A Question Of Agency?

[Campbell]

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.

I will let @pemerton speak for himself, but in my view that's not equivocating. Obviously it was the player who brought in the fiction of them searching for their brother. The brother did not exist prior to that. He's saying that in the context of this brother he wants the outcome of what happens to be determined by gameplay decisions he has made I think. This is based on a more expansive view of character than you probably hold - where a character is more than the physical body, but also the things they value, people they care for, and relationships they have. At least in a game where I care about my character as a person that's how I would probably explain my feelings.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Except we are talking about different areas of the gaming community. There is an OSR and sandbox community. And yes that varies. But I think you can speak generally. Normally I would be only focused on my own style. But when you have a whole thread of posters attacking you because you think a GM deciding the brother is dead would be okay in a sandbox, it is relevant to share your view on what the norm among sandbox players seems to be. Now I could be wrong about that norm. It is always possible to be wrong. But I don't think I am, and I think at the very least, this is a style you see frequently among sandbox players, if not most of the time. That doesn't make it more right as a sandbox. But it does mean, people familiar with sandbox wouldn't be as shocked or surprised by my assertion as the posters here are (and again, I think that is relevant).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I will let @pemerton speak for himself, but in my view that's not equivocating. Obviously it was the player who brought in the fiction of them searching for their brother. The brother did not exist prior to that. He's saying that in the context of this brother he wants the outcome of what happens to be determined by gameplay decisions he has made I think. This is based on a more expansive view of character than you probably hold - where a character is more than the physical body, but also the things they value, people they care for, and relationships they have. At least in a game where I care about my character as a person that's how I would probably explain my feelings.

But in the style I am describing, which I feel he was extending his logic to, this would be an equivocation. That is my point. If he plays in a style where player goals and outcomes are that linked, fair enough. But in the kind of sandbox I am talking about, that outcome is an independent thing (unless the search itself directly results in his death, like they land a plane on his head in their search for him)

And by the way this is a consistent and key point of disagreement between us. So I think it is worthy of mention on those grounds too

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Okay, it seemed as if you were asserting here that your overall discussion in terms of the dead brother issue was universally held by sandbox gamers:

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.

So you are then talking strictly about in-setting choices from the perspective of the character?

Also, keep in mind, it does seem that for some people that the GM unilaterally declaring the brother as dead in advance would be the GM thwarting the efforts of the PC to find their brother. It comes across as a story railroad where the GM has declared that it would be more interesting for the PC if the brother was dead. So the story is less emergent as the GM has ascribed a fixed outcome or result of the search. But that predetermined outcome may very well be psychologically unrewarding or hostile for the player who controls that character.

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).

I wouldn't call it establishing anything. I would call it entertaining two separate definitions of agency so we can even hold a conversation, not to mention having to deal with only one definition of railroad.

Seriously, if you won't even allow us to accurately describe our own playstyle, then who is really engaging in one true wayism here?

You're welcome to accurately describe your own playstyle, but that doesn't absolve it from external judgment. Certainly no more than other playstyles have been repeatedly judged and commented upon. So maybe you can please put down the veiled accusations of "one true wayism" and hold a conversation without resorting to these sort of rhetorical tricks. There's really no need for that.

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.

I still don't think that is always true even in your style of sandbox gaming as you make it out to be. I still think that there would be people who would have a problem with it if they encountered this, potentially myself included. I am not discounting here that there would be players and GMs who are fine with this, but let's not pretend that every player would be happy with this sort of forced outcome of their play agenda for their character.

But I think it is fair to talk about what the typical sandbox looks like without this kind of hostile, angry reaction.

I think it's unfair to describe any pushback as a "hostile, angry reaction".

Except we are talking about different areas of the gaming community. There is an OSR and sandbox community. And yes that varies. But I think you can speak generally. Normally I would be only focused on my own style. But when you have a whole thread of posters attacking you because you think a GM deciding the brother is dead would be okay in a sandbox, it is relevant to share your view on what the norm among sandbox players seems to be. Now I could be wrong about that norm. It is always possible to be wrong. But I don't think I am, and I think at the very least, this is a style you see frequently among sandbox players, if not most of the time. That doesn't make it more right as a sandbox. But it does mean, people familiar with sandbox wouldn't be as shocked or surprised by my assertion as the posters here are (and again, I think that is relevant).

