A Question Of Agency?

[hawkeyefan]

Certainly you might find it lousy, that is very much a matter of preference. But why is it lousy m, and how is it a railroad? In a sandbox that is worked in motion, when you go to look for someone, their current condition and status often changes. I am not saying the Guzman ought to always have the character in question dead,but being dead is certainly a viable possibility. To be as a player, the thing that makes that search interesting is I don’t know what condition my brother is in, and what has become of him. If I went on a search abc discovered he had died, that would be an interesting revelation to me.

I think it’s lousy because it’s ignoring what the player has flat out said they’d like to see in play. It’s taking that idea and scrapping it in favor of what the GM wants.

I’d also say it’s railroading in that it takes the players idea and unilaterally forces one outcome onto it.

“Oh you wanted to play Kwai Chang Caine? Hmmmm.....maybe next campaign!”

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would say that this is what I am trying to do in Traveller. I'm not sure how successful it is being at the moment - I will probably know in a session or two!

(Btw, does Stars Without Number have FTL communication independent of starship travel? In Classic Traveller all FTL messages have to be carried by starship - which puts a limit on the ways in which I can announce future badness. If the future badness is the Imperial Navy turning up, it requires a bit of contrivance to have that take the form of news of their pending arrival rather than just their arrival.)

Eh, they show up in System A on their way to you in System B. Someone will see them drop out of hyperspace and start refueling. If that someone is sitting at jump radius in a scout (or one of the 100 ton Jump 6 courier ships), you could get news a good bit before they showed up. Worst case they'll have to drop down from 100 diameters (about 15 million km for Jupiter), scoop and process fuel (I forget the exact times required for all this, but it is certainly time-consuming) and then torch back out to jump distance again. I'd think you would get a solid day's warning, although there may be enemy scouts which show up sooner.

Also, I would think that, generally speaking, military tactics would indicate SOME degree of caution. Fleet Brevet Admiral Von Kramnitz MIGHT not want to blind jump right on top of where he expects you are. He might even want to wait 2 weeks, send in a scout, get it back again, and THEN pick a spot. There's plenty of reasons to believe you might have some time to breath. Also, Traveler never tried to explain the possibilities of predicting exactly where someone jumped to, is it possible to determine exactly/approximately/not at all based on, say, the exact trajectory and such of the vessel that jumped? If not, then pursuit is more like hunting a needle in a haystack. Any given system is HUGE and probably filled with localities containing fuel. So, it kind of depends on the details and the creativity of the PCs and how much the Referee thinks things through.

I would think that, yes, it is possible to be surprised of course. OTOH if you are keeping an eye out for someone come looking for you, chances are it is going to be either obvious, or a cat-and-mouse game. Obviously if your party is unwilling to budge from a spot that is already located, well that is their choice, they'll most likely end up with said Brevet Admiral right smack on top of them real soon now...

 

[hawkeyefan]

Consider the difference between:

• designing a campaign and-or setting around a particular set of PCs and their goals/motives (and, by extension, a particular and unchanging set of players) with the intent of ending said campaign once those specific things have been dealt with
• designing a campaign and-or setting without foreknowledge of what PCs will be played in it at any given time, or how long those PCs might individually survive, or how much player turnover the campaign will see as it goes along; all with the intent of the campaign - if things work out well - potentially never ending.*

I think these two factors likely play a big role in how one would approach play, for sure. Certainly they would influence any prep that may be considered.

I don’t know if I agree with all your benefits and drawbacks conclusions, but I think you’re right that this is a big factor. Possibly also determined by the chosen rules system.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You're not getting it, clearly.

The term «quest» itself is a VERY loaded term, and such substitution is pretty much coming across as intentional obfuscation. It's not a commonly used term in the theory works I've read.

And, in practice, few people actually run real sandbox games on the TT. Many who claim to actually aren't doing so, because they have an agenda as a GM. If, at any point, the GM has to hint that, "The story is over here, guys" that's not a proper sandbox.

A large part of that is conflation with videogames, where quests are there in a supposedly open world that isn't actually an open world, but is instead quest-gated by need of certain items to get into specific regions.

The definitions of open world and sandbox differ significantly between the two media. Zelda games are said to be "open world" - but they are not. Large portions are locked behind needed items. That's a feature that few TT RPGs have, but many GM's try to impose.

When you get to the TTRPG, if an area requires having done X, Y or Z to have anything interesting happen, it's no longer a sandbox, it's just a wall-less dungeon.

I

I think it’s lousy because it’s ignoring what the player has flat out said they’d like to see in play. It’s taking that idea and scrapping it in favor of what the GM wants.

I’d also say it’s railroading in that it takes the players idea and unilaterally forces one outcome onto it.

“Oh you wanted to play Kwai Chang Caine? Hmmmm.....maybe next campaign!”

