A Question Of Agency?

[Bedrockgames]

See, this is where I get confused, because this is a contradiction.

How does the GM unilaterally making this decision---the brother of Player X's character is already dead---not, by its very instantiation, thwart any and all possible choices Player X might make that relate to the player's desire to explore the relationship between the character and the character's brother?

Because in a game like this, getting that specific about the types of outcomes that unfold in play for things that have yet to happen (i.e. finding your brother and having a relationship with him) is not considered a reasonable choice. The choices that matter for agency in this style (and this is pretty universal among sandbox gamers) is the choices you make within the setting. Choosing to look for your lost brother is such a choice. And if the GM suddenly thwarts all your efforts to find him, then that would be a kind of railroad or a violation of agency. However it is perfectly reasonable for the GM, who is in control of the setting, to decide that your brother, who is part of the setting, is dead. Once you find your brother, then you can choose how to respond to the situation find. It would be really strange in this kind of game for the player to be able to set goals that get into controlling the setting, and then get mad because some setting element didn't end up being what he or she wanted. Again, you don't have to like this approach. It might not be for you. But i don't think it is all that hard to appreciate what is going on, what kinds of agency is on the table, and how within that style of play, you are making important choices in the setting.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I WOULD say that, if the premise advanced by the player is that his PC is on a quest to save his brother, and the GM's response to that is to lead up to a scene where it has all just been worthless from day one, and the GM's response to that is "well, I set it up that way at the start, you don't have control over (fake) reality." My next response would probably be to ask who wants to take over GMing at this table...

In my group, this wouldn't be considered worthless. The player decided to go look for his brother. The GM made a decision about what is going on with the brother (he is dead). The player discovered his brother died (and can react however he wants to that). In my group, and in groups I've played with that take this approach, no player is going to get angry. And no GM is going to respond to like that if there does happen to be a problem (but everyone at the table understands, the Player has zero control over setting). Were a player to suggest what you do here, I think we'd all want you out of the group (we don't engage in that kind of contentiousness over something so minor).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think generally you should be very careful about mixing up techniques that serve different play priorities. Creating characters you really care about with meaningful dramatic needs and placing them into a cruel sandbox is a recipe for emotional bleed in the wrong way in my experience.

This. A sandbox doesn't care about dramatic arcs. Drama can arise (i've mentioned drama and sandbox) but no one has plot immunity (not PCs, not NPCS) and in a sandbox, the gm has full setting control. Those conditions shouldn't make the outcome I am talking about a surprise to anyone.

 

[Aldarc]

However it is perfectly reasonable for the GM, who is in control of the setting, to decide that your brother, who is part of the setting, is dead.

I think that this assumption of what constitutes the "reasonable" exercise of GM power over the setting forms the core problem. You (and the amorphous, faceless blob that constitutes "lots of gamers") clearly find it reasonable. But there are a number of people, including sandbox gamers and their playstyles - which you clearly discount by declaring your approach as "universal" - would find this a clear violation of the player's protagonism and agency as well as a "dick move." Perhaps it would helpful for discussion if you didn't declare approaches that share your biases as being "universally" held.

Additionally, my character is a part of the setting too. Does this mean that the GM can unilaterally declare my character dead too?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think that this assumption of what constitutes the "reasonable" exercise of GM power over the setting forms the core problem. You (and the amorphous, faceless blob that constitutes "lots of gamers") clearly find it reasonable. But there are a number of people, including sandbox gamers and their playstyles - which you clearly discount by declaring your approach as "universal" - would find this a clear violation of the player's protagonism and agency as well as a "dick move." Perhaps it would helpful for discussion if you didn't declare approaches that share your biases as being "universally" held.

Additionally, my character is a part of the setting too. Does this mean that the GM can unilaterally declare my character dead too?

Where have I stated this is a unversal thing? I have clearly told people, this is just one approach, but it is a really common one among sandbox gamers. Believe me, if this thread were involving a high volume of OSR sandbox gamers, you'd be getting tons and tons of push back on the brother. I am sure they would also have other differing opinions, because sandbox isn't a monochrome style of play. But this expectaiton that the GM would govern the state of the brother, I think in your typical sandbox, that would be the norm.

Again, I haven't said anything about this being universal. I acknowledged that in the style of play one poster was talking about, it might be a dick move (I even said in my savage worlds campaigns, which tend to include more things like character arcs the player negotiates with the GM) it would be a dick move. But the response I got was, regardless of playstyle, it is a dick move. My point has been in this kind of a sandbox, this would normally not be regarded as a violation of agency or as a dick move. And I am quite certain I am correct about that. Seriously, if you won't even allow us to accurately describe our own playstyle, then who is really engaging in one true wayism here? I've made plenty of room for other approaches in this style and I understand there are modes of play where the player would rightfully expect to be able to set that agenda. But the kind of sandbox I am talking about, isn't one of them. But I've said, you could run a sandbox that way if you wanted to. There are PbtA players who are getting into OSR stuff now, and I could see that. I don't have an issue with it. But that existing, doesn't somehow make it a problem for people to continue to run games where the GM has control over the fate of the brother.

