A Question Of Agency?

[Bedrockgames]

FYI the quote you attribute to me wasn't mine.

I appologize. I tried to fix it, but there is something wonky going on with the code I think (even if I erase the quotes entirely, then create a neutral quote box, then pop Fenris' post into that neutral box, for some reason it still puts your name on the quote. I am adding a note to the message

 

[Bedrockgames]

What may be bad is that you seem to have some blindspots about your approach. Or at least, you seem to based on how you’ve described it here.

I really do not believe I am the one with the blindspot here

 

[Bedrockgames]

You’ve even shot down the idea that a GM could make a change before committing to the fiction as some kind of aberrant method.

I never suggested changing things was aberrant. Re-read my post. You are not understanding what I am saying at all

 

[Bedrockgames]

You’ve even shot down the idea that a GM could make a change before committing to the fiction as some kind of aberrant method. The players then direct their characters to interact with the GM’s world as they see fit. They are playing to find out what the GM has already determined.

Again this isn't an accurate description of the style. The players are themselves not generating setting content, that is for sure, but through their characters they are impacting the setting. And having a somewhat concrete setting is one of the things that allows them to change it. That does not mean things are not introduced on the fly, or that random procedures are not invoked to determine content. Those things are present too. But my point was, many of the important details of the setting, are there before the players interact with them. And the only reason I made that point, was to demonstrate that in this style, things can be real in the setting, before they become part of the 'shared fiction'.

And this is not simply a matter of playing to find out what the GM has determined. The GM may know what sects are in the setting, what NPCs are in those sect, what towns are where (and many of the shops in those towns), where the imperial borders are, what the imperial customs are, etc. But the GM doesn't know what is going to happen. This goes back to posts like the Alexandrian linked article, "Don't prep plots". Events, adventures and situations arise as the players explore, interact with and contribute to the world through their characters.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I play 5E and a good deal of that game revolves around ideas I have in my head/notes. It doesn’t make my 5E game less enjoyable than my Blades game. I enjoy both for a variety of reasons. But Blades allows for more player agency. The fiction is entirely about the characters the players have chosen to play such that if a different group of players and/or characters were to be involved, the fiction would be entirely different.

The problem Hawkeye isn't that you have a more objective assesment of agency between our styles, it is that we both prioritize agency and define agency differently. I can see how blades provides the kind of agency you are talking about. I don't see how it would provide the kind I am talking about. I feel like I understand and acknowledge that. But you aren't doing the same with me. And I think that lack of reciprocity is a big issue in these discussions. You do not control or own the term "agency".

Also, in my campaigns, if I have a different group of players, what happens is totally different as well. I have to playtest content and run much of the same setting/campaign book material. It always ends up being about different things. They take place in the same location, but a location can be home to infinite stories.

 

[Bedrockgames]

One more thing I felt I should add ---

I was the original poster of the thread 7 or 8 years ago praising the Dissociative Mechanics essay.

At the time it spoke to something I thought I was experiencing in relation to 4e.

And to a degree, I think there is some merit to the basic concept. But I also discovered in analyzing my own play that it didn't account for what I was doing with Savage Worlds. Why was I so upset about healing surges and "Come and Get It", but was totally okay with using bennies and "soak rolls", when soak rolls are identical to healing surges, only in reverse?

I do think there can be some value in considering whether mechanics are "associative" to a character's fictional framing, but I've also discovered since then that Story Now / high agency play doesn't break down "principled" rpg play like I thought it would.

To the contrary, I've found that letting go of the notions of GM controlled backstory and hard-and-fast rules around "the fiction must exist independently from player concerns" freed me to pursue new and exciting styles of play that I never would have considered viable in 2013, let alone preferred.

I understand this perspective (I had a very similar progression in my view on things like dissociative mechanics: it hit on something that made sense, but there was more naunce invovled and it is really hard to pin down preferences to one concept like that).

I have also said, I will happily play a game like Hillfolk (which puts a lot of power in the hands of players to shape the setting through dialogue). And earlier I explained how I run what I call Drama and Sandbox. I am not averse to this kind of game. But I like sandboxes, and I like living world campaigns and just like the people on the otherside rightfully question our grasp of their prefered style and games, I can see they do not understand my preferred style and game either.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But either way, I think it’d help if people stopped pearl clutching at any perceived slight on their preferred style.

I am not pearl clutching, but it does get annoying being told by posters in this thread, what are playstyle is, what it is capable of, etc, and to have it done in dismissive ways, then be told, this is just an objective analysis of playstyles and their is no agenda being advanced. Posts like that one suggest otherwise to me.

 

[aramis erak]

There is no game fiction prior to being introduced to the game. Prior to that, it exists only as a possibility.

