A Question Of Agency?

[prabe]

I'm undecided about where reputation mechanics fall.

On the level of making a build-level choice, they don't bother me at all. They don't re-write the past the way Contacts do. You pay points for your character to be famous, or you receive points because your character is infamous.

If there's some sort of track that endeavors to place incentives in the way of role-playing, or serve a function akin to alignment, that might be different.

 

[Lanefan]

Wow - 3000 posts in here, and I hit #3K. Can't recall ever seeing another thread this long, other than that silly one in Geek Talk that's now on page 6-hundred-and-something.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I disagree, for several reasons.

First, you don't have equal agency across all tables to "play act" what you want how you want. Look no further than the recent thread re playing characters not of one's own gender; or any thread regarding allowance of evil characters; or anywhere someone denigrates doing something "because it's what the character would do" even though following the character wherever it leads you is the purest form of RP.

These kind of arbitrary limitations IMO hammer player agency far harder than most of what's been discussed in here.

These are not restrictions of the game. When discussing player agency, we're talking about how the game the player is playing enables or disables agency. These things you're talking about are social contract issues. I believe I just mentioned the problem of social contracts infiltrating understanding of how games work, and this is another excellent example.

Second, to blanket-declare that role-play isn't required by the game and-or isn't necessary to the game is in error; in that some systems (e.g. 1e D&D and some LARPs) actively reward "good roleplaying" (in 1e this is done via added XP, and faster/cheaper training at level-up).

Play-acting. Roleplaying doesn't require play-acting. And, play-acting is not necessary to any RPG. It definitely something I'd encourage anyone to do because it's fun and it adds to the experience, but the mechanics and systems of these games operate just fine without any play-acting.

Let's not do the confuse roleplaying with play-acting at that table. I'm roleplaying just by playing Bob the Fighter -- I've taken on the role of that character and will, to different degrees in different games, engage the game in the guise of that role. Me using a funny voice or 1st person doesn't really engage any mechanics of the games.

Caveat: It may engage the aspect of a game where the goal is to convince the GM, through entertaining them, to allow your character to do something. Come to think of it, this is a common thread for those arguing that play-acting is essential to RPGs.

Third, to say that role-playing isn't necessary in a role-playing game is...well, let's just say it's a bit much.

I agree, 100%, see above about the difference between roleplaying and play-acting. Or rather, that play-acting is just one way to roleplay.

That said, in the grand scheme of how various systems are written and intended this type of agency is probably more or less a wash, yes. But that it's a wash is no reason to discount RP-agency from consideration here; if for no other reason than not every table plays their system as written or intended and some tables/GMs in fact do deny RP agency on a regular basis.

There's no such thing as a game feature that enables or disables players from being able to play-act their characters. It's orthogonal to the issues discussed. Any agency involved in play-acting is outside the game, not inside it; ie, it's a function of what's acceptable at your table.

 

[generic]

As Ovinomancer said, the general assumption when discussing these issues is that the player or Game Master will engage in a form of directly characterized play-acting, actually acting as their character would, and, although the rules of Dungeons and Dragons in particular do emphasize this, role-playing need not take the form of play-acting. At many tables, including my own, players may just want to engage with a surface level form of role-playing, a-la a video game RPG. Immersion is secondary to fun.

Of course, all tables function differently, and, accordingly, you cannot make any judgement which is based on "the norm". Instead, I'd point to the rule-set, which does not mandate play-acting.

 

[pemerton]

They wouldn't, which is why there's usually a different way to go that doesn't involve the veto -- like a veto override or a vote of no-confidence. If one person can say no, there's no agency for anyone else there. Now, the apparatus of state is usually operating on multiple fronts, and veto only covers one, so the precise statement is that if the head of state can veto without available recourse, then parliament has no agency on that matter. Bringing the matter up to a veto, in the complex world of politics, obviously carries some agency in other areas, but, yeah, that bill ain't passing.

I'm really struggling to see how this is a controversial statement. I like to think I'm a pretty smart guy and I consider things, but the very concept of agency is absolutely anathema to someone else being able to gainsay you unilaterally and without recourse.

I think the comparison between gameplay and the legislative process is not very helpful. (And I realise you didn't introduce it. But I think it may have led you a little astray.)

Upthread, @Campbell has (multiple times) mentioned social pressure/understanding. In politics the use of veto powers - be that the literal veto a president can exercise in the US system, or something like the guillotine in a Westminster-type power - is subject to all sorts of constraints that professional politicians are incredibly good at intuiting, that political journalists spend their careers reporting on, and that political scientists try to theorise. At the extreme limits this is the stuff of constitutional crises and even of coups. (Think of the fairly recent debates, now moot given the prorogation fiasco followed by the recent Brexit deal and so I believe not in violation of board rules, about whether the UK government could legitimately advise Her Majesty not to assent to a Bill that had duly passed both houses but that the government did not support. It would make no sense to say that Parliament enjoyed no agency although in some sense the government enjoyed this veto option - which ultimately it didn't exercise, for obvious reasons to do with constitutional tradition.)

When we are talking about RPGing, the veto power we typically have in mind is the GM's, and there are nothing like these formally and informally institutionally-generated pressures. In games that contemplate GM veto (eg some approaches to D&D) there is typically a social norm that requires other participants to go along with it, to not muster pressure against the GM not to do it, etc. It's nothing like the political case.

