the 20 year history campaign with Saffron Tigress etc, do you think that your introduction of this secret heroine of an older era being discovered is what caused the shift in the campaign? What was your intention or expectation of introducing this element? Do you think it’s that surprising that the players would take this story idea and run with it?

It has been a while so I would honestly need to review the session recordings to really remember this one and answer it accurately. I think it was part of it, but I seem to remember it was much more than this one thing that prompted them to shift (the 20 year backstory was one of doom: Saffron Tigress gave up because they had handily lost, so I am pretty sure more than just an emotional reason was required by the players to pick up where she left off. As far as intentions go, I think my intention was to introduce drama, a big reveal, in line with something out of a wuxia story. I don't think it is surprising, and again I would have to check my recordings to really remember my reaction at the time. I should say too, this is about as far as I take introducing a story element, and this one in particular was pretty hefty for me (normally the drama I introduce is less cataclysmic). But like I said, part of what I was trying to overcome here, was a fear of drama that was causing my campaigns to miss something (I think the fear was understandable as I was trying to avoid the types of railroads and "GM as storyteller" that we've mentioned. But I also realized, once in a while, a bit of this can add flavor and fun.

 

[Fenris-77]

If you are suggesting that I'm mistaken about what a resolution process is vis a vis HotB @pemerton you would be incorrect. I'm not sure you meant me though.

 

[FrogReaver]

The rest pretty much lack any sort of ability to change the fiction except through actions declared by the player for their PC.

First, I appreciate the examples.

Your comment here puts me at a total loss. One of the biggest arguments for why some games have more agency has been because they give the player control of the fiction beyond actions declared for their PC's. And yet here you tell me that's nearly non-existent in the types of games that are being brought up as having more agency. Help me make some sense of that.

Like, why is anyone even talking about game features that give players control of the fiction outside their character?

They all pretty much feature binding rules that interact on the psychosocial landscape. Most of the conflicts in these games center on deeply personal stuff so I find it helps give those conflicts weight if we have mechanisms that can help the players experience what their characters are going through.

Interesting. In relation to this agency thread - I don't see how binding rules that interact on the psychosocial landscape would be a recipe for more agency?

 

[pemerton]

I see a possible place of disconnect. Let me expand these for "mainstream" games (ie, D&D-sphere games):

1a) the GM has notes that say the orc is killable.
1b) the GM has notes that say the orc is unkillable.

2a) the GM has notes that say a secret door is findable
2b) the GM has notes that say a secret door is unfindable.

These are the cases for "mainstream" games. I think the disconnect is that 1a is an implicit default judgement and not thought about as an explicit decision by the GM. This is further reinforced by the rarity of 1b -- most GMs do not consider rendering the orc unkillable because it violates their understanding of the game's social contract. However, 2 is the reverse: 2b is the implicit default assumption and it's 2a that's the exception. As such, when someone introduces 1c or 2c -- let the system decide -- then there's a massive disconnect because the assumed positions of 1 and 2 are inverse of each other and therefore cannot be the same. The reality is that there's only an assumption of what the default state is, and also the assumption that a default state must exist.

I think this is right about D&D and its cousins (not only d20-ish games and many OSR-ish games but systems like Rolemaster, RuneQuest etc).

Once you break it as you have done, then I hope that both the resemblances (in authorial process/"narrative power") and the differences (in resolution and/or framing procedures) that I pointed to in my post should be clear.

 

[pemerton]

If you are suggesting that I'm mistaken about what a resolution process is vis a vis HotB @pemerton you would be incorrect. I'm not sure you meant me though.

No. I don't know HotB except through your posts. If you want to elaborate it using my taxonomy (if it's a helpful one) that would be great.

But I think you know how the game you're playing works!

 

[pemerton]

Your comment here puts me at a total loss. One of the biggest arguments for why some games have more agency has been because they give the player control of the fiction beyond actions declared for their PC's. And yet here you tell me that's nearly non-existent in the types of games that are being brought up as having more agency. Help me make some sense of that.

Like, why is anyone even talking about game features that give players control of the fiction outside their character?

I suggest that you reread the actual play examples from Prince Valiant and Burning Wheel, plus my post not far upthread.

Also, here are two salient moves from Dungeon World:

Spout Lore
When you consult your accumulated knowledge about something, roll+Int. ✴On a 10+, the GM will tell you something interesting and useful about the subject relevant to your situation. ✴On a 7–9, the GM will only tell you something interesting—it’s on you to make it useful. The GM might ask you “How do you know this?” Tell them the truth, now.

Discern Realities
When you closely study a situation or person, roll+Wis. ✴On a 10+, ask the GM 3 questions from the list below. ✴On a 7–9, ask 1.
Either way, take +1 forward when acting on the answers.
• What happened here recently?
• What is about to happen?
• What should I be on the lookout for?
• What here is useful or valuable to me?
• Who’s really in control here?
• What here is not what it appears to be?​

Notice how these action declarations, if successful, oblige the GM to establish some fiction that satisfies certain constraints. Eg on a 10+ result for Spouting Lore, the GM has to tell you something interesting and useful. Perhaps the GM tells you that in your study of architecture you learned that there is a secret way into this place.

When you ask one of the Discern Realities questions, the GM is obliged to provide an answer. Perhaps the useful thing, when you've come to a dead end, is the secret way through the wall.