To answer your last question, generally, the GM can't just declare a PC dead. That would violate agency, unless some action in the game demanded a ruling of death (for example, you do something that logically in all cases would result in you dying, but there isn't a mechanic in the game for that thing (say get buried alive for days and there is suffocation mechanic in the system). Still I think most GMs wouldn't just decide that but still take the 'there is always a chance' approach from the Moldvay book that @Campbell mentioned. So in most cases that sort of thing would fall under a ruling. and most likely be a series of checks or other kind of die roll. But your agency, in this kind of sandbox, doesn't extend to your brother.

EDIT: Also I really don't think it is at all unreasonable to assert this is the common way sandbox gets approached. I mean I've been running sandbox and involved in sandbox focused communities online for ages. I do get you find differences among them, and I could totally see there being some who might take more of the cain approach. But it would certainly be an outlier. Doesn't mean its wrong. You can do it. But I think it is fair to talk about what the typical sandbox looks like without this kind of hostile, angry reaction.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Of course, but we have already established that some players prefer lower agency games where everything but player actions are part of the GM catering service.

No, we've established there are two ways agency is being handled in this thread. Folks on your side, simply keep asserting your view on agency is right, and failing to acknowledge our approach is a totally viable way to see and use agency. But you keep turning it into a zero sum game (which it isn't).

 

[Bedrockgames]

See, this is where I get confused, because this is a contradiction.

How does the GM unilaterally making this decision---the brother of Player X's character is already dead---not, by its very instantiation, thwart any and all possible choices Player X might make that relate to the player's desire to explore the relationship between the character and the character's brother?

Any and all choices Player X makes to explore that component of the fiction are now diversionary at best, and meaningless wastes of time at worst. It's indicative of a mindset and decision-making process by the GM to basically say, "There's no story here, stop looking for it."

@pemerton noted the exact same thing:



How is this not an instant negation of player agency with respect to protagonism? The player has clearly expressed a desire to explore a dramatic need / protagonistic drive, and the GM has unilaterally altered / created a fictional state in opposition to that expression.

This falls in line with @pemerton's post that probed the notion of "shared fiction." I liked his explanation that the descriptor of "shared" can only be applied to the fictional state in RPG play after it had some other descriptor. Until such point as it is brought forward to the group, the fiction exists as a "secret" or "unilateral" fiction controlled by some other participant (in nearly all cases the GM). If the fiction is not "shared," then it is necessarily something else.

From what I gather, for those in favor of "sandbox" play, secretly declaring the brother dead unilaterally is wholly acceptable, because the player still has the freedom to direct their character's actions such that the GM may eventually reveal this secret---thus changing this predetermined fictional descriptor from "unilateral" to "shared."

So even though this unilateral decision denies the player the capacity to meaningfully interact with their desired protagonistic goal---before the player declares a single action related to its pursuit---the GM has not meaningfully reduced "agency," because the player has the freedom to direct play in such a way that will eventually reveal this information.

Am I reading this right?

Just to address what Pemerton said: he is equivocating on the word outcome. It is an outcome of something. Just like me posting this message is an outcome of something. But it isn't an outcome of the player searching for the brother. The brother didn't die as a result of the search. The brother, presumably, had other causes of death. That the dead brother was found was the outcome of the search.

 

[Campbell]

So the use of normative language can often be seen as an attempt to show that a given way to play is more legitimate because more people do it or it is somehow connected to some antecedent in a vaguely religious sort of way. In my opinion it should be enough to say "this is how my game works". How other people play is immaterial.

 

[FrogReaver]

So the use of normative language can often be seen as an attempt to show that a given way to play is more legitimate because more people do it or it is somehow connected to some antecedent in a vaguely religious sort of way. In my opinion it should be enough to say "this is how my game works". How other people play is immaterial.

I think you read to much into it. I think it helps to point out something isn’t an isolated playstyle.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I would say that, in the context, "shaping" is a synonym for agency. It is making or doing something. I believe you that you would not expect this sort of agency when you play in your preferred sort of sandbox. I can equally tell you that the absence of such agency would be one reason for me not to play in, or GM, such a game.

No, it isn't a synonym for agency here. At least someone in this style of play wouldn't see that as such. If you regard it as such, that is fair, but that isn't how I would see it here. And yes, you probably wouldn't be happy in this style of game. I certainly wouldn't try to sell you on such a campaign. At the same time I do think there is value in playing different styles on their own terms. I don't much like adventure paths, but I play one happily if that is what a group wants to do (and I won't actively resist it or complain). It can be helpful to experience what people are after. When I ran Esoterrorists, because it was coming at things from much more of a scene-focused approach than I ever take in my games, I consulted with my friend who likes those sorts of styles, to make sure I was running the game and prepping it as it was intended (and not inserting my own style into it-------down the road obviously I might do that, but I wanted to experience the game on its own terms). I think this also applies to styles. If someone told me they were going to run a sandbox using burning wheel, and in the style you have been describing, I would play it according to their style and I wouldn't complain, nor would I sit in judgement of it. I would want to understand it (and I wouldn't try to be gaining that understanding, only to judge it later----I would want a clear, objective sense of the style, so I can understand what people who enjoy it are looking for in play).