Again maybe in your style of play, the player is expected to express what they would like to see happen in terms of adventure and the GM is meant to fulfill that request. That isn’t how a lot of people play nor is it what they want. In the style I am talking about, the player doesn’t get that level of control over the setting, the player gets to control their character. And it works for that playstyle. This is simply preference. I remember when wishlists became a big thing during 3E I couldn’t stand it as a player, because for me it went against the notion of exploring and discovering things in the setting.

Again on railroading I don’t think it is reasonable to define railroading as the GM not giving players the outcomes they want. That doesn’t reflect how the term is used by most people and it seem terribly useful to me. Railroading is more along the lines of pushing the players to go on the adventure to find the brother, and to make it hard to deviate from that path. They call it a railroad because it’s on tracks. But the GM is expected to control things like the life status of npcs, and the condition of the dungeon once you reach it. The GM making decisions about these things, isn’t railroading just because they are outcomes you didn’t want

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You're not getting it, clearly.

The term «quest» itself is a VERY loaded term, and such substitution is pretty much coming across as intentional obfuscation. It's not a commonly used term in the theory works I've read.

And, in practice, few people actually run real sandbox games on the TT. Many who claim to actually aren't doing so, because they have an agenda as a GM. If, at any point, the GM has to hint that, "The story is over here, guys" that's not a proper sandbox.

A large part of that is conflation with videogames, where quests are there in a supposedly open world that isn't actually an open world, but is instead quest-gated by need of certain items to get into specific regions.

The definitions of open world and sandbox differ significantly between the two media. Zelda games are said to be "open world" - but they are not. Large portions are locked behind needed items. That's a feature that few TT RPGs have, but many GM's try to impose.

When you get to the TTRPG, if an area requires having done X, Y or Z to have anything interesting happen, it's no longer a sandbox, it's just a wall-less dungeon.

I'm a 'bit' confused about what your definition of 'sandbox' is then...

A sandbox, to use the term in its purest meaning, is a setting in which some number of different 'engageable resources' exist, but in which the structure of the game doesn't apply ANY force whatsoever in terms of pushing the players to choose which ones to interact with. However, hints can be given, maps, information, rumors, etc. These are simply forms of intelligence which the party can gather, or which might fall into their hands over time in order to reveal the existing/location of these resources. This is the ideal of course. The players simply choose from the 'smorgasbord' of options, or perhaps simply blunder around the landscape hoping to fall into something.

However, there is no sense in which player agendas cannot or will not produce 'quests', they most certainly will! Players will evolve intentions, maybe as basic as "find the fabled Vorpal Sword of Snikersnak" and then go looking for it. Clearly this would arise after some sort of information is provided by the GM as to the possibility of success. The actual impetus however is coming from a player.

OTOH there are certainly sandboxes with meta-plot as well. They are simply 'time varying maps' in essence. However, because of the inevitable progression of the plot they will generate impetus which often doesn't originate in the players. These would be more like the 'side quests' @Manbearcat is talking about. Often meta-plot is also set in motion, sort of like a 'landslide' by whatever the PCs did. They attack the orcs, the orcs declare war, the PCs must find the tomb of Sir Snikersnak if they are going to avoid getting the town destroyed (and its inhabitants are keen to see them hang for that). This is all likely fare in what originates as even the most pure sandbox.

The point is, there is often stuff the PCs cannot do, must do, should do, etc. even in a pure sandbox. While it is possible to simply ignore all such possibilities, I would call the result exactly what MBC terms "Rowboat World" a very shallow but extensive environment in which all that exists are some challenges to find and solve. Nothing ever changes, nothing progresses, there's no real 'meaning' to anything beyond its tactical significance, etc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I


Again maybe in your style of play, the player is expected to express what they would like to see happen in terms of adventure and the GM is meant to fulfill that request. That isn’t how a lot of people play nor is it what they want. In the style I am talking about, the player doesn’t get that level of control over the setting, the player gets to control their character. And it works for that playstyle. This is simply preference. I remember when wishlists became a big thing during 3E I couldn’t stand it as a player, because for me it went against the notion of exploring and discovering things in the setting.

Again on railroading I don’t think it is reasonable to define railroading as the GM not giving players the outcomes they want. That doesn’t reflect how the term is used by most people and it seem terribly useful to me. Railroading is more along the lines of pushing the players to go on the adventure to find the brother, and to make it hard to deviate from that path. They call it a railroad because it’s on tracks. But the GM is expected to control things like the life status of npcs, and the condition of the dungeon once you reach it. The GM making decisions about these things, isn’t railroading just because they are outcomes you didn’t want

I agree, PCs not getting their desired outcomes is not 'railroading' per se. However I would like to say that there needs to be logic attached to the actions of the PC, and perhaps to the outcome of checks, which leads to any given resolution of one of their goals. If the resolution is simply "sorry, it just happened this way" that doesn't feel satisfactory to me (whatever term you want to use for it).

