A Question Of Agency?

[Campbell]

@FrogReaver

There is no unified front here. We are all talking about different games which are played in different ways. The games I am mostly talking about are primarily concerned with character advocacy where a player's perspective is firmly grounded on achieving their character's desires and are responsible for playing a credible protagonist. Some games that @permerton and others are talking about such as Fate and Cortex Heroic are games I personally consider story advocacy games in that the table is mindful of the narrative they are creating together and work together to weave a tale together. Some consider this controversial.

On Agency in Character Advocacy Story Now games

1. I am personally not concerned with maximizing agency. I am looking for games that naturally produce emergent narratives that contain fraught personal struggles. For that to work there need to be meaningful consequences in the same way that in adventure gaming your character can be physically hurt, subjected to all manner of nasty spell effects, and face death and injury. If psychosocial conflicts are going to be central rather than secondary to play having mechanics with actual teeth helps a great deal.
2. We're talking about agency rather than autonomy here. Being able to advocate for my character and achieve their goals often depends on the ability to oblige someone else to be constrained by my play. The price I pay is to also be obliged to change the way I play based on their play. If we are to have agency over the fiction in a socially equitable way we must accept other players' right to agency as well.
3. The social environment at the table between players should be considered in any analysis. In the absence of mechanics that impact the psychosocial environment our characters find themselves in we fall back on encultured expectations of player behavior. Tabletop roleplaying games have common cultural expectations that in the absence of being modified by the game we are playing tend to limit our autonomy. Frenzy in Vampire, Emotional Conditions in Masks, and other psychosocial mechanics provide permission to play in ways that are not normally socially acceptable in an adventure gaming environment.
4. This will not be a big deal to you I expect, but they help to resolve the tension between playing well and playing with integrity. In adventure gaming there is often a whole host of conflicts between playing your character as if they were a person and achieving the objectives of the game. This creates a whole bunch of conflicts between players with different objectives at the table. We blame players for acting according to the incentives the game places in front of them instead of seeking to resolve this tension through game design. When I play Masks playing well pretty much means engaging with the stuff my character would engage with anyway. When playing D&D I am in a constant of tension if I care at all about who my character is and what they want.

 

[Campbell]

I want to address something tangential here.

Prior to being exposed to Stars Without Number I was deeply intimidated and put off by sandbox gaming. I mean I was into OSR style dungeon crawls, but the way people talked about "true sandboxes" and world building as if these places were real made the actual process of play invisible to me. I had no idea how to go about it either from either side of the screen.

Enter Kevin Crawford's detailed instructions that addressed the play process from a practical level, provided me with a whole host of tools, and like accepted that GMs are like human beings who can never be fully prepared or contain entire worlds in their heads. He made the process seem attainable and demystified it. Without his grounded depiction of the process I would have missed out on some very good gaming.

 

[pemerton]

The games I am mostly talking about are primarily concerned with character advocacy where a player's perspective is firmly grounded on achieving their character's desires and are responsible for playing a credible protagonist. Some games that @permerton and others are talking about such as Fate and Cortex Heroic are games I personally consider story advocacy games in that the table is mindful of the narrative they are creating together and work together to weave a tale together.

I don't think this is true of Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP. I think it's a character advocacy system. (For the players. The GM has to think at the story level, and probably moreso than (say) Burning Wheel.)

I can't comment on Fate as I've never played or GMed it. Though I agree that, on reading, it seems to have story advocacy elements to it.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Part of it is a question of what can reasonably be assumed in the fiction given the info provided.

When we're told of an angry Orc, a vast majority of the time we can reasonably assume a) it's alive and b) it can be killed. If it turns out to be not alive i.e. undead, or an illusion, that's an unusual exception that will become apparent fairly soon; and if it turns out to be unkillable that's an extremely rare exception. Thus, as we already pretty much know the Orc is there and can be killed, using a combination of mechanics and fiction to (try to) turn that live Orc into a dead Orc isn't a big stretch, and no assumptions are challenged.

On meeting a dead-end wall, however, we cannot assume to anywhere near the same extent that there is a secret way through. In fact, the assumption would normally be that there isn't one until and unless proven otherwise; which means the mechanics are being used to challenge this assumption rather than simply follow up on it as with the Orc.