And maybe stop using overly charged language like this too? Thanks.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Just to add one other thing here. I think it can matter in other ways. For example, I might really not like adventure paths, and that is a fine preference to have, but a ton of people like them. And it would be odd of me not to acknowledge or understand the sheer volume of players who find satisfaction in adventure path approaches. By the same token, there are clearly lots of players and GMs here who find satisfaction in styles where they exert more control over setting elements pertaining to their character arcs. Acknowledging those as the norm within their segment of the gaming community, is just being polite in my opinion. Same with acknowledging that what I am talking about is a pretty typical thing seen in sandbox play. Now that doesn't mean people can't deviate from that. This isn't a normative moral judgments. It is just a statement of what the trends are, what the overall population is in to. I mean I could use normative language about top 40 radio, by saying heavy distorted guitar isn't really a typical feature of top 40 radio. That is ackowledging a reality of top 40 radio. it isn't giving it moral legitimacy, but it does mean you shouldn't be surprised when songs with heavy distorted guitar don't get into the top 40 (and I love songs with distorted guitar). This would be like me taking my sandbox approach and acting surprised when I run a game with Pemerton, Aldarc and Innerdude. It would be especially annoying to them, I am sure, if I did so using PbtA or Burning Wheel (which I am assuming I might even have to bend rules to achieve). From the segment of the hobby they come from, that is a style norm I am violating. I have been told pretty conclusively they would consider it a dick move. I am not going to venture into that area of the hobby and just say "well this is how I run things, and I don't care how many of you don't like it".

 

[FrogReaver]

I will let @pemerton speak for himself, but in my view that's not equivocating. Obviously it was the player who brought in the fiction of them searching for their brother. The brother did not exist prior to that. He's saying that in the context of this brother he wants the outcome of what happens to be determined by gameplay decisions he has made I think.

I respect his preference. can that preference be set aside a moment to discuss what agency means to those that use this sandbox playstyle?

This is based on a more expansive view of character than you probably hold - where a character is more than the physical body, but also the things they value, people they care for, and relationships they have. At least in a game where I care about my character as a person that's how I would probably explain my feelings.

That’s an interesting notion and probably a much larger portion of the divide than its being given credit for.

I’m sure that leads to something like a thought of: PCs with no consistent and established connections to the world and it’s inhabitants aren’t fully fleshed out characters.

 

[nevin]

The whole brother is dead conversation confuses me. If I play in a game, I make my character work out the history and then I go from there. How its the brother is dead any different than the brother is a pirate, the brother has joined a church, or the brother is actively running from you the person that is looking for him, such a terrible thing. Story arcs end, change and new things take their place. If I get to arbitrarily tell the DM what story arcs they can and can't do that seems like a very boring game, I want to be surprised even if that means it's not always good.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Okay, it seemed as if you were asserting here that your overall discussion in terms of the dead brother issue was universally held by sandbox gamers:

No I was saying it is a commonly held one. I did ask the sandbox players I know about my definition of agency though, and to a person, they said it means exactly what I am saying. Not a scientific poll, but it is definitely not outrageous among the people I know in that community to assert it

 

[prabe]

This. The GM deciding that the brother is already dead seems like the GM is forcing a predetermined outcome of play on the player. So yeah, it's a dick move.

I think it's only a dick move if the table's expectations are that there's a chance to find the brother alive. Probably connects to differences in goals: "Find [person]" as opposed to "find out what happened to [person]." Also connects to when this person is mentioned: Player provides connected person in backstory is different than player decides mid-campaign that connected person exists. As @Fenris-77 says, too, good faith on the player's part matters. As GM, I am highly reluctant to fridge PC's families and loved ones, so the characters who have family and/or friends in various states of narrative indeterminacy aren't likely to just find out those people are dead; OTOH, i have a player whose character had backstory details that started to appear on the horizon, and when I asked him if he had any ideas or preferences, he said, "Surprise me."

 

[Bedrockgames]

So you are then talking strictly about in-setting choices from the perspective of the character?

More like from the player's perspective within the setting, which is limited by their character. It is a minor distinction, but an important one, because there is this idea of player skill mattering that many sandbox players adhere to (where it isn't considered super important for instance to pretend to be your character, you are just limited in the setting the same way they are----you are experiencing the setting from their POV, but you don't have to feign a lack of real world knowledge). Again this is something of a split I see among sandbox players. Not everyone takes this approach. But it is common enough, that I wouldn't ignore it in this discussion.