A Question Of Agency?

[hawkeyefan]

Your blades flashback mechanic fits situation agency but not character agency. The "time is now" portion excludes it from being character agency.

Good catch, thank you! I knew there was something I was missing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm sure @Campbell can clarify himself, and much more succinctly, but I think it's the idea that the absence of these things from the game make it clear that they are not essential. They don't need to be present. If something doesn't need to be present, how important can you really claim that it to be?

Yes, you can add these elements. I described my 5E game where we did exactly that. But the system does NOTHING to support this. It works only because my players and I make it work.

Right. So you didn't need rules for it.

I would also say that some of the rules get in the way.

How?

This is why I mentioned how having actual rules or attributes of your PC that are required and giving those some weight speaks to their importance. Just as the award system of a game will tell you a lot about what it's about, so do other rules.

The fact that all you get in 5E as written for actually role-playing your Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws is an Inspiration die (most likely to be used in combat) and not XP is very telling, isn't it?

The people are ones who decide what's important. If it is important to you then it is important in the game. (There are also guidelines for awarding XP for non-combat encounters, not that I would bother with XP at all.)

I would rephrase that a bit. It's not about forcing a certain kind of play....it's about actively promoting it. Saying "this game is about X".

Why you need the game book to say that? Why can't the GM and the players decide that the game is about that?

 

[Campbell]

So I think as long as we are putting things in generalizing buckets that apply universally and saying this needs rules or this does not need rules we are not going to get to the interesting part of the conversation. We need zero rules at all (including no formal divisions of authority) to roleplay. We literally can just do it. I know because that's what I did before I played D&D. I also ran a session entirely freeform in our mecha game while we were working on transitioning from one game system to another.

We might desire some things to be part of the formal rules of a game. We might even want that to change from game to game. What's interesting to me is the impact of those formal systems as well as the culture of play surrounding a game which is just as important to me personally.

 

[Manbearcat]

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?

Let me deconstruct my thinking here:

PROTAGONIST AGENCY - To be a/the protagonist, you (a) must have a dramatic need and (b) the game feature the resolution of this as its ballast and pivot point. This actual type of agency is almost surely the primary point of contention in this thread (and threads we've had in the past). A game can be entirely devoid of Protagonist Agency or it can be entirely focused on it or somewhere in between.

I brought up Pawn Stance Moldvay Basic earlier. There is no dramatic need there upon which the game rests and turns upon. The game is devoid of Protagonist Agency.

What about AP or metaplot play or setting tourism or Strahd-games? There may be Protagonist Agency there, but its not experienced by the players. It is expressed by the GM through Situation and Setting, for the players to experience and facilitate, but its not the Player-Character-centered. It could be the resolution of Strahd's dramatic need that the game rests and turns upon or something similar. It could be the unraveling of the thematically-neutral (the reference point being the PCs) mystery.

So those two types of games do not feature Protagonist Agency for the players.

Contrast with My Life With Master where Tactical and Strategic Agency are limited, but Protagonist Agency is extreme. Contrast again with Dogs in the Vineyard where the hierarchy is huge Protagonist Agency, significant Tactical Agency, somewhat muted (but still present Strategic Agency). Contrast still with Blades in the Dark (and Torchbearer to a lesser degree because Strategic Agency is somewhat more potent than Tactical in that game) where all 3 of those Agencies are massive with the game not just being each of Tactical and Strategic-rich, but the two are brilliantly integrated with layers of decision-points and feedback loops that impact each other (you need THIS Action Roll but the cost to the Score could be x with the risk/reward to your long term capacity to do z also being in play). Most games aren't like Blades though. On that note...

TACTICAL AGENCY - The feedback loop and downstream implications of this decision-point (and any attendant resource deployment) are muted. The apex priority (if there is any competition with other priorities) is to succeed in this scene/conflict. The fallout of this scene is overwhelmingly about the evolution of the fiction and less about (if at all) the implications of long term resource attrition or the (mechanical) imposition on character and/or downstream decision-points.

Games that feature this type of agency have (a) robust PC capability at the scene level, (b) recharge rates that coincide with scene/conflict as the primary locus of play, and (c) often mechanical architecture that push back against multi-scene attrition of PC resources.

D&D 4e, Mouse Guard, and Dogs in the Vineyard are good examples of this. These games are certainly not devoid of Strategic Agency, but the structure of play, resource recharge rates, and the robust PCs place Tactical Agency as paramount and rarely at tension with the strategic play (if its even a consideration).

STRATEGIC AGENCY - From Tactical Agency, I'm confident you (and others) can derive Strategic Agency. From that, you can also surmise games/playbooks/PCs that feature Strategic Agency is an/the apex priority of play.