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.​

I can distinguish between them quite well: A does not use meta-game resources (the referred-to tokens or fate points) where B and C do.

And that's all I need to know to determine which I will consider playing and which I will walk away from.

 

[Lanefan]

This will not be a big deal to you I expect, but they help to resolve the tension between playing well and playing with integrity. In adventure gaming there is often a whole host of conflicts between playing your character as if they were a person and achieving the objectives of the game.

A very good point; and on the question put I fall greatly on the side of "play your character as if it was a person".

This creates a whole bunch of conflicts between players with different objectives at the table.

Exactly; and this is something I've alluded to upthread in various ways usually involving the phrase "herding cats".

We blame players for acting according to the incentives the game places in front of them instead of seeking to resolve this tension through game design. When I play Masks playing well pretty much means engaging with the stuff my character would engage with anyway. When playing D&D I am in a constant of tension if I care at all about who my character is and what they want.

Depends what you're after, I suppose; and on how good a cat-herd the GM turns out to be (some are very good at it!).

Me, I want to play my character as if it was a person in a solid, believable, consistent setting - which I rely on the GM to provide - and be able to follow its interests and (with no guarantee of achieving them) goals; but I'm not very interested in angst-ridden drama and-or journeys of in-character introspection and personal discovery.

Put another way, I guess I'd rather look outwards from my character than inwards into it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

I'm curious which are these games where player action cannot be negated by the GM. The GM in almost any game always has more mooks and can give the bosses unlimited hp and special moves.

But the expectation is that the GM will not negate the player action without an exceptionally good reason. The player says what they are doing and frequently picks up the dice, moving straight into the shared fiction rather than having to go through GM negotiation first. The rules for e.g. throwing a tapestry over someone's head in Fate are clear ("Create an advantage" possibly invoking a scene aspect and probably using athletics) and in D&D they are not.

So in Fate the player moves as freely from their character to the fiction when pulling a rug from under the feet of the bad guys unless the GM intervenes ("the rug's been glued down/simply tears") as they do in D&D when swinging a sword and making an attack roll unless the DM intervenes ("your sword passes straight through the illusion/bounces off the forcefield"). And in both cases this is expected to denote exceptional circumstances.

This is more empowering for the players because they have a clearer understanding of the capabilities of their character and because they can just do these stunts rather than haggling and slowing things down for everyone. Whether it's more empowering for the GM depends on that GM - some find it less makework, others get less of a power trip or more of a headache.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Me, I want to play my character as if it was a person in a solid, believable, consistent setting - which I rely on the GM to provide - and be able to follow its interests and (with no guarantee of achieving them) goals; but I'm not very interested in angst-ridden drama and-or journeys of in-character introspection and personal discovery.

Put another way, I guess I'd rather look outwards from my character than inwards into it.

Me, I want to play my character as if it was a person in a solid, believable setting. I find that relying entirely on the GM (whether myself or someone else) almost inevitably ends up with a setting that is too consistent to be believable because humans are complicated (as elves and orcs should be). I also want my character to be able to act as freely and confidently in the world as I could act in this real one - and my character has lived in that fictional world for years.

What this means in practice is that there are lots of details that the GM hasn't described but will be there. If my character's a flamboyant sort and comes into a room and throws their hat onto a hat-stand I don't want to be told "actually hat stands aren't a thing in this culture" or even "this room doesn't have a hatstand" or "it's right by your hand and you look like a clot" and as GM the only way I would tell anyone that is if there were a pre-established taboo against hats or the hatstand had already been established.

Put another way, I guess I'd rather look outwards from my character, able to act as they would with that level of fluidity, than at it top down mediated by the GM

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is more empowering for the players because they have a clearer understanding of the capabilities of their character and because they can just do these stunts rather than haggling and slowing things down for everyone. Whether it's more empowering for the GM depends on that GM - some find it less makework, others get less of a power trip or more of a headache.

