A Question Of Agency?

[Neonchameleon]

Authoring the removal of an obstacle doesn't mean you are erasing from the fiction already existing fiction. It means you are adding something to the fiction so that whatever was previously an obstacle isn't any longer. You are the only one framing that as "authoring out of existence".

So when in a D&D session a few weeks back I bought some magical rations that were ever-refilling and the DM told us the next session we might be running low on food so I pointed out I'd bought supplies (in part because I expected something like that) I was authoring the removal of an obstacle? If that's what you mean by it then fine. It's also what approximately a quarter of the D&D spell list is designed for.

If so, fair enough. I just don't see why this is an issue.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Note: I separated your quote over two posts as the first half was about something that's only tangential and probably isn't going to be very worthwhile to really dig into. This part though I think will be really beneficial.


I thought you did an excellent job explaining the flashback mechanic.

You should have seen the first draft. I jumped over steps that I take for granted due to familiarity.

It depends on how you want to define authoring. It's certainly not how I'm meaning it right now. If one wants to call in fiction character actions an attempt to author I won't fault you for it. I think I've used authoring that way earlier in this conversation as well.

But when I'm contrasting the difference of in character action resolution and authoring, I'm certainly not talking about 2 equivalent things. If you want to say that the difference is types of authoring as opposed to authoring vs not, then I'm fine with that. As long as some distinction is given.

Okay, but how are you meaning it? As @Manbearcat has offered, with authoring being something done by fiat?

The Flashback itself. I should have probably been more specific on that.

That's okay. I realize it's an odd game element, but it seems very much a part of the game. Meaning it happens and the players are aware of it, it's just a question of the chronology. What makes you say it's meta?

And to clarify, when I hear meta, I generally feel it's a reference to something outside the game, or at the very least, outside the fiction.

The name Stress certainly has different connotations that would make it easy to assume things about it that weren't true.

I am curious on what it's supposed to represent in the fiction though? Is it some kind of magical energy? Something else? Possibly abstract like D&D hp and can be one of many things at any given time?

It's not magical energy and it's not HP, but its exact nature is a bit malleable. It's really some kind of mix of effort and will. You accumulate Stress by activatin abilities or by Pushing to increase your chances for success or severity of success. When you accumulate a certain amount, you are out of the action in some way (exhausted, frightened, unconscious, etc.). You also obtain a Trauma, a permanent tag that is a negative character trait (haunted, paranoid, reckless, cold, etc.).

If you accumulate Stress but don't take a Trauma, then it stays with you. You'll be less likely to be effective on your next Score. So you need to reduce your Stress by indulging your vice. Each PC in Blades has a vice. They indulge it, and then roll some dice and then reduce the amount of stress they have. If they reduce too much, meaning more than they've accumulated, then they over-indulge and there's a negative consequence.

It's a mechanic that's woven into many elements of the game, and is one that the PCs are likely very aware of, although they may not always refer to it by name.

I'd describe the player's ability to shift the narrative in the game back to some past event so that some help may be had with the present obstacle as a very metagame thing to do.

There's a bit of a process going on there right?

1. Player describes the scene
2. Stakes are set
3. Success/Failure is determined via a die roll
4. On a success the GM establishes new fiction in accordance with the player's desires. On a crit the GM establishes something additionally good for the player.

The question about authorship is who came up with the fiction and who established the fiction. And actually, that may make the term author/ship a bit misleading - as normally an author comes up with and establishes the fiction all as part of the same process.

Well, the player came up with the fiction. The GM just set the difficulty and determined the cost. No one did anything by fiat, so I don't think this use of Authoring matches Manbearcat's.

What's the difference between "who came up with the fiction" and "who established the fiction"? These seem identical to me. I don't think that your Number 4 is quite right; the player came up with the result of the "guards help the PCs". All I did as GM was to give it a couple of specific details for flavor, and then add the boon of the critical.

Both? I think both aspects are important to authorship. Who comes up with the fiction. Who establishes the fiction. In which case maybe it's better to say the player and DM co-author?

I think that this idea of cocreating the fiction together is something that Blades does very well. I think it's a big part of why it's been brought up as allowing so much agency.

Like that Flashback.....meta or not, I'm not worried about that label for now.....doesn't that rule give the players a lot of power over the fiction?

 

[pemerton]

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.

Where are these assumptions stated? Where have they been laid down?