If, OTOH, the PC simply fell short, then maybe Von Bad Guy pig stuck his hostage brother and then escaped. Maybe this was all the result of some characteristic or action/goal of the PC in the first place (he picked a fight with Von Bad Guy because he believes in the rights of the peasants of Pleasant Valley to live unmolested). Maybe this leads to a new goal, etc. This is all great stuff! Simply dead-ending something with "well, your brother died 3 years ago, it was all futile from the beginning" doesn't seem like good stuff. Maybe it could be turned into simply a step moving towards a greater goal/character transformation if its done right, but just on the face of it, it is dull.

Of course that's where we seem to always differ. I see no point to dull pointless stuff in an RPG. Leave it for real life! lol.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Again maybe in your style of play, the player is expected to express what they would like to see happen in terms of adventure and the GM is meant to fulfill that request. That isn’t how a lot of people play nor is it what they want. In the style I am talking about, the player doesn’t get that level of control over the setting, the player gets to control their character. And it works for that playstyle. This is simply preference. I remember when wishlists became a big thing during 3E I couldn’t stand it as a player, because for me it went against the notion of exploring and discovering things in the setting.

I don’t think play style has anything to do with it to be honest. It’s a dick move. Explain to me how in any playstyle this isn’t a dick move on the part of the GM.

Also, this is why I asked you how you’d handle it. It’d give us something a little more specific to discuss. Maybe you’d not even allow it as a PC goal? Maybe you’d handle it some other way?

As for your style and the player not getting that level of control (?!? control, really? Offering a goal for a PC is control over the setting? That’s not somethjing they get to decide for their character? Oh, they can go ahead and decide that....but then the GM is just gonna trample it?!?! ) over the setting....that’s denying the player that agency.

Finally, I don’t care one bit how most people play or what most people want in their game. Nor do I think you’re qualified to make that determination. Nor do I think it’s relevant at all.

Again on railroading I don’t think it is reasonable to define railroading as the GM not giving players the outcomes they want. That doesn’t reflect how the term is used by most people and it seem terribly useful to me. Railroading is more along the lines of pushing the players to go on the adventure to find the brother, and to make it hard to deviate from that path. They call it a railroad because it’s on tracks. But the GM is expected to control things like the life status of npcs, and the condition of the dungeon once you reach it. The GM making decisions about these things, isn’t railroading just because they are outcomes you didn’t want

Well hey, there’s more than one type of agency, but there can only be one kind of railroading. Got it.

What we’re talking about is not an example of the GM not giving a player the outcome he wants. It’s about him denying the entire journey that the player has said he’d like to take.

I’m gonna run with my “Kung Fu” example. Looking for his brother is very far from the only thing that Caine did in the series. He had tons of adventures. But it was his main drive.

If at the end of the first episode he found out his brother was dead, then his entire story changes. It is no longer about a man searching for his brother and having adventures along the way.

If the player offers that up as his PC’s concept, and the GM just thwarts that....I mean this is pretty antithetical to player agency.

Or no.....because the players are free to have their characters choose between going north to the temple of the wind, or west to the school of the flying fists?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don’t think play style has anything to do with it to be honest. It’s a dick move. Explain to me how in any playstyle this isn’t a dick move on the part of the GM.

It really isn't a dick move. And I don't know how I can prove an opinion about play to you. All I can say is at many of the games I play at, it would be entirely reasonable for the GM to decide the players brother is dead. The GM could decide just about anything about the brother. Discovering what the case is, that is part of the fun. I definitely wouldn't regard this as being a dick move on the part of the GM. Again, I think the issue is you are accustomed to a style of play where players get more say in shaping the kind of campaign, the content of the adventures, etc. If that is an expectation of play at your table, and it is violated, fair enough. But I am talking about tables where this isn't an expectation (and it definitely isn't an expectation at every table).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Also, this is why I asked you how you’d handle it. It’d give us something a little more specific to discuss. Maybe you’d not even allow it as a PC goal? Maybe you’d handle it some other way?

I think I missed that. Clarify the situation you want to know how I would respond to, and I will tell you (but there is a good chance, my handling is going to come down on a very different side of gaming than you)

 

[Bedrockgames]

As for your style and the player not getting that level of control (?!? control, really? Offering a goal for a PC is control over the setting? That’s not somethjing they get to decide for their character? Oh, they can go ahead and decide that....but then the GM is just gonna trample it?!?! ) over the setting....that’s denying the player that agency.

Finally, I don’t care one bit how most people play or what most people want in their game. Nor do I think you’re qualified to make that determination. Nor do I think it’s relevant at all.

When your goal is also getting into details like the whereabouts, status, etc of NPCs, then yes, it is a thing that is beyond your control in the kind of sandbox I would run. Finding your brother can be your goal. But that doesn't mean you get to decide if he is alive, dead, homeless, running a country somewhere. I mean on some family stuff, I think there is a gray area. But if you are essentially planning an event in the campaign, not that isn't something players typically do in my sandboxes (and this is a common enough style of play).