A Question Of Agency?

[hawkeyefan]

I think it would help a lot if people were able to make a distinction between the game as presented and the game as they play it. Assuming that your specific approach and house rules and social contract is somehow evident to all seems to be part of the challenge in discussion. Especially when we're talking about a game like D&D where, depending on edition, you can have wildly different interpretations of how the game is "supposed" to be played.

There is the game as written, and then the game as played. What's written is what is common to us all, and so that should be all that is assumed in discussion. Any social contract changes or actual rules changes or shifts in approach or process need to be explained. These are great.....I think actual examples of these and why people do them would really help the discussion....but they need to be explained.

In other words, I don't think that it helps to just say "Well that's not how it works at my table" without explaining how it works at your table.

I know that a big part of all this for me was when I really stepped back from 5E D&D and looked at it as written and as designed, rather than as my group and I played it. When I did that, I realized how many issues there were with the design which were kind of resolved through the way my group and I play. If we played it as written, my group would likely find the system to be very flawed in some areas (for us and what we want; this will vary by group, of course).

So, unless you want to share what game you're talking about and how your social contract or house rules have changed it for you, then I think we're gonna keep running into this problem.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think it would help a lot if people were able to make a distinction between the game as presented and the game as they play it. Assuming that your specific approach and house rules and social contract is somehow evident to all seems to be part of the challenge in discussion. Especially when we're talking about a game like D&D where, depending on edition, you can have wildly different interpretations of how the game is "supposed" to be played.

There is the game as written, and then the game as played. What's written is what is common to us all, and so that should be all that is assumed in discussion. Any social contract changes or actual rules changes or shifts in approach or process need to be explained. These are great.....I think actual examples of these and why people do them would really help the discussion....but they need to be explained.

In other words, I don't think that it helps to just say "Well that's not how it works at my table" without explaining how it works at your table.

I know that a big part of all this for me was when I really stepped back from 5E D&D and looked at it as written and as designed, rather than as my group and I played it. When I did that, I realized how many issues there were with the design which were kind of resolved through the way my group and I play. If we played it as written, my group would likely find the system to be very flawed in some areas (for us and what we want; this will vary by group, of course).

So, unless you want to share what game you're talking about and how your social contract or house rules have changed it for you, then I think we're gonna keep running into this problem.

The problem is that the most popular game isn’t presented any particular way. It’s a whole lot of “here’s some ideas but do what’s best for your table”

 

[hawkeyefan]

The problem is that the most popular game isn’t presented any particular way. It’s a whole lot of “here’s some ideas but do what’s best for your table”

If by that you mean D&D 5E, I don’t think that’s exactly right. Yes, there are areas which are very much left up to interpretation. There are other areas that allow some interpretation, but have a general process.

Then there are other areas which are clearly defined in the book, but which many groups seem to simply ignore in favor of their own interpretation.

I think it’s important for anyone who is playing the game and wants to analyze their play to know the difference from one to the other.

Overall, I get your point and I agree; D&D 5E is imprecise in its rules, which I think was intentional. But for the purposes of discussion, this is only made worse when folks don’t realize what’s their personal approach, what's in the actual books, what they’ve ported over from previous editions, and so on.

So when it comes to 5E (any game, really) all that I can talk about is the rules as written and the rules as played by my group. Knowing the difference is important to discussion and so is being able to explain the difference to others.

 

[FrogReaver]

If by that you mean D&D 5E, I don’t think that’s exactly right. Yes, there are areas which are very much left up to interpretation. There are other areas that allow some interpretation, but have a general process.

Then there are other areas which are clearly defined in the book, but which many groups seem to simply ignore in favor of their own interpretation.

I think it’s important for anyone who is playing the game and wants to analyze their play to know the difference from one to the other.

Overall, I get your point and I agree; D&D 5E is imprecise in its rules, which I think was intentional. But for the purposes of discussion, this is only made worse when folks don’t realize what’s their personal approach, what's in the actual books, what they’ve ported over from previous editions, and so on.

So when it comes to 5E (any game, really) all that I can talk about is the rules as written and the rules as played by my group. Knowing the difference is important to discussion and so is being able to explain the difference to others.

I would tend to agree. I would add that much of what’s being focused on as “5e play” seems more focused on what is possible to happen in 5e than what actually does at many tables. (I dare not speak for all or even most tables as that’s a can of worms best left unopened). This principle may be true in the opposite direction as well. When examples are given of blades play its really not said if the example is typical or of something rare that might arise. I think that makes a world of difference as people can often overlook mild doses of things they generally don’t like much. And doubly so when it serves a greater purpose as it often does in such games.

