A Question Of Agency?

[Campbell]

I think this is missing how others approach the game. Obviously none of this stuff is real, but to say it only exists the moment it is introduced in play or 'on screen', is simply not the case in a number of playstyles. For one, you often create material between games, with the expecation that that material is pretty much set (certainly you can make changes to it on the fly for a variety of reasons, but I think when most GMs create a setting map, even if the players haven't been to the north, they treat the desert they put there as set, and as existing, even if the players never encounter it). Further the whole concept of living adventure and the world in motion, is the idea that the GM is considering what the NPCs are doing when they are not on screen. Some of us even track this stuff (I have blog entries on how to track NPC movements to create a real sense of objective NPCs moving around independently and just as restrained by speed considerations as the party). Again, none of this is real, but the point is the GM in a living adventure or in a world in motion, is expected to treat those things as being the same level of real as the stuff that happens 'on screen'.

There are all sorts of ways that something can be established in the shared fiction. One of those ways is by the GM referencing prepared material, thinking offscreen, and making judgement calls based on what they think is likely to be true. The world does not suddenly really become in motion because of that. The GM is still animating it. I have played and run plenty of games like this. It's good stuff,

I'm trying to talk about the real world process. Not how we think about it in the act of play. This is why the way Kevin Crawford and Justin Alexander talk about scenario design so powerful. They speak to the real world process.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm trying to talk about the real world process.

But the point of contention I keep talking about is how the real world processes and the fictional processes and elements exist in relation to one another.

When I say the problem and differences include the fictional part and you say "but that's not what I want to talk about" - that's not helpful.

In fact, I even question the wisdom of trying to focus solely on a high level zoomed out view of only the mechanical processes in relation to the real world. Issues being:
1. You are too zoomed out. Even dissimilar mechanical processes can sound the same when you zoom out enough.
2. The relationship of such processes to the fictional world also matters. You aren't viewing the process from all perspectives. You are only focused on the real world perspective and not the fictional one.
3. Even very similar mechanical processes with different ingredients can yield to very different products, (ex: producing Coke vs producing Sprite) - no matter how similar the mechanical processes involved are the end result is different

Not how we think about it in the act of play.

But what could be more important than this?

 

[Campbell]

But the point of contention I keep talking about is how the real world processes and the fictional processes and elements exist in relation to one another.

When I say the problem and differences include the fictional part and you say "but that's not what I want to talk about" - that's not helpful.

In fact, I even question the wisdom of trying to focus solely on a high level zoomed out view of only the mechanical processes in relation to the real world. Issues being:
1. You are too zoomed out. Even dissimilar mechanical processes can sound the same when you zoom out enough or don't take all perspectives of them into account.
2. The relationship of such processes to the fictional world also matters


But what could be more important than this?

Of course it matters. It matter a great deal, but we cannot have this conversation if we do not consider the real world causes of things. In particular I do not know how to have this conversation in a way that looks at different play priorities through the prism of outlook centered solely in your particular play sensibilities.

I do not even really know how to talk about sandbox gaming in that way. No one I know who provides guidance that I find useful for sandbox gaming talks about characters and events as if they have real world animus. They talk about techniques that provide that feeling to the other players, but they focus on the details of how to do that.

All this living breathing world talk initially put me off sandbox gaming because it provides no insight into how to do the damn thing.

 

[FrogReaver]

Of course it matters.

Well that's a start.

It matter a great deal, but we cannot have this conversation if we do not consider the real world causes of things.

I agree. Those are important. I'm not saying don't talk about those. I'm just saying also include this other stuff - especially when I'm asked what the difference in 2 things are and the difference lies in the other stuff.

In particular I do not know how to have this conversation in a way that looks at different play priorities through the prism of outlook centered solely in your particular play sensibilities.

I'm not asking for that. I am just saying that to do right by analysis you also should be noting the differences in what is happening in the fiction as well. Surely we can classify these things based on the real world perspective and also the fictional perspective and create a matrix of the various possibilities that will allow us to map a given example to a spot on that matrix. Then we can talk about what areas certain mechanics and certain games focus on and even talk about any areas that seem to limit agency.

That's analysis. Why are you fighting so hard to exclude that from being analyzed? Why have you written this off as being solely about preference?

I do not even really know how to talk about sandbox gaming in that way. No one I know who provides guidance that I find useful for sandbox gaming talks about characters and events as if they have real world animus. They talk about techniques that provide that feeling to the other players, but they focus on the details of how to do that.

All this living breathing world talk initially put me off sandbox gaming because it provides no insight into how to do the damn thing.