To get something even remotely comparable to the political case, I think we'd need to be talking about a GM in a club game (ie played among those who are, in some meaningful way, strangers to one another) where there are multiple candidate GMs and where participants are able to generate feedback that helps determine who GMs in the future. Even then it would depend on other features of the club norms - I've seen club groups that nevertheless work under a very strong GM-is-always-right ethos.

 

[Lanefan]

These are not restrictions of the game. When discussing player agency, we're talking about how the game the player is playing enables or disables agency. These things you're talking about are social contract issues. I believe I just mentioned the problem of social contracts infiltrating understanding of how games work, and this is another excellent example.

Social contract issues are, however, part of the game no matter what table you're sitting at; and even if they're not written down in the published rules some GMs write some of the social contract out as house rules.

I'm looking at agency as viewed and experienced by the end user - the player at the table - which must perforce include all these factors. What the written rules say is only a part of that end-user experience.

Play-acting. Roleplaying doesn't require play-acting. And, play-acting is not necessary to any RPG. It definitely something I'd encourage anyone to do because it's fun and it adds to the experience, but the mechanics and systems of these games operate just fine without any play-acting.

Let's not do the confuse roleplaying with play-acting at that table. I'm roleplaying just by playing Bob the Fighter -- I've taken on the role of that character and will, to different degrees in different games, engage the game in the guise of that role. Me using a funny voice or 1st person doesn't really engage any mechanics of the games.

The moment you-as-player say something* because Bob-as-character says* it, you're role-playing. Until and unless this happens, I'd debate whether you're in fact role-playing or merely game-playing on a par with Risk or Stratego.

Playing a role means taking on a persona, usually not your own.

* - or, in very rare cases, physically do something in-character (usually around riddle or puzzle solving).

Caveat: It may engage the aspect of a game where the goal is to convince the GM, through entertaining them, to allow your character to do something. Come to think of it, this is a common thread for those arguing that play-acting is essential to RPGs.

Well I hope I'm entertaining people, otherwise what the bleep am I doing there?

There's no such thing as a game feature that enables or disables players from being able to play-act their characters. It's orthogonal to the issues discussed. Any agency involved in play-acting is outside the game, not inside it; ie, it's a function of what's acceptable at your table.

What's acceptable at your table is still a part of the game you are, in the end, playing. I think attempting to divorce these things is what's clouding the issue - you're trying to talk about only the rules-as-written and I (and maybe others) are trying to talk about the game-as-played.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think we will ever resolve this divide, but we are not talking about agency as it pertains to sociology. We are talking about agency as it pertains to RPGs and it came to RPGs by literature, and there I think it is much closer to this idea of acting freely in the world the story takes place.

The concept of agency comes into RPGing from thinking about gaming, not literature. Protagonists in fiction enjoy (or fail to enjoy) imagined agency - eg we can ask to what extent the victim of tragedy was really in control of his/her fate? But in the context of RPGing, we are (or, at least, I am) talking about the real agency of real people participating in a joint endeavour.

 

[generic]

What's acceptable at your table is still a part of the game you are, in the end, playing. I think attempting to divorce these things is what's clouding the issue - you're trying to talk about only the rules-as-written and I (and maybe others) are trying to talk about the game-as-played.

It's somewhat difficult to make an absolute argument on the basis of something so inherently subjective as "how the game is played".

You can generalize, yes, but I won't be able to take an argument with no basis in fact or cited knowledge very seriously.

Then again, I'm just being overly-pedantic about D&D's system of player agency online, so, at the end of the day, I don't think any disagreement is going to lead to profound issues in the hobby, lol.

 

[pemerton]

Mechanics that function by making unrelated bad thing happen on a poor roll make situation/setting feel like it lacks integrity. Mechanics that give players power of the situation or setting outside their character - (this probably needs to be more precisely formulated) also cause that same lack of integrity for me.

(1) What do you mean by unrelated? Unrelated to what? I am going to repost John Harper here, on narrating hard moves in AW:

When you make a regular MC move, all three:
1. It follows logically from the fiction.
2. It gives the player an opportunity to react.
3. It sets you up for a future harder move.

This means, say what happens but stop before the effect, then ask "What do you do?"

- He swings the chainsaw right at your head. What do you do?

• You sneak into the garage but there's Plover right there, about to notice you any second now. What do you do?
• She stares at you coldly. 'Leave me alone,' she says. What do you do?

When you make a hard MC move, both:
1. It follows logically from the fiction.
2. It's irrevocable.

This means, say what happens, including the effect, then ask "What do you do?"

- The chainsaw bites into your face, spraying chunks of bloody flesh all over the room. 3-harm and make the harm move!

• Plover sees you and starts yelling like mad. Intruder!
• Don't come back here again.' She slams the door in your face and you hear the locks click home.

See how that works? The regular move sets up the hard move. The hard move follows through on the threat established by the regular move.
​

(2) Memories and other recollections are not things outside a character. Yet you appear to object to systems that permit players - via whatever resolution process - to establish their PCs' memories and recollections.

 

[pemerton]

Sounds like a very good reason to add the leg brace to him. I'd say that's not fiat at all.

How is it not fiat? I don't think @prabe had to roll on a random NPC prosthetics table or anything similar in order to be able to make this true in the shared fiction.