That varies by group and game system. If you're playing in a published setting, the setting exists in the minds of players and GM - usually not congruent views across players, either.

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.

This is NOT congruent with my experience.

Players often have to give in to the GM's view; unless and until the group disintegrates, the only person who's view matters is the GM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This isn't a fair characterization of what I have said at all: and no my players have a great deal of agency. Agency is one of my goals.

From what you’ve described, it sounds like they have the base amount I’d expect in most RPGs.

My assessment could be wrong, though. It’s hard to judge based on how you post. You shared some examples of your games, but they were largely just descriptions of what happened in the fiction. They didn't discuss process or mechanics or how these events came to be.

Also, the point of my post was to show that things in the setting can have existence and reality prior to becoming what you describe as 'the shared fiction'. I wasn't defining a playstyle, I was describing an aspect of the playstyle.

Yeah, I disagree with this. I mean, they may exist in the sense that they are ideas. But as far as being part of the game, no, they are not part of the game’s fiction until introduced on some way.

I understand why you prefer this method. The appeal is not lost on me, nor is it something I’m unfamiliar with. Where I disagree is that it makes a fictional world”more real” or that it gives more agency to the players.

I really do not believe I am the one with the blindspot here

As I said, that may not be the case. It could just be the way your posts come across.

I never suggested changing things was aberrant. Re-read my post. You are not understanding what I am saying at all

You said that not changing details prior to introducing them is crucial to this approach and it’s why a GM using this style would not do so.

Again this isn't an accurate description of the style. The players are themselves not generating setting content, that is for sure, but through their characters they are impacting the setting. And having a somewhat concrete setting is one of the things that allows them to change it. That does not mean things are not introduced on the fly, or that random procedures are not invoked to determine content. Those things are present too. But my point was, many of the important details of the setting, are there before the players interact with them. And the only reason I made that point, was to demonstrate that in this style, things can be real in the setting, before they become part of the 'shared fiction'.

Okay....so you have an idea for a villain. You have a feeling based on where this guy is and what he’s up to that he’ll be a significant antagonist for the PCs. You’ve given him stats and skme traits to bring him to life. He exists in your mind as a clear idea.

You introduce him in the game. In the same session, for whatever reason, you need to introduce a shop owner, so you make one up on the fly and intro her on the spot.

Is one of these more “real” than the other?

And this is not simply a matter of playing to find out what the GM has determined. The GM may know what sects are in the setting, what NPCs are in those sect, what towns are where (and many of the shops in those towns), where the imperial borders are, what the imperial customs are, etc. But the GM doesn't know what is going to happen. This goes back to posts like the Alexandrian linked article, "Don't prep plots". Events, adventures and situations arise as the players explore, interact with and contribute to the world through their characters.

I didn’t say you prepped plots.

It just seems that, as you’ve described it, most decision points for the fiction belong to the GM. Sure the players can go to this city or that area, but what they run into will always be what the GM wants it to be. How those elements respond to the PCs will be up to the GM. How social interactions will go is up to the GM, with perhaps some influence based on the player’s choice of description. And so on.

Where are the players’ points of input? Character generation? Deciding where their characters go? And what they do? Anything else?

It sounds very GM directed. And although maybe you’re taking that as an insult, I promise you I don’t mean it as such. It’s a perfectly valid way to play RPGs. I play some that way myself. Hell, it’d be silly for all games to play the same way.

 

[Fenris-77]

That varies by group and game system. If you're playing in a published setting, the setting exists in the minds of players and GM - usually not congruent views across players, either.

This is NOT congruent with my experience.

Players often have to give in to the GM's view; unless and until the group disintegrates, the only person who's view matters is the GM.

And the second bit there is really not congruent with my experiences. You know what that tells us? That our personal preferences and experience only get us so far when it comes to discussing the nuts and bolts of RPGs.

As for the first part, I think your position actually backstops the post you are replying to rather than somehow disproving it. There is no established fiction other than what happens at the table. Lots of potential fictions, lots of ideas and notions and thoughts, but nothing 'real' in terms of the game. This tends to be very true of published settings where a group of players have variable exposure to and facility with the setting books, as you say. When you take into account that the most capable 'lorekeepers' might not be the GM at that table you can easily see how the setting might be rattling around in one or more heads at the table but never even get close to becoming 'established' fiction at the table. Just to be clear, when I say 'established' I mean fictional details that are acted upon by and matter to the decision-making process of the players (which in my definition includes the GM).

I am not suggesting that additional detail isn't useful to the individual that possesses it, even if it isn't used, but that's very different from what I'm talking about, and to me is more in line with having seen a movie that helps that individual picture something described at the table.