A Question Of Agency?

[prabe]

Are there additional ways to activate player agency?

I don't know if you consider this to be included, but it seems possible for a player to have agency ("I declare this to be true") in ways that are defined by the rules, but don't necessarily derive from declaring action/s. Using Fate Points to add a detail to a scene comes to mind, as does a similar use for Hero Points in Mutants and Masterminds 2E.

 

[innerdude]

I don't know if you consider this to be included, but it seems possible for a player to have agency ("I declare this to be true") in ways that are defined by the rules, but don't necessarily derive from declaring action/s. Using Fate Points to add a detail to a scene comes to mind, as does a similar use for Hero Points in Mutants and Masterminds 2E.

Hmmm, you might be right. I might label it something like, "Rules-mediated Authorship." As you say, it's not free-form authorship, but it's not a player exercising an action declaration through their character.

 

[hawkeyefan]

As an addendum to this statement, you (@FrogReaver) may find it helpful to watch videos of John Harper running Blades in the Dark on his YouTube channel, which hawkeyefan has mentioned before. That might help you understand the game better. I believe that some reflect the pre-release playtest form, but @hawkeyefan likely could point to some of the videos that helped him most.

Though I will say that watching and playing (IME) are two separate experiences, and you sometimes can't see what's entirely at work with how Blades operates until you are in the player or GM seat yourself.

I'm reasonably sure these may have already been posted, but no harm in doing it again.

Here is the earliest series run by John Harper, and the rules are still in a state of flux, so sometimes things change a bit as the series progresses.


Here is another series GMed by the designer, John Harper, after the core book has been completed. I don't think this one is quite as much fun as the first, but it's still solid (I say this as someone who is really picky about live streams...I watch a handful that I think are great, and can't be bothered with the rest) and one of the best things about it is that the rules are set, and all the players are learning them as they play. So it's probably the better one to watch if someone wanted to understand the game.

 

[prabe]

Hmmm, you might be right. I might label it something like, "Rules-mediated Authorship." As you say, it's not free-form authorship, but it's not a player exercising an action declaration through their character.

Maybe something like "negotiated authorship?" Something free-form (or at least not controlled/mediated by rules) but negotiated around the table? I'm thinking specifically of something like a player writing up a backstory* and needing for there to be a city in Place X, or for some other fact of the world to reflect their backstory. IME, those sorts of things are negotiated between the GM and the player; I think the relevant bit is that it's not just that player (and it could be negotiated between players with the GM mostly uninvolved, I suppose). It seems as though it's vaguely related to your mention of character-generation, but it seems less rules-oriented than what I think you're talking about.

*I realize there are people who don't like this, or who don't like using "backstory" to describe this. The word seems to me to fit, but if someone wants to use a different word, I'm willing to listen.

 

[innerdude]

@prabe --- I see where you're going with that.

I think to be considered what would nominally be viewed as a tabletop roleplaying game as we know it, there's always an element of human mediation.

A game of collaborative fiction with zero mediation either by rule or human intervention essentially moves into "Pass the Conch" territory.

And really, if you think about it, the creation and use of rules for a roleplaying game are ultimately a shorthand way of communicating a contractual agreement between players as to how certain declarations about the fiction should be mediated.

For RPG play, the need for human mediation is omnipresent. The exercise of player agency requires it in all cases.

*Edit --- The more I think about it, the more I can see why systems like PbtA and Burning Wheel put into writing the ways in which the GM is constrained.

 

[FrogReaver]

So when you posted this, I think I was pretty clear that I didn't know what you meant. I think others have asked for clarification, as well, and if you've actually provided an example or explanation of what you mean, then it was not obvious, or was missed. I know I didn't see it.

What does "the ability to author the removal of an obstacle?" actually mean?

Maybe it will be clearer by example than by definition. Let's say you come to a raging river and want to cross it safely. A player that's able to add (or do something that adds) the existence of a nearby bridge across the river to the fiction would be authoring the removal of the obstacle.

While it's not quite as fitting for the genre of Blades, I could see something similar to the described Blades flashback mechanic being used to do exactly this. Player: I have a flashback of scouting this river for crossing a few days before we came to it. DM: you crit on your exploration roll to find a safe path across the river. It's an abandoned bridge that no one is watching just up the river from where you are.

 

[innerdude]

Let's say you come to a raging river and want to cross it safely. A player that's able to add (or do something that adds) the existence of a nearby bridge across the river to the fiction would be authoring the removal of the obstacle.

While it's not quite as fitting for the genre of Blades, I could see something similar to the described Blades flashback mechanic being used to do exactly this. Player: I have a flashback of scouting this river for crossing a few days before we came to it. DM: you crit on your exploration roll to find a safe path across the river. It's an abandoned bridge that no one is watching just up the river from where you are.

So you've described almost exactly what would happen in Ironsworn using a Gather Information check:

GATHER INFORMATION
When you search an area, ask questions, conduct an investigation, or follow a track, roll +wits. If you act within a community or ask questions of a person with whom you share a bond, add +1.
On a strong hit, you discover something helpful and specific. The path you must follow or action you must take to make progress is made clear. Envision what you learn (Ask the Oracle if unsure), and take +2 momentum.
On a weak hit, the information complicates your quest or introduces a new danger. Envision what you discover (Ask the Oracle if unsure), and take +1 momentum.
On a miss, your investigation unearths a dire threat or reveals an unwelcome truth that undermines your quest. Pay the Price.

The point here is again, the intent. The intent of playing Ironsworn isn't to just to "explore what's out there." It's to test and try your character, to see if your character is strong enough, resilient enough, and resourceful enough to fulfill his/her "Iron vows"---the things that drive your character forward.