The GM, in providing these answers, is not expected to be using map-and-key processes. S/he is expected to make stuff up having reference to his/her prep, which in DW doesn't take the form of map-and-key but rather mostly takes the form of establishing certain sources of adversity ("fronts"). S/he is also expected to make the stuff up having regard to the principle and agenda that govern the GM's role. These include asking questions and acting on the answers - so eg the GM is quite entitled to ask What would be useful and then base his/her narration on the answer provided by the player.

That's why, upthread, I have characterised the role of the GM in Dungeon World and Apocalypse World (which is broadly similar in this respect) as including taking suggestions.

 

[Ovinomancer]

First, I appreciate the examples.

Your comment here puts me at a total loss. One of the biggest arguments for why some games have more agency has been because they give the player control of the fiction beyond actions declared for their PC's. And yet here you tell me that's nearly non-existent in the types of games that are being brought up as having more agency. Help me make some sense of that.

Like, why is anyone even talking about game features that give players control of the fiction outside their character?

The player has more agency because they cannot be negated or blocked by the GM in their action. The system will say who's right about this situation. Ergo, anything that the player tries that meets the genre and fiction smell test can succeed.

This has been explained before.

Interesting. In relation to this agency thread - I don't see how binding rules that interact on the psychosocial landscape would be a recipe for more agency?

You mean like Dominate Person, Charm Person, Suggestion, various fey, vampires....

 

[Neonchameleon]

First, I appreciate the examples.

Your comment here puts me at a total loss. One of the biggest arguments for why some games have more agency has been because they give the player control of the fiction beyond actions declared for their PC's. And yet here you tell me that's nearly non-existent in the types of games that are being brought up as having more agency. Help me make some sense of that.

Like, why is anyone even talking about game features that give players control of the fiction outside their character?

In my experience it's partly a misunderstanding of Fate Points, partly a difference between task and challenge resolution, and partly a difference in how precious people are over settings.

Fate Points in general cover a lot of abstracts that would be covered in a World of Darkness game by Willpower and whatever the meta-currency of choice in that game was (blood points, quintessence, etc.) This leads people to claim they can do almost anything - which is true but only when given the right aspects to invoke. And the aspects are either part of the character or part of the pre-established fiction in the setting.

Task and challenge resolution is a similar situation. In D&D or a task based game a character sheet will have an Athletics of +10 and the rules will use that to say how far someone can jump. In Fate a character may have an Athletics of +4/Great and the rules will say what level of obstacle they can overcome or advantage they can create using that athletics skill. But they do it through interacting with the fiction; you might overcome an obstacle by climbing it - or knocking it down. Can't find a secret door? With a roll of +8 you might be able to kool-aid-man through the wall anyway. (This is probably something that will involve aspects, stunts, and fate points but is more often coming as a player side idea than it would be in D&D)

Then there's how precious a certain type of GM is over the setting. First there are meta-skills. Fate has a Contacts skill by default (so, I think does the World of Darkness). Most GMs I've played with let characters with networks of contacts (whether a contacts skill is in the game or not) go at least some way to defining their contacts. Some DMs hate this because it's players creating the NPCs thus giving them control over the fiction. Others ... that's how they did things anyway.

Finally there's character creation - and the recent kitchen sink threads. Most of the games under discussion are pretty permissive in what the players can create in chargen, even inventing unique things about their character, and inventing cultures. This, as the recent threads showed, is entirely unacceptable to some DMs who think that that's giving the player control of the fiction when the thing starts and they should have it all but entirely expected by others as background even if it wouldn't be in play. Meanwhile Apocalypse World goes to the other extreme and says the MC is not to come up with anything before session zero and that the entire setting is a collaboration. But when the game actually starts after character creation the players act entirely through their characters. But one of my AW games has taken me by surprise when someone opted to play their Gunlugger as a triple-uzi wielding uplifted chimpanzee. Which certainly wasn't what I was expecting.

Interesting. In relation to this agency thread - I don't see how binding rules that interact on the psychosocial landscape would be a recipe for more agency?

If it's the type of rules I'm thinking of it's because (i) they have been chosen by the player rather than the GM and (ii) they let the character some things that are harmful to the character without being anti-social enough to sabotage the entire party's chances of success.

If a D&D character decides to get drunk just before a battle because their character is an alcoholic then they take a drunkenness debuff. This is bad for them and for the entire party and there's no good reason at all to do it. So D&D characters are social drinkers but almost always sober when they need to be. They aren't alcoholics, they just go carousing when they have the money and time. Anything else is just anti-social and sabotages everyone at the table.

If a GURPS character chooses to be an alcoholic then they need to roll to resist binge drinking when in the presence of alcohol but get bonus character points. A GURPS alcoholic generally behaves as if they are on a 12 step program and will not be seen inside a bar. Which ... works. But it's not an alcoholic.

A Fate character on the other hand does have rules - but the rules were chosen by the player. A Fate character who's an alcoholic can be compelled (or even request a compel from the GM); the compel will always be something bad, such as the condition drunkenness or waking up the wrong side of town in just their boxers but they get paid a Fate point for it - or they can spend a fate point and refuse. And Fate points are powerful. This means that the night before a big battle you're likely to find a Fate alcoholic asking for "jusht one more drink/fate point. I can hic handle it" and you may even see them drinking from a hip flask in the lull in a battle for "courage"/fate points. This is something that is likely to get your character into trouble both short and long term - but because you got the Fate Points for it it's not an anti-social move that sabotages the whole team.

So you are free to play an alcoholic without being a team sabotaging jerk because there are rules constraining your character that you have chosen.