A Question Of Agency?

[prabe]

Maybe the disconnect is that I’m including dm decides here. When the dm decides the player isn’t roleplaying.

I do agree that you can’t have roleplay without having resolutions. But I don’t see how that makes those resolutions into roleplaying.

Frequently when the GM decides, the GM is roleplaying. Leaving combat aside (along with the whole argument over whether combat is roleplaying) I think it's difficult shading to impossible to have resolutions without roleplaying, if one defines roleplaying as at least in part "making decisions for/as the character." I decide to use [library] to acquire information about [thing]. I try to use my underworld contacts to locate [person].

 

[Bedrockgames]

I said "straw poll."

fair enough. I still think it is relevant. I mean it is a good faith action if I assert this is a norm in the community I am talking about, and people push back, for me to ask the community in question if it’s the case. It isn’t the same as a formal poll, obviously

 

[hawkeyefan]

And that is fine: you can run a sandbox however you like. But there is also nothing wrong with running it the way I am taking about

No one said there was anything wrong with running your game the way you want.

My objection was to a specific example that was offered, and your response. That example is one I would say is a problem, for the reasons already stated.

Again, in this mode of play, the player simply isn't assumed to be able to set an agenda that extensive into the setting. You can certainly have the agenda of wanting to find your brother, but what is going on with your brother is under the purview of the GM. Obviously in a game where that isn't a case, it might be a dick move if the player is expected to have that sort of agenda. Why people can't even entertain the thought of this, and see how for lots of people operating under this style of play, it isn't at all a dick move, I really can't understand.

It's not that I can't entertain the thought of it. I absolutely can. I've played in plenty of those kinds of games. They're perfectly fine.

What I can't do is reconcile your idea that your described game offers a high degree of player agency when the idea of an agenda crafted by a player for his character either (a) shouldn't even be proposed, or (b) is left to the GM to simply negate out of hand if he decides that's what he'd like to do.

The play of your game seems to be to unleash the PCs into the world and watch them interact with elements you've crafted. They're free to do whatever they like, and to interact with the elements of the fiction however they like, and so on. That is fine.....I largely run my D&D game like this. The PCs do things, and the world reacts, and then the PCs react to that, and so on. It's fun and engaging and my group enjoys it.

Again, I don't think that running a game that has a heavy GM hand in such matters is a bad thing. If anything is bad, it would be to even allow the player to think that any agenda they had in mind at the start of play mattered at all. Just say up front "I know you wanted your PC to be searching for his brother, but I'm not really going to focus on pre-established goals like that. This game is about you using your character to explore the world I've crafted and to see what happens."

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.

So this is partly the issue. You say that the GM has full setting control, but then you won't acknowledge that games that allow players some input on setting offer more agency. Instead, you shift to your take on agency and claim it offers an exchange of some sort. But I don't think that's the case.

To revisit your wannabe scholar character.....it seems you were okay with this goal because it fit with what you already had in mind, or already had a structure to deal with. And the outcome of how this would play out for the character was left to determine in play. I assume that they had a chance to actually succeed? Maybe I shouldn't.....was that the case?

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.

Do you think that your chosen style offers more agency than an adventure path? Do you think you are attacking people who enjoy adventure paths if you say so? I've played in adventure paths. They can be perfectly fun. It's not exactly my preferred mode of play, but I also know what to expect when someone says "I'm going to run Horde of the Dragon Queen, want to play?" It's not going to be a high agency game.

Well, I am not the one discounting a whole style of play here. I am acknowledging the styles of the other posters, acknowledging their use of agency in their style. I am the one being told my style is a problem. Sure no one is free from criticism. But there is also an issue in these conversations when people just tear down your style, especially when they do so in a way that seems to ignore how huge swaths of gamers play the game. Literally every sandbox player I have asked has told me, the GM saying the brother is dead, is totally fine, not a problem. So if you do want to sit in judgment of a playstyle, I think it is odd to do so as you ignore the widespread sensibilities of those who engage that style.

Saying that your style doesn't offer as much player agency as another is not discounting the whole style of play. No style of play is a problem, excepting if the participants are not satisfied with it for some reason. A pure railroad may be fine for years for many players, or for a session or two for others. We all typically describe railroading as bad.....but for some folks, it may be just fine.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The hostility already seemed present in what you posted, as it came across as you trying to throw the problem at hand back at the player and blaming them as the real problem. I hope you can sympathize with how someone could easily read that underlying sentiment from your post.

I wasn’t trying to be hostile, I was explaining my tables expectations. Disagreeing is fine, good natured disputes happen and can be fun. Busting chops is fine. But we are there to game and have a good time. Displays of anger, that are disruptive to the vibe or to the flow of the game are not something we are going to entertain: especially if it is one player disrupting the game because they are trying to impose their agenda on a room where it simply doesn’t fit. Generally if we have more involved discussions where people strongly disagree, that is handled after the session. But you got to adapt to the room, otherwise it would just gone off as rude behavior to us

 

[FrogReaver]

Frequently when the GM decides, the GM is roleplaying. Leaving combat aside (along with the whole argument over whether combat is roleplaying) I think it's difficult shading to impossible to have resolutions without roleplaying, if one defines roleplaying as at least in part "making decisions for/as the character." I decide to use [library] to acquire information about [thing]. I try to use my underworld contacts to locate [person].