On a strong hit, it would be entirely reasonable to "author" a bridge. On a weak hit, you might discover the bridge---but it's crumbling to dust in front of your very eyes and treacherous to cross.

Or there might be some other hazard associated with it --- you know, like a troll living underneath, nursery-rhyme style.


But again, the question is---what is driving the action? Is preventing the party from crossing the river really all that important? What is at stake? Is it more important for the parties to move on from this river, so they can start engaging again with the stuff that's driving their character motivations and Iron vows?

If the answer is "yes," then move on! You've got your strong hit, the pathway (bridge over the river) becomes clear, and you move on to what's driving the character forward. You don't diddle around with, "Oh, well, there's not a bridge, and there's nowhere to ford the river here, so . . . . yeah, guess you're stuck?" Why make the player jump through more hoops just to get across the river?

It's about the intent and principles involved.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Maybe it will be clearer by example than by definition. Let's say you come to a raging river and want to cross it safely. A player that's able to add (or do something that adds) the existence of a nearby bridge across the river to the fiction would be authoring the removal of the obstacle.

While it's not quite as fitting for the genre of Blades, I could see something similar to the described Blades flashback mechanic being used to do exactly this. Player: I have a flashback of scouting this river for crossing a few days before we came to it. DM: you crit on your exploration roll to find a safe path across the river. It's an abandoned bridge that no one is watching just up the river from where you are.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

I think some Powered by the Apocalypse games have some moves that work like that. If you roll high enough, you may be able to find something that can help you, such as a previously unknown bridge.

Do you think that’s all that different from things like using Survival to find food, or Nature to find a poison remedy, por Gather Info to learn about a thieves’ guild in the area?

To me, this still resembles declaring an action. Whether it’s as part of a Flashback (where the action takes place in the past but we learn its outcome in the present) or if it involves a player resource like a Fate Point or not, it still seems like a player declaring an action for their character, or something very much like it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

I think some Powered by the Apocalypse games have some moves that work like that. If you roll high enough, you may be able to find something that can help you, such as a previously unknown bridge.

Do you think that’s all that different from things like using Survival to find food, or Nature to find a poison remedy, por Gather Info to learn about a thieves’ guild in the area?

To me, this still resembles declaring an action. Whether it’s as part of a Flashback (where the action takes place in the past but we learn its outcome in the present) or if it involves a player resource like a Fate Point or not, it still seems like a player declaring an action for their character, or something very much like it.

They don't really work like this, though, because the framing of the example is incomplete to the point that you can't engage these mechanics at all. The example has presented a D&D style challenge -- that there's a river you have to cross and you, as a player, need to declare actions to explore the GM's thoughts about how you can pass the river. This is a GM framed challenge entirely independent of the player, and is, in fact, just a puzzle. If you divorce the framing so that you're posing a D&D style typical play problem, and then only looking at part of the AW solution space for a move, then there's absolutely going to be a disconnect and a strange appearance!

The real answer to the example @FrogReaver has posed is, "What? What's the river doing there, how does it follow from the last resolution or pose a problem that addresses the characters' directly? What is at risk when the player declares the move? How does this address the character in any way?" You can't even get to looking at the solution space of a success meaning there's a nearby bridge without the rest of the game coming alongside. And that part of the game is utterly missing from the example, which, again, is posing a D&D normal obstacle, which is normally solved via D&D normal resolution processes (ultimately the GM decides).

Frankly, this goes straight to the problem of lack of experience. This wasn't posed as a question that @FrogReaver was curious to have answered, but as a problem he's presented as an argument against. That it took, what, 10 posts about and around the topic to even get to the point he's posed an actual example of the problem he's been talking about just reinforces the issue that he has an unwillingness and lack of genuine curiosity to learn about these games. It's not really a lack of experience that's the issue, it's the willful avoidance and denial that such experience is helpful to understanding.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@FrogReaver ,

To expand on the above, framing is absolutely key. Framing in the games like AW, DW, BitD, and BW are such that they immediately put pressure on the characters or something the characters care about. Your river example puts no immediate pressure on the characters, nothing is put into risk or at stake by the river, and that makes it just a simple bit of flavor in the context of the way these games play. So, it would be perfectly fine if the players generate some fiction to bypass it because it wasn't doing anything else and it's just flavor.

A river blocking the way when you're being closely pursued by dangerous enemies, though, that's interesting! And, indeed, the result could be just as you say -- a move by the player, on a success, might indeed bypass the river as an obstacle, but it won't bypass the players being pursued, so it hasn't actually resolved the issue, just one obstacle along the way. And, there's also a lot at stake here -- a failure or complication could have serious outcomes! This is the kind of play that occurs -- the important bit isn't the river, but being chased. And, if you take an action that could lose the pursuit, then you'd see that this kind of action looks very much like the kinds of successful actions to a similar situation in D&D -- a hide or stealth or false trail or.... So, the argument that you can just author a solution to an obstacle ignores that this kind of thing also happens in "mainstream" games. The real difference is if it's the GM establishing all of the fiction of the outcomes or if the players get a say.

Another difference in framing is how these games build each next scene. Obstacles in D&D tend to be independent -- the existence of orcs in the next room is largely independent of the locked door to that room. Each is established by the GM as an obstacle, and the players are using their skill and character abilities to navigate the obstacles. Sure, the available resources the characters have is continuously dwindling, but the obstacles are largely independent of each other outside of this. In Story Now, though, there's no such thing as an independent obstacle -- each one in the chain is entirely dependent on the way the previous ones resolved. So, to get to the river example, it really need that larger context to be understood inside the Story Now games' frameworks. The river as an independent obstacle doesn't make any sense and can't be successfully analyzed because it would never happen.