Sometimes I like games that have more crunch or more elaboration on these kinds of tactical choices. But I will say, one reason I enjoy going to to the stripped down, real OD&D style retroclone material, is because so much of it brings back that early experience I had playing where the player could propose just about anything, and exactly because there wasn't a clear mechanic for it in every case, the GM had to come up with a way that fit that exact suggestion as best as possible on the spot (which is where I think the whole human referee being more adaptable than a system feels more empowering to me as a player at times). Again, I don't have anything against systems that include things like creating an advantage. Lots of games have those kinds of tools. And I have myself, shifted back and forth over the years in terms of preference for more robust systems to more stripped down systems. As I get older though, I really find myself sticking more and more with stripped down, have only the rules you absolutely need to play, and leave everything else to rulings by the GM (which isn't simple fiat of yes you can or no you can't, but usually the GM figuring out the most suitable method to adjudicate on the spot-----which could be give me a Dexterity roll followed by an attack, could be an automatic bonus to the attack, etc). It just lets you interact very directly with the environment sometimes when you choices are not constrained by those kinds of rules. Yes having create an advantage can be empowering in that it gives you a clear lever, but it also does mean, that is the lever you are going to use. A lot of nuanced and different actions can get folded into that one thing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Enter Kevin Crawford's detailed instructions that addressed the play process from a practical level, provided me with a whole host of tools, and like accepted that GMs are like human beings who can never be fully prepared or contain entire worlds in their heads. He made the process seem attainable and demystified it. Without his grounded depiction of the process I would have missed out on some very good gaming.

I just want to agree with the praise for this book. Stars without Numbers has one of the best GM sections on this topic

 

[Campbell]

Sometimes I like games that have more crunch or more elaboration on these kinds of tactical choices. But I will say, one reason I enjoy going to to the stripped down, real OD&D style retroclone material, is because so much of it brings back that early experience I had playing where the player could propose just about anything, and exactly because there wasn't a clear mechanic for it in every case, the GM had to come up with a way that fit that exact suggestion as best as possible on the spot (which is where I think the whole human referee being more adaptable than a system feels more empowering to me as a player at times). Again, I don't have anything against systems that include things like creating an advantage. Lots of games have those kinds of tools. And I have myself, shifted back and forth over the years in terms of preference for more robust systems to more stripped down systems. As I get older though, I really find myself sticking more and more with stripped down, have only the rules you absolutely need to play, and leave everything else to rulings by the GM (which isn't simple fiat of yes you can or no you can't, but usually the GM figuring out the most suitable method to adjudicate on the spot-----which could be give me a Dexterity roll followed by an attack, could be an automatic bonus to the attack, etc). It just lets you interact very directly with the environment sometimes when you choices are not constrained by those kinds of rules. Yes having create an advantage can be empowering in that it gives you a clear lever, but it also does mean, that is the lever you are going to use. A lot of nuanced and different actions can get folded into that one thing.

I do not mean to pick on you here. I just want to illustrate a point.

A significant number of people basically talk about games as if every game was structured and organized along an OSR to Pathfinder First Edition sort of range of unstructured play to long list of exception based rules that obviate the need for GM judgement. That in order for game mechanics to have teeth they must obviate the need for any GM judgement and come in large unwieldy books. A lot of the games I enjoy playing/running do not exist on that spectrum.

Let's look at Apocalypse World. It's a compact little game compared to any version of D&D except maybe into the Odd or The Blackhack. From the perspective of a player playing a PC all the urles you will ever need to reference are contained on your double sided character sheet/play book and a double sided basic move sheet. It builds GM judgement directly into the machinery of play. Almost every rule in the game asks the GM to make a directed judgement call. Still it builds constraints on the GM by directing their energy in certain directions.

Here's what that looks like:

http://apocalypse-world.com/AW-basicplaybooks-legal.pdf

Many of the games I have talked about in this thread have substantially lower footprints than even B/X (which I love dearly). Sorcerer is probably the thinnest game in terms of stuff players need to know to play it I have ever seen. Another good example of a game that has some mechanical teeth while having an extremely small footprint is Lasers and Feelings. The entire game fits on a single page with some fairly large text.

Not trying to make a persuasive case for how games should be structured. Just interjecting that games can be structured in innumerable ways.