 

[Manbearcat]

I dislike trying to separate agency into different types, because I think it obfuscates the issue, which is, to me, who can say no. If someone else can unilaterally say no, then I do not have agency. To have agency, though, more needs to be present that just the lack of negation, namely places where decisions matter to the game.

The first set of buckets you've listed doesn't really illuminate these points, because no game really separates play into these categories and then define who has what say where. That it works to show that a wizard in D&D has more agency than a fighter isn't because of the framework you've built, but because the magic system in D&D has more places where the GM cannot or is limited in how they say no. As such, the framework doesn't do a good job of answering the questions of who has agency in which bucket because agency isn't assigned by the bucket, but by access to the magic system. By this I mean that the separation of agency doesn't clarify where the wizard has more agency because the wizard doesn't actually have agency by these buckets, but rather has access to a system that occasionally provides agency in these buckets. The buckets don't really define where agency is available, the tool of magic does.

Secondly, your second framework is a bit of a mishmash. As others have noted, the protagonist bucket is very blurry with the other two -- can I have protagonist agency and not have tactical or strategic agency? I don't really see how. I also don't see how I could have strategic agency without tactical agency. This division is messy and unclear and far to interdependent to really call out the nature of either. I can see how I can have tactical agency but not strategy agency (I can operate in a combat how I want, but the outcome of the module is fixed). So, maybe a reframing that shows that you need a to have b, and a and b to have c, etc. I'm still not sure this is very illuminating, but perhaps.

Alright, so here is what I'm trying to accomplish with this:

1) Develop a matrix by which all TTRPGs can have every moment of player agency qualitatively expressed:

a) Medium/vector of expression.

b) Type of expression.

2) Through this matrix evaluate design impetus and architecture, play priorities, and GMing principles.

3) From/through all of the above, analyze instances of play with respect to these things.

What I am not trying to do:

4) Capture significant redundancy (if there is too much Venn Diagram overlap, then a broader classification that both concepts can orbit around should be used), extreme corner cases, or hypotheticals.

---

I don't want to go discuss (b) too much right now because I want to focus on (a) (I already gave some thoughts on (b) upthread, but I'll go into it further later). Right now, I want to deliberate on (a) and how it interacts with (4):

Is Character "significant redundancy" in relation to Situation and Setting?

After much more thought, I'm still unsure. My initial arrangement of thoughts for the medium/vector classifications was centered around the following questions:

* Given any subset of relationship of objects within a gamestate (and the attendant constraint on action declarations due to fictional positioning that a character might be dealing with), what are the limits (both breadth and potency) of reach in terms of action declarations that a player might make through their character?

* With respect to Setting and Situation, do those limits substantially differ from PC to PC and from game to game such that Character is a sufficiently distinguishing medium/vector?

Some thoughts:

* It is mostly true that mundane characters (whether it be Fighters in D&D or their analogues in other games) are severely restricted by fictional positioning, and therefore their player's action declarations are similarly restricted:

What is the reach/range of my weapon? Is this obstacle bridgeable by way of physical interaction (whether its talking or moving) such that new action declarations might open up? How can I restrict my adversary by manipulating their relationship with objects within the gamestate?

HOWEVER...

Fighters and Battlebabes in Dungeon World and Apocalypse World can extend their reach beyond the immediate fictional positioning restraints of their character to interact directly with the situation to impose change via Through Death's Eyes and Visions of Death (make a move that will create "death by fiat"). Further, 4e Fighters can do similarly with Come and Get It. FitD Flashbacks enable this as well (suspension of present constraints on fictional positioning to propose a change at the Situation level).

There are plenty of other examples of this in games.

Are the distinguishing components of these moves (and the way they distinguish, say, a Moldvay Basic Fighter froma 4e Fighter or an AW Battlebabe) sufficient to require Character as a medium/vector separate from Situation?

I'm putting that to jury for thoughts.

 

[FrogReaver]

Alright, so here is what I'm trying to accomplish with this:

1) Develop a matrix by which all TTRPGs can have every moment of player agency qualitatively expressed:

a) Medium/vector of expression.

b) Type of expression.

2) Through this matrix evaluate design impetus and architecture, play priorities, and GMing principles.

3) From/through all of the above, analyze instances of play with respect to these things.

What I am not trying to do:

4) Capture significant redundancy (if there is too much Venn Diagram overlap, then a broader classification that both concepts can orbit around should be used), extreme corner cases, or hypotheticals.

---

I don't want to go discuss (b) too much right now because I want to focus on (a) (I already gave some thoughts on (b) upthread, but I'll go into it further later). Right now, I want to deliberate on (a) and how it interacts with (4):

Is Character "significant redundancy" in relation to Situation and Setting?