Okay. The GM can roleplay in action resolution especially when that involves an NPC instead of an environment.

but im really focused on the player side of things. Is there an example of a player roleplaying during action resolution?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again @hawkeyefan we are at an impasse because we have differing definitions of agency. And literally every person who plays sandbox that I know has said they share my definition and they have never even encountered yours. I am not saying yours isn’t in use but I think it isn’t that hard to see what kind of agency I am talking about and how the GM deciding that detail wouldn’t go against it.

 

[FrogReaver]

No one said there was anything wrong with running your game the way you want.

My objection was to a specific example that was offered, and your response. That example is one I would say is a problem, for the reasons already stated.



It's not that I can't entertain the thought of it. I absolutely can. I've played in plenty of those kinds of games. They're perfectly fine.

What I can't do is reconcile your idea that your described game offers a high degree of player agency when the idea of an agenda crafted by a player for his character either (a) shouldn't even be proposed, or (b) is left to the GM to simply negate out of hand if he decides that's what he'd like to do.

The play of your game seems to be to unleash the PCs into the world and watch them interact with elements you've crafted. They're free to do whatever they like, and to interact with the elements of the fiction however they like, and so on. That is fine.....I largely run my D&D game like this. The PCs do things, and the world reacts, and then the PCs react to that, and so on. It's fun and engaging and my group enjoys it.

Again, I don't think that running a game that has a heavy GM hand in such matters is a bad thing. If anything is bad, it would be to even allow the player to think that any agenda they had in mind at the start of play mattered at all. Just say up front "I know you wanted your PC to be searching for his brother, but I'm not really going to focus on pre-established goals like that. This game is about you using your character to explore the world I've crafted and to see what happens."



So this is partly the issue. You say that the GM has full setting control, but then you won't acknowledge that games that allow players some input on setting offer more agency. Instead, you shift to your take on agency and claim it offers an exchange of some sort. But I don't think that's the case.

To revisit your wannabe scholar character.....it seems you were okay with this goal because it fit with what you already had in mind, or already had a structure to deal with. And the outcome of how this would play out for the character was left to determine in play. I assume that they had a chance to actually succeed? Maybe I shouldn't.....was that the case?



Do you think that your chosen style offers more agency than an adventure path? Do you think you are attacking people who enjoy adventure paths if you say so? I've played in adventure paths. They can be perfectly fun. It's not exactly my preferred mode of play, but I also know what to expect when someone says "I'm going to run Horde of the Dragon Queen, want to play?" It's not going to be a high agency game.




Saying that your style doesn't offer as much player agency as another is not discounting the whole style of play. No style of play is a problem, excepting if the participants are not satisfied with it for some reason. A pure railroad may be fine for years for many players, or for a session or two for others. We all typically describe railroading as bad.....but for some folks, it may be just fine.

Are you using his definition of player agency or your own?

 

[prabe]

Okay. The GM can roleplay in action resolution especially when that involves an NPC instead of an environment.

but im really focused on the player side of things. Is there an example of a player roleplaying during action resolution?

If the PC is attempting to deceive or persuade or intimidate an NPC and it's roleplayed instead of rolled, I think that's your example. Of course, I don't think I separate action-resolution from roleplaying so strictly as you do: I don't think a player ceases roleplaying the instant they pick up dice.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Finding your lost brother is a cool character drive, but it's going to be a huge pain in the butt in a lot of games if the player wants it to be front and center all the time. That drive is actually easier when cooperative setting building is going on because there's a chance to braid that idea right in, rather than trying to shoehorn it in because some swanky hipster wasn't happy with "blood and gold" as a primary character drive. If we assume that A) the player isn't going to be a suppurating sore about this and that B) the GM sees some reasonable way to fit it in, then it could be fine. My experience is heavily salted with players who want a drive like this in a game where the pitch is sailing across the uncharted ocean to explore new lands. Oh yeah, sure, your brother is going to hanging out under a palm tree, no sweat bro... why don't you just pencil in crippling agoraphobia as a flaw while you're at it? It's all about engaging in good faith on both sides.

Yes, I agree with this. The player and GM need to be on the same page. In the initial example, the player offered the idea of the brother, and the GM said sure, and then decided the brother was dead, and this was cited as the "GM seriously considering the player's request".

I'd expect that this would be handled better in an actual example rather than a hypothetical.

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.

Yes, absolutely. I agree with both of you. Better to simply address this up front and make sure everyone proceeds on the same page.

 

[Bedrockgames]

To revisit your wannabe scholar character.....it seems you were okay with this goal because it fit with what you already had in mind, or already had a structure to deal with. And the outcome of how this would play out for the character was left to determine in play. I assume that they had a chance to actually succeed? Maybe I shouldn't.....was that the case?



Do you think that your chosen style offers more agency than an adventure path? Do you think you are attacking people who enjoy adventure paths if you say so? I've played in adventure paths. They can be perfectly fun. It's not exactly my preferred mode of play, but I also know what to expect when someone says "I'm going to run Horde of the Dragon Queen, want to play?" It's not going to be a high agency game.

look again at the example. He didn’t realize his goal. He failed at the exams. He was free to pursue trying to become a scholar official because those exist in the setting. But he wasn’t free to set the outcome. He failed. Also this is different from the brother example. The degrees the player wants exist in the setting. The player is free to seek those degrees. He has no control over what kind of post he is assigned should he get the degree. The player saying he wants to search for his list brother and explore their broken relationship is like a player saying he wants to take the imperial exams and explore the challenge of being a county magistrate on the frontier: that last but us a part of the hand the GM controls via the player’s superiors in the setting and the customs atriums advancement