I'm not a huge fan of sandbox play. However, in terms of sandbox play - I think both how you accomplish a "living breathing world" and why those techniques work to accomplish a "living breathing world" are both equally important.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But @Campbell understand many people have the opposite reaction as you. Living adventure, where you treat the NPCs as living breathing characters, like PCs, is what made this more open style of play click for me. The way I understand it and approach it is very much thinking about my NPCs as Alive in the setting. Which means, I ask myself what a given NPC is doing while the players go to location X, even to the point of trackkng the NPCs movement. There are other procedures and mechanics that I use, and we can talk about those. But to me the approach doesn’t make sense if I am not treating the world as living and in motion.

 

[FrogReaver]

But @Campbell understand many people have the opposite reaction as you. Living adventure, where you treat the NPCs as living breathing characters, like PCs, is what made this more open style of play click for me. The way I understand it and approach it is very much thinking about my NPCs as Alive in the setting. Which means, I ask myself what a given NPC is doing while the players go to location X, even to the point of trackkng the NPCs movement. There are other procedures and mechanics that I use, and we can talk about those. But to me the approach doesn’t make sense if I am not treating the world as living and in motion.

Not entirely related by 3000+ posts in it doesn't matter anymore

I think the living breathing world concept, goal and methods work great even in more linear adventures.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Can you please define game state and story state

He’s saying that the reason that the food appears at the game level is because the player made a roll and it succeeded.

Then, in the fiction, or the story, we justify the appearance of food accordingly. Food was “there all along” or “the ranger was able to hunt some rabbits” or whatever.

No fictional element actually exists prior to being introduced. It may intend to be introduced, but until it is actually introduced, it can be changed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

He’s saying that the reason that the food appears at the game level is because the player made a roll and it succeeded.

Then, in the fiction, or the story, we justify the appearance of food accordingly. Food was “there all along” or “the ranger was able to hunt some rabbits” or whatever.

No fictional element actually exists prior to being introduced. It may intend to be introduced, but until it is actually introduced, it can be changed.

Yeah, I don't get the arguments that there's a functional difference between declaring you're looking for food, succeeding at a check, and finding food and saying you're looking for an ally, making the check, and finding the ally. Both are supported in the fiction -- the food is in a forest not otherwise hostile to the presence of food, and the ally is in an area established to be likely to contain such old allies and that is not hostile to their presence. Literally the only difference in play here is presumption of who has what say. Even then, it works no matter the presumption -- if GM Bob thinks there's food in the forest to find, then GM Bob can think there's allies in the area to find. It's an entirely specious argument that relies on an assumption that food in the forest is an easier ask than finding an ally.

 

[FrogReaver]

He’s saying that the reason that the food appears at the game level is because the player made a roll and it succeeded.

I think you mean story level there? At the game level the only food that exists are the snacks your friend brought

Then, in the fiction, or the story, we justify the appearance of food accordingly.

But that isn't what's happening. I'm in a forest with no otherwise special qualities. The presence of food is included in the presence of the forest. The introduction of the forest is enough to also establish in the shared fiction the existence of food in it.

No fictional element actually exists prior to being introduced.

Maybe. I'm not fully willing to commit to that notion. I think it may just depend on what perspective you are looking at it from.

It may intend to be introduced, but until it is actually introduced, it can be changed.

Even after it's been introduced it can be changed via adding important additional details that were initially left off entirely or the magnitude of certain effects not nearly emphasized enough.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah, I don't get the arguments that there's a functional difference between declaring you're looking for food, succeeding at a check, and finding food and saying you're looking for an ally, making the check, and finding the ally. Both are supported in the fiction -- the food is in a forest not otherwise hostile to the presence of food, and the ally is in an area established to be likely to contain such old allies and that is not hostile to their presence. Literally the only difference in play here is presumption of who has what say. Even then, it works no matter the presumption -- if GM Bob thinks there's food in the forest to find, then GM Bob can think there's allies in the area to find. It's an entirely specious argument that relies on an assumption that food in the forest is an easier ask than finding an ally.

The only distinction I can see being made is that, in the case of a chance encounter or an instance of providence, as seen in genre fiction, the character may not actually be looking for the ally. It would seem that the player is hoping for aid.

But with the attempt to forage, both the character and the player are seeking the same thing.

Why this distinction may matter, especially to the topic of player agency, is entirely unclear other than that someone may not prefer that kind of dissociated mechanic. And preference is fine insofar as what one likes in a game....but in this case, it seems a restraint on player agency.