After much more thought, I'm still unsure. My initial arrangement of thoughts for the medium/vector classifications was centered around the following questions:

* Given any subset of relationship of objects within a gamestate (and the attendant constraint on action declarations due to fictional positioning that a character might be dealing with), what are the limits (both breadth and potency) of reach in terms of action declarations that a player might make through their character?

* With respect to Setting and Situation, do those limits substantially differ from PC to PC and from game to game such that Character is a sufficiently distinguishing medium/vector?

Some thoughts:

* It is mostly true that mundane characters (whether it be Fighters in D&D or their analogues in other games) are severely restricted by fictional positioning, and therefore their player's action declarations are similarly restricted:

What is the reach/range of my weapon? Is this obstacle bridgeable by way of physical interaction (whether its talking or moving) such that new action declarations might open up? How can I restrict my adversary by manipulating their relationship with objects within the gamestate?

HOWEVER...

Fighters and Battlebabes in Dungeon World and Apocalypse World can extend their reach beyond the immediate fictional positioning restraints of their character to interact directly with the situation to impose change via Through Death's Eyes and Visions of Death (make a move that will create "death by fiat"). Further, 4e Fighters can do similarly with Come and Get It. FitD Flashbacks enable this as well (suspension of present constraints on fictional positioning to propose a change at the Situation level).

There are plenty of other examples of this in games.

Are the distinguishing components of these moves (and the way they distinguish, say, a Moldvay Basic Fighter froma 4e Fighter or an AW Battlebabe) sufficient to require Character as a medium/vector separate from Situation?

I'm putting that to jury for thoughts.

I think you do a disservice to my side if you don’t separate that out. It’s been one of the most reoccurring points this whole thread.

Now whether it’s a separate category or a subcategory I’m not as sure on.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would tend to agree. I would add that much of what’s being focused on as “5e play” seems more focused on what is possible to happen in 5e than what actually does at many tables. (I dare not speak for all or even most tables as that’s a can of worms best left unopened). This principle may be true in the opposite direction as well. When examples are given of blades play its really not said if the example is typical or of something rare that might arise. I think that makes a world of difference as people can often overlook mild doses of things they generally don’t like much. And doubly so when it serves a greater purpose as it often does in such games.

This is likely somewhat true. The main difference, I think, is that Blades in the Dark has very specifically stated GM Goals, GM Principles, and GM Best Practices. In a very tangible sense, you could say that there is one way to run Blades in the Dark, and that would be according to those Goals, Principles, and Best Practices.

With D&D 5E, you have rules that are often vaguely worded, and advice on how to apply the rules and run the game that is mere suggestion.

One creates a clearer picture than the other, and so is much easier to discuss. But yes, even with the Goals, Principles, and Best Practices laid out clearly, there will still be room for interpretation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Tactical Agency - The ability to make a move that affects, both in degree and in kind, the relationship of objects/goals/stakes within the immediate gamestate.

Strategic Agency - The ability to make a move that affects, both in degree and in kind, the relationship of objects within the setting such that downstream decision-points and gamestates are likely significantly altered.

So I've been meaning to respond to your post for a while, because I appreciate the time and thought that went into it. But first, I have a question.

For the two Agency Types above, the distinction appears to only be "impact in the fiction now" versus "impact in the fiction later on"; is that right? If so, what are the reasons you made this distinction?

 

[Bedrockgames]

With D&D 5E, you have rules that are often vaguely worded, and advice on how to apply the rules and run the game that is mere suggestion.

But my sense is this is because D&D is trying to accommodate a broader range of GM styles and playstyles, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Part of the problem 5E was trying to solve was bringing together a fractured fanbase around the new edition

 

[hawkeyefan]

But my sense is this is because D&D is trying to accommodate a broader range of GM styles and playstyles, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Part of the problem 5E was trying to solve was bringing together a fractured fanbase around the new edition

Yes. I didn't say that it was a bad thing overall, or that there weren't strong reasons for this decision.

I said that it makes discussion difficult because even if we ignore social contract elements and house rules and such, people can still be approaching discussion from totally different starting points, based on their interpretations of the rules as written.

For example, do the 5E D&D core books say that once a DM assigns a DC to an Ability Check, that he actually shares the DC with the player? I'm not sure that they do (however, I could certainly be wrong). So you may have some groups that think the player should always know the DC before making the roll, some groups that think they never should, and some groups that think they should some of the time, with some vague wording in the books about using "what works for your group".

There are pros and cons to the "rulings not rules" mindset that guided the designers of 5E, and a consistent starting point for discussion would appear to be one of the cons.