A Question Of Agency?

[pemerton]

I may have now and then referred to the idea of a fully no-myth [can't really call it a setting, but] setting as being Schroedinger's world.

And you take that to be neither condescending nor dismissive?

 

[Ovinomancer]

You’ve just described what we’ve been doing and heavily chastised for. Talking about the characters as if they are real for the purposes of play criticism.

when I do that here I’m repeatedly told the characters aren’t real. You can’t do that. Etc.

@Aldarc is criticizing doing this, as you have to pretend the characters are real to even be able to project (note the word) agency onto them. It's a tool for analyzing the feel of a text, not agency. IE, does it feel like the character you're reading about is making choices because that character sure as heck isn't actually making any choices. This is the exact reason I keep saying that "character" agency doesn't exist -- you have to reify the fiction to even get to a place where you can pretend it does. Player agency is the only agency in games, because only players (regardless of role) can make choices.

 

[pemerton]

Also, I'd be interested to know what you mean by taking such an attempt seriously. I've posted multiple times in this thread about the GM taking suggestions. Do you mean that, or something else?

I simply mean, when the players say they want to try to do X, truly thinking about that request in a serious way (not simply rushing to a judgment on it, not blocking it because it is convenient for what you had planned, etc).

What happens if the GM on day 1, writing his/her secret notes, decides that the brother is dead, and then in a session a week later on day 8 the player decides to have his/her PC look for his/her brother. Does it count as taking that seriously if the GM goes on to adjudicate (let's say) 3 hours of play where the upshot of that is that the player learns what the GM had already decided and had already known, namely, that the brother is dead?

Yes it is. Taking it seriously isn't about seriously considering changing the setting details (at least not in the style of play I am describing). If the brother is dead, then he is dead. You have established that. What I am talking about is seriously considering whatever actions within that setting the players seek to take. This can extend to things undetermined in the setting, but the answer is ideally based on some criteria other than, this is what I want to happen (there should be a rationale for it).

What you describe here is, for me, an absolute nightmare. The GM knows in advance that my PC can't succeed in what I am having my PC attempt to do, but allows things to go on for 3 hours at the table. What an exercise in futility!

I would consider this to be a high-degree railroad. Absolutely devoid of player agency, because the outcome was utterly foregone.

Look, I've explained this style to you many times. I feel like you probably already understand what I am saying, and I am always a little skeptical when you ask questions. And I have explained how I do things to you. I am answering your question, but if this question is just a set up to attack my approach, I am not going to answer the next post.

I am asking you questions because I want to be clear about what you are saying. You can answer or not answer - that's your prerogative. In other posts you repeatedly assert that you are misunderstood, but now you assert that you probably are understood, so I'm not really clear what your own thoughts are about your reasons for posting.

In any event, in the posts that I've quoted above you provide a clear answer. I believe I've provided an equally clear response. You may reply to my response, or not. That's also your prerogative.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And you take that to be neither condescending nor dismissive?

I have called such approach 'quantum world' and I don't think it is dismissive. I think all GMs use things being in 'quantum superposition', i.e. undefined to some extent, most just don't do it with the entire setting. Usually when I defend the idea I get called 'dishonest illusionst' and other such nice things...

 

[pemerton]

First, no, you can talk about the characters having agency while also understanding they are not real. You can say, for the purposes of agency, I am going to think of them as real. Which is fine. But that is also what i am doing with the setting and keep getting push back from your side (for the purposes of character agency, we are going to treat this setting like it is real).

So why, then, the sneering upthread about "fake memories".

If you are allowed to treat your setting as "real", why am I not allowed to treat my characters memories - which are a (small) part of the setting - as "real"?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A common example of autonomy without agency that we often see in video games are these big elaborate dialog trees made to make so you feel you are speaking for your character and your words make an impact. However these trees in some games almost always lead to the same narrative result. I have experienced the tabletop version of this many times. It's pretty common for some GMs to let you basically tilt at windmills for a little bit before they do what they were going to do anyway.

Another fairly common thing is freedom to go anywhere, but the narrative only moves forward when you do the right thing at the right place. Some folks will argue until they are blue in the face that the tabletop equivalent of this is not railraiding. I say it really does not matter what you call it sure as hell is not high agency play.

Yeah, both things happen in RPGs, and I'd consider them bad GMing practices. The latter was called 'pixel bitching' at some point, though I wish we had a less offensive term for it...

 

[Fenris-77]

I have called such approach 'quantum world' and I don't think it is dismissive. I think all GMs use things being in 'quantum superposition', i.e. undefined to some extent, most just don't do it with the entire setting. Usually when I defend the idea I get called 'dishonest illusionst' and other such nice things...

Those people can walk backward through a field of rubber sex toys. The very idea that everything can be decided on first, or that everything should emerge during play is arrant nonsense. Both types of play are an exercise in moderation. The prepper is going to have quantum in their prep, and the emerger is going to have at least some fronts and whatnot done.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Aldarc is criticizing doing this, as you have to pretend the characters are real to even be able to project (note the word) agency onto them. It's a tool for analyzing the feel of a text, not agency. IE, does it feel like the character you're reading about is making choices because that character sure as heck isn't actually making any choices. This is the exact reason I keep saying that "character" agency doesn't exist -- you have to reify the fiction to even get to a place where you can pretend it does. Player agency is the only agency in games, because only players (regardless of role) can make choices.

No. He described that very technique as being used in literary agency. All I’m doing is pointing out I get criticized for applying that same technique to rpgs.

 

[pemerton]

You’ve just described what we’ve been doing and heavily chastised for. Talking about the characters as if they are real for the purposes of play criticism.

when I do that here I’m repeatedly told the characters aren’t real. You can’t do that. Etc.

What you have been told is that imaginary things don't exert causal force on the real world.

What @Aldarc is saying is that, in literary criticism, we sometimes "pretend" or speak as if the characters are real and then discuss what they do and did and how much agency they had. So, for example, we say things like "Conan is typically the master of his own fate, whereas Gollum's whole raison d'etre lay outside his own knowledge and control."

We could talk about a story generated through RPG play the same way too, although to be honest I don't think much RPGing - and none of mine! - produces stories which will support very much of this sort of analysis. As stories they tend to be pretty much in the B-zone.

But talking about the story generated through RPG play tells us nothing about the play procedures or play experiences. Which is what this thread, starting with the OP, has been about.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No. He described that very technique as being used in literary agency. All I’m doing is pointing out I get criticized for applying that same technique to rpgs.

Yes, he did, and in a way that shows it's a, if you'll excuse the pun, fictional thing. Literary agency doesn't examine agency at all, it examines the appearance of agency at best.