I am familiar with the works of three classic fantasy authors: JRRT (LotR and The Hobbit); REH (his Conan and Kull stories); and LeGuin (the Earthsea trilogy). JRRT's work is replete with secret ways - they are a major plot point in The Hobbit and figure in LotR both in the Moria sequence and the Cirith Ungol sequence (which are the only sequences where way-blocking walls figure in the story). Conan frequently encounters secret ways through blocking walls. (I haven't gone back through all the stories - at the moment I'm thinking of the one in Shadows of Zamboula.) The only blocking walls I recall in the Earthsea stories are in the Tombs of Atuan, where there are secret ways which Ged discovers with the help of Tenar.

It seems to me that, if a wall is worth caring about at all, the prospect of a secret way through it does not challenge any assumptions I would make.

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.

Yet in this very same post you are objecting to A.

 

[pemerton]

For me personally a lot depends on the structure of the currency. Currencies that correspond to something that has meaning in the fiction like Stress in Blades, Team in Masks, or Strings in Monsterhearts feel much better to me than Plot Points, Artha, or Fate Points.

My view is that Artha use corresponds to trying hard.

 

[pemerton]

The pure mechanics and the playloops of those games I completely defer to them on - that's what knowing more about the game really means. But the analysis of what those mechanics and playloops mean in relation to agency isn't something that experience with a game is going to aid one with (provided that those with knowledge of the game are forthcoming in the relevant details that would enable one to analyze the game).

This assertion is contentious.

There's a difference between overcoming an obstacle in character and authoring the removal of the obstacle.

What's the difference? What would be an example of the second rather than the first?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Thanks for mentioning this, I'm reading it now. Brilliant stuff. I wonder if anyone has made similar charts for the fantasy genre?

 

[pemerton]

Thanks for mentioning this, I'm reading it now. Brilliant stuff. I wonder if anyone has made similar charts for the fantasy genre?

In A Wicked Age uses "Oracles" to establish the starting situation. They are very evocative.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Thanks for mentioning this, I'm reading it now. Brilliant stuff. I wonder if anyone has made similar charts for the fantasy genre?

The Kickstarter for the fantasy version Worlds Without Number just closed in early December. It's by Kevin Crawford, as well, and should be coming in 2021.

 

[Campbell]

The Kickstarter for the fantasy version Worlds Without Number just closed in early December. It's by Kevin Crawford, as well, and should be coming in 2021.

Really loving what I'm seeing from the beta. Strong Tanith Lee vibes.

There's also Wolves of God, a game about Saxon Warbands carving out a space for themselves in the Seven Kingdoms era.
Godbound is a game where players play nascent demigods carving their legends.

All three games are built on top of the Stars Without Number system with alterations to match the settings. Really excellent material.

 

[FrogReaver]

@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.

That's fair. I think there's definitely a difference in those kinds of games. I've definitely been operating from the perspective the games being brought up all were intended to be examples of what you refer to as story advocacy games.

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.

That helps.

1. 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.

I agree.

1. 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.

I think I agree here. It summarizes my position that such mechanics do cost one type of agency, but as you bring up here, that sacrifice buys another kind of agency.

1. 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.

I think I agree here as well. I can even see how this would feel quite empowering.

1. 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.

I agree with the assessment as well, or at least most of it. I mean consider the tension when what you term playing with integrity and playing toward the parties objectives comes into conflict when playing an alcoholic. "A mechanic I had no control over made my PC hungover for this mission." It alleviates the player from the responsibility that having their character act out a flaw might be detrimental to the party. Except let's delve into this a little deeper.

(Of course there's also the "I choose to have my character be hungover which is bad but I get metacurrency to compensate and so that essentially balances out so having my character do this bad thing didn't actually screw over the party".)

I'm going to focus on the first style of mechanic for the rest of this post. The first only works when players are forced to pick some relatively equal impact flaw compared to the other players. Otherwise a player can just pick no flaw or very minor flaw and perform better than the other players PC's. Essentially leading to the same kind of problem - you screw over the team if you pick a bad flaw and so social pressure to not pick bad flaws. This shows that the solution isn't actually the mechanic, but the constraint on character design that only includes characters that have flaws that have nearly the same impact. A game like D&D could accomplish the same thing by constraining you to making a character that always acts in the best interests of the party or that are all as equally flawed with the social expectation being that the flaws need to be played to when they arise.