A Question Of Agency?

[FrogReaver]

I expect the following might be slightly contentious. A fundamental part of the understanding of a shared fiction is that nothing is true until all the players at the table have accepted it as true. That even the GM is susceptible to a basic credibility test. In D&D the DM is given broad authority to establish what is true in the fiction, but this may be overridden at the table on the social level.

I have personally seen this at the table in our D&D game.

DM : This is true.
Player: What about X? How about Y?
DM: naughty word. Actually this is true.

I suspect most have seen something similar at D&D games.

I don't think an exception disproves the rule. If anything an exception here or there would help prove the rule.

 

[Campbell]

I suspect most have seen something similar at D&D games.

I don't think an exception disproves the rule. If anything an exception here or there would help prove the rule.

So I think any framework for understanding RPG play needs to be capable of describing play not an in idealized state, but also when things go pear shaped or adjustments need to be made in the midst of play. Not saying the framework I use to understand this stuff is the best one, but I think for purposes of analysis talking about what does happen instead of what should happen will tend to be more fruitful.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure. But, again, looking at this from the perspective of player agency, how can you make this argument and also say that the players do not have less agency in the game? If the GM's fiction is the authoritative one, then the GM has that agency and the players do not. If the players can contest that, somehow, then they gain some agency. Even allowing for the argument that the players can exert some agency by convincing the GM, either though entertainment or compelling argument, is it not obvious that this is a lesser agency than if the players can exert changes to the shared fiction without having to convince the GM?

This has been the point in this argument the entire time. As @Campbell, and I, and @Hawkeye have continually made the argument, this fact doesn't mean the game is lesser or not fun -- we all play in this regime for some of the games we dearly love. It's just a feature of this approach to gaming, and is offset by non-agency consideration that make it a worthwhile trade-off.

The GM's preestablished fiction does not diminish the player agency in the same way than in Cluedo the preestablished correct clue combination doesn't diminish the player agency; in fact those things being set independently of the players is what enables a certain sort of agency.

 

[FrogReaver]

So I think any framework for understanding RPG play needs to be capable of describing play not an in idealized state, but also when things go pear shaped or adjustments need to be made in the midst of play. Not saying the framework I use to understand this stuff is the best one, but I think for purposes of analysis talking about what does happen instead of what should happen will tend to be more fruitful.

But I was talking about a specific technique of play to illustrate that there exists RPG play that your framework failed to handle...

 

[hawkeyefan]

The GM's preestablished fiction does not diminish the player agency in the same way than in Cluedo the preestablished correct clue combination doesn't diminish the player agency; in fact those things being set independently of the players is what enables a certain sort of agency.

In Cluedo, there is a predetermined outcome. Would you say the same for a RPG?

 

[innerdude]

There is a reality that exists in the game outside what the players are hearing from the GM.

This here, this thing---this is the point that everyone in favor of player-centered agency is trying to explicate, which is that this basic notion is false. The game reality DOES NOT EXIST outside the gameworld at all. There is no "absolute reality" to the game world. It only exists as a shared mind-space.

The notional existence of that mind-space is wholly fluid. The only contention/contingencies in play is at what moment, under what circumstances, does one or more participants get to shape the reality of the imagined world.

And once found, that painting is either supernatural or it isn't. It doesn't become supernatural the moment its nature was revealed to the party (unless the GM is ad libbing everything). The idea that everything is fuzzy and in flux until the players see it or encounter it, to me runs very counter to how a typical sandbox and living world GM would think of things in the setting.

Clearly the thought of allowing things to be "fuzzy", up and until the moment something is introduced into the fiction, feels "wrong" to you. That somehow it will break/destroy the ability to continue enjoying principled play.

If it is of paramount importance to your gameplay that the illusory fictional reality remain the sole property of the GM-as-player, that's fine. Just understand that's highly unlikely, barring exceptional circumstance and radically superior GM skill, to lead to a playstyle where the players through their characters are going to be able to exercise broad protagonist-level agency.

I think too that you seem to conflate a "living sandbox" as being equivalent to protagonist-centered, high-agency game. I think you're misconstruing this, though I don't think you're doing it maliciously or acting out of bad faith.

The reason things are intentionally left "fuzzy" in the gameworld in high-agency play is that it's the only technique under which high-agency play can exist in the first place.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In Cluedo, there is a predetermined outcome. Would you say the same for a RPG?

In Cluedo it is not predetermined who catches the killer or even that they will get caught at all (though usually they do.) But of course a RPG has infinitely more possibilities than a rigidly codified board game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In Cluedo it is not predetermined who catches the killer or even that they will get caught at all (though usually they do.) But of course a RPG has infinitely more possibilities than a rigidly codified board game.

But it is predetermined that the game will revolve around a murder, that the players will take on the role of the investigators in the game, and more importantly that who did it, with what weapon, and where has already been determined. And that the game ends when one player has correctly declared these three facts.

The goal of a RPG is nowhere near as determined as this. I expect that would be one of the key features most folks would cite for a RPG. Every game can be very different.

So I don’t think that comparing player agency from game to game is going to offer much.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I have used some similar techniques and will continue to do so when I run Stars Without Number, Godbound, and Wolves of God. I am just mindful of my part in it. That I am working to make these things feel real. There's no shame in that. When I act I try to embody a character as fully as possible, but am mindful that the acting process is one of creation.

I can see how adopting that mindset might be helpful while running or playing a game in your specific set of play priorities. It's not going to be very useful when it comes to comparative analysis because it locks discussion only to that specific set of play priorities. If that is the only way you will engage there's no hope of understanding Burning Wheel, Moldvay B/X, Dogs in the Vineyard, or innumerable other games. Even players who might approach the same games you play differently.

You are not understanding what I am saying. I think I have been pretty clear that what I mean is GM created content can be just as real as content that has been presented to the group and become part of the game (and much of this hinges on WHEN the act of creation occurs, and what kind of thinking feeds into the creation.

It isn't the only way I will engage or play. I have mentioned other types of games I am happy to engage (like Hillfolk, and I have said several times I've not only played Moldvay but took inspiration from it in design). Frankly though, Moldvay sits pretty comfortably with this style. I was an exploration heavy adventure using Moldvay not too long ago. My point is your side does not understand what we mean when we talk about this style.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This here, this thing---this is the point that everyone in favor of player-centered agency is trying to explicate, which is that this basic notion is false. The game reality DOES NOT EXIST outside the gameworld at all. There is no "absolute reality" to the game world. It only exists as a shared mind-space.

Again, no one is saying it is literally real. We are saying a dungeon map in the GMs notebook can be as real as content that has entered what you call "The shared mindspace". Due to the nature of the GMs role in the game, content that only exists in the GMs mind can be thought of as being as real as the material that the players have already encountered in the game.

edit: my point by the way isn’t that you can’t do it the way you are doing, with focus on the ‘shared mind space’. My point is what I am talking about is viable, works the way I am saying it does, and creates a world just as real as that shared mind space. These are two approaches both viable. The difference is: I am not poking holes in your approach and putting you on the defensive, which, believe me: is just as possible to do to your style and your mode of analysis as mine