---

And again, its not that you can't have all 3 of these be play priorities in a single game. Its just that (a) outside of the most brilliantly conceived and actualized games (like Blades) there is not going to be an equilibrium of any 2 or 3 of these types of agency. Furthermore (and VERY relevant to the topic), (b) if there is not equilibrium AND Protagonist Agency is alleged to be a play priority...then there is tension. And (c) if there is tension then a hierarchy will naturally emerge. And (d) if a hierarchy naturally emerges, then you can (and often will) have entirely incoherent play or play that is lacking integrity if the game is alleged to be premised upon Protagonist Agency.

THIS is where Force emerges.

The GM says you have Tactical Agency, you have Strategic Agency, and the game rests upon and is propelled by your Protagonist Agency...but oops! Your "meaningful decision (and its attendant fallout/downstream effects" of one of these agency types has/will subvert past or subsequent decision-points related to these other agency types. OR the GM is only feigning giving you one of these. Perhaps you don't actually have Protagonist Agency...its just a GM deploying sleight of hand and later you'll find out the game rested upon/was propelled by something else! The metaplot/secret backstory/GM NPC has the Protagonist Agency and your Tactical Agency that you just expressed will wrest control of that from the GM...so they subvert your Tactical Agency! Or perhaps your an overpowered Wizard and your ability to control the game is making it "no fun (TM)" for one or more of the other players or the GM themselves so they subordinate your overwhelming Strategic Agency by initiating a block or a series of blocks!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So I think as long as we are putting things in generalizing buckets that apply universally and saying this needs rules or this does not need rules we are not going to get to the interesting part of the conversation. We need zero rules at all (including no formal divisions of authority) to roleplay. We literally can just do it. I know because that's what I did before I played D&D. I also ran a session entirely freeform in our mecha game while we were working on transitioning from one game system to another.

We might desire some things to be part of the formal rules of a game. We might even want that to change from game to game. What's interesting to me is the impact of those formal systems as well as the culture of play surrounding a game which is just as important to me personally.

Right. And perhaps it is because for a long time I've played tabletop RPGs in an environment where most of the participants are also LARPers, that the idea that the game is 'about' the stuff it has most rules for seems utterly bonkers to me. Like sure, if the game has rules for something, then that something can probably reasonably be expected to be featured in some extent, because, otherwise, why bother having those rules? But I just strongly feel that there is a lot of stuff that only doesn't need a lot of rules to handle, but is actively negatively affected by mechanising it. Your mileage will most definitely vary.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Right. So you didn't need rules for it.

We don't need rules for anything. We don't need 70 pages of spells, but 5E's got em.

How?

The XP system being solely about defeating monsters is a big one. The minimalistic approach to skills and non-combat challenges. The lack of robust social mechanics.

The people are ones who decide what's important. If it is important to you then it is important in the game. (There are also guidelines for awarding XP for non-combat encounters, not that I would bother with XP at all.)

Well here is where this connects to what I said a few posts ago about being able to look at the game as it is presented, and then being able to look at how it is played, and being able to tell the difference.

So the guidelines you're citing are anemic. I'd go so far as to say that's being generous. All they say is "you can aware XP for non-combat challenges; you can use the combat encounter system as a guide on how to do so" or "use milestone XP".

But.... I agree with you about XP as it works in 5E. We jettisoned that crap immediately, and we basically use a milestone system. The fact that this works for my group in our game is fine.

But as presented.....well, what does it say to you if a whole subsystem of the rules is one you just discard in favor of something else?

As for what's important in the game.....sure, the participants have a say in that. I am not saying that the only important thing in the game is what it rewards. But it is a huge indicator to the participants what the game will be about. 1e was XP for GP....so accumulating gold was what it was about. 5e is XP for killing.....so killing is what it's about.

Why you need the game book to say that? Why can't the GM and the players decide that the game is about that?

Why do you need it not to?

Imagine a new GM with new players who doesn't have years of experience among them. They're supposed to intuit the kind of knowledge it's taken most of us years and years to accumulate? How are they to decide what the game is about? By looking at examples, most likely.

The books don't guide them well in this manner. The books don't always make it clear that "this is how to handle this" or "railroading is this, and it's a bad idea".

 

[Lanefan]

He kept a lookout for them, in a place where they might be around (ie in the neighbourhood of the old border forts along the river).

The existence of these former comrades is already established at the very start of the campaign: Thurgon has a Reptuation (Last Knight of the Iron Tower) and multiple relevant Affiliations (including with the Order of the Iron Tower) which establish the existence of these NPCs. More generally, it is established that Thurgon has been alive for nearly 30 years, in that time serving as a page and a squire and a knight of his order, and hence has met many people. (Other Affiliations include with the nobility and with his family; he has since also acquired an infamous reputation in Hell, as an intransigent demon foe.)

So the flow is: current fiction, which includes the fact that Thurgon has former comrades and also that he is in the neighbourhood of the old border forts -> character action (ie keep an eye out for former comrades) -> mechanic resolves -> update fiction (ie Thurgon and Aramina meet Friedrich, a former member of Thurgon's order).

Up to now I'm not sure how clearly (or if at all) you noted that the existence of the former comrades was already pre-established. Given that, that he meets one now in a place where one might reasonably be found makes perfect sense, no matter what mechanics were used to arrive at that narration.

 

[Lanefan]

One-true-wayism isn't something I'm going to consider. Roleplaying is a much broader category of behaviors that what you prefer.

No, it means, literally, taking on a role. If I take on the role of Bob the fighter in the game, then Bob the fighter is my avatar there. I don't have to play-act or take on a persona for this to be true.

The little dog is my token (or avatar) in Monopoly but that doesn't mean I'm role-playing it.

What you're suggesting is that you can play a role without in fact playing the role, which seems rather odd.

Put another way, without doing at least something to portray your character the character is no more than a token on a game board. Just like the little dog.

But it's not part of the game you're playing, or the game I buy off the shelf. The moment we look at a game as only the custom version we create at a table, that's the moment there's no point in discussing it.

Au contraire, mon ami. That's exactly when it becomes worth discussing: differences in table ideas.

If we all played the same game and all played it RAW it'd get pretty boring around here, as there'd be little worth discussing at all.

 

[pemerton]

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).

What rule do you have in mind in AD&D?

The PHB says the following (p 106):

clerics' major aims are to use their spell abilities to aid during any given encounter, fighters aim to engage in combat, magic-users aim to cast spells, thieves aim to make gain by stealth, and monks aim to use their unusual talents to come to successful ends. If characters gain treasure by pursuit of their major aims, then they are generally entitled to a full share of earned experience points awarded by the DM.
​

The closest the DMG comes to a follow-up is in the rules for training (p 86):

The gaining of sufficient experience points is necessary to indicate that a character is eligible to gain a level of experience, but the
actual award is a matter for you, the DM, to decide.

Consider the natural functions of each class of character. Consider also the professed alignment of each character. Briefly assess the performance of each character after an adventure. Did he or she perform basically in the character of his or her class? Were his or her actions in keeping with his or her professed alignment? Mentally classify the overall performance as:

E - Excellent, few deviations from norm = 1
S- Superior, deviations minimal but noted =2
F - Foir performance, more norm than deviations =3
P- Poor showing with aberrant behavior =4​

Clerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang bock from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating.​

Finally, back in the PHB we have this (p 18) which reinforces the earlier-quoted passage plus the DMG remark about the "natural functions" of each character class:

Character class refers to the profession of the player character. The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges which it poses, and which role you desire to play are dictated by character class (or multi-class). Clerics principally function as supportive, although they have some offensive spell power and are able to use armor and weapons effectively. Druids are a sub-class of cleric who operate much as do other clerics, but they are less able in combat and more effective in wilderness situations. Fighters generally seek to engage in hand-to-hand combat, for they have more hit points and better weaponry in general than do other classes. Paladins are fighters who are lawful good (see ALIGNMENT). At higher levels they gain limited clerical powers as well. Rangers are another sub-class of fighter. They are quite powerful in combat, and at upper levels gain druidic and magic spell usage of a limited sort. Magic-users cannot expect to do well in hand-to-hand combat, but they have a great number of magic spells of offensive, defensive, and informational nature. They use magic almost exclusively to solve problems posed by the game. Illusionists are a sub-class of magic-user,
and they are different primarily because of the kinds of spells they use. Thieves use cunning, nimbleness, and stealth. Assassins, a sub-class of thief, are quiet killers of evil nature. Monks are aesthetic disciples of bodily training and combat with bare hands.​

Nothing here suggests that thespianism or play-acting or characterisation or "play-acting" is part of the basis for awarding XPs. The "roles" that are played are spelled out as functional roles, based primarily around class abilities and "natural functions" and (in the DMG) reinforced by alignment considerations.

This is consistent with what @Ovinomancer has been posting.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

For me to provide those explanations would take another thread as long as this one, as the game I run and play is an almost-completely-homebrew kitbash that started with the 1e chassis and has since had 40+ years of refinements, tweaks, experiments, deletions, additions, and general screwery to get to where it is today*.




* - where it is today is somewhat open to debate: last reports put it somewhere near Blandford Forum, Dorset; but it might have moved since then.