A Question Of Agency?

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat - did you have any thoughts on that three tiered model of agency I posted upstream, as far as how it maps onto yours? I feel like I may have missed your matrix post(s) too, this thread has moved pretty quickly for a thread that hasn't really gone very far recently.

Im formulating my thoughts (which will be clarifying questions). So I’ll have a response up soon!

 

[Campbell]

Sure, I'd agree that for a lot of folks there's a sweet spot in the middle. That's not really what I meant though. I'd also completely disagree that high agency means low challenge. PbtA is high agency, true open sandboxes are high agency, and neither are cake walk games. I think maybe you have the upper limit of your agency detector set too high.

I guess would respond with games do not have agency - players have agency within a game.

I have actually experienced this feeling of acquiring too much influence over the game's environment quite often in both tabletop games and video games. It generally happens over the course of play.

The most recent example was in a Monster of the Week game where I played The Spooky that eventually switched over to The Divine (a changeling who ascended into Fey royalty). I eventually gained way too much ability to understand what was going on. The mysteries eventually become rote because my toolset was too strong compared to the tools the GM had to challenge us.

A similar thing happened within the context of an Exalted Second Edition game I was a player in. I eventually acquired too many perfect counters on my Zenith Caste martial artist that nothing could really happen to my character in any part of the game I could not counter.

The classic video game example is leveling too much because you do all the side quests and then the game becomes way too easy.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think largely what we are seeing is a pretty strong difference of opinion in what makes a choice meaningful.

I think that’s part of it.

But I’m also confident that we’re seeing:

1) A difference of opinion on what makes a choice palatable. Total legitimate in isolation, but not when it unknowingly gets folded into meaningful. This has happened and it make extracting the palatable and confronting only the meaningful much more difficult. Or, worse still, some will say that its impossible to extract palatable from meaningful. That couldn't be more of a non-starter.

2) And there are also some who feel (theoretically, but not empirically) that a certain menu/archetype of choices made possible for players will or should render the play priority of testing skill anathema or impossible to coherently achieve. I would like to see this empirically demonstrated.

3) And there are others still that feel that a certain menu of choices that empowers content creation that imposes on singular authority (GM) over setting will invariably render setting incoherent (which has x, y, z downstream effects). Again, theoretical, not empirical.

4) And I wonder if there is some level of choices are only meaningful if Protagonist Agency is being flexed. I'm not sure if this is a thing, but, if it is, I don't agree and its empirically not true (because Pawn Stance Skilled Play disproves this).


Those 4 are why I feel its important to develop some kind of clarifying matrix that discretizes (while simultaneously understanding interdependence) the mediums by which players express agency, the types of agency they will express, and the impact on play of any given configuration.

 

[robconley]

My eyesight is not what it used to be but I can’t seem to find the part in Rob’s sandbox write-ups where it instructs the GM to kill a PC’a lost brother that they declared they are looking for.

I apologize if it been mentioned before but in sandbox campaign context is everything. I went back a few pages reading the debate on the PC's lost brother and the result I couldn't weigh in because I don't see the context. I don't know what the PC circumstances, I don't know the Brother's circumstances, nor do I know anything about the setting. Until the specifics of circumstances are outlined one can't judge whether situation was a fair ruling by the referee or not.

The general principle I operate by (and stated in my blog Bat in the Attic). Is that I set the table so to speak in terms of the setting. While I may not have everything described my assumption and what I relay to my players is that the setting has a life of it own. It existed prior the campaign and it will continue to exist after the campaign. The PCs in essence are pebbles dropped into the pond of the setting and their ripples interact with other ripples that I defined.

The campaign starts with the initial drop with the PCs having some idea of their place within the setting. After that first session and every session afterwards I will then see what the PCs do or not do and adjust the circumstances of NPCs accordingly. I rinse and repeat this throughout the life of the campaign. If I run another campaign in the same setting, I tend to stick to the same setting for the same genre, then the results of the campaign becomes part of the background of the next.

As for the situation of the lost brother, it speaks to the part where I adjust the circumstances of the NPCs as a result of what the PC do or not do.

Typically for something specific like that I look to the players provide the information that sets up much of the lost brother's circumstances. Based on that information, I will look at several situation that are plausible and interesting. If several have equal weight I will randomly choose one. Judicious use of random table it is good way to force yourself out of one's bias occasionally.

I strongly people trying to run sandbox campaign to assemble a decent set of the random tables that reflect the range of stuff the setting has.

Note I said plausible. The new circumstances needs to follow out the consequences of the reaction to the old circumstances. While there is a probable outcomes most times there is a range of possible outcome and this is where the creativity of the sandbox referee shines. You don't have to always go for the probable choice is the other possible choices are plausible. (mmm a lot of Ps there). So I recommend going for the option that is interesting to the campaign but still make senses in light of the circumstances. And occasionally do a random outcome roll to keep yourself honest.

But not all circumstances have multiple outcomes. Sometime the probable outcome is so overwhelming that it is the only choice. In the context of this discussion that means the lost brother dies despite it being a major part of the PC's drive and motivation.

Having said that let's keep several things in mind.

One common issue I see with people running campaign is simplistic outcome. That there only possible and probable outcome to the PCs choices. Having lived a few decades now, and with the experience playing MMORPGs with multi-players and more important playing and running LARP events. It is rare that situations are that simplistic.

Of course without experience it hard to think of all the possibilities which why assembling a good set of random table is a great help to the novice. Not only they generated varied result, they express in a compact form the range of possible results.

The reason situations are into simplistic is something I call situational awareness. Usually it used in the context of combat but here I including social situations. People are aware of their surrounding and who there and sometimes who not there. A sandbox referee needs to learn how to incorporate this situational awareness into their descriptions of locales and NPCs. As it usually result in multiple and unexpected paths out of the situation. What I do is visualize the circumstances as if I was standing there as a witness. Then I pare out the details to those that are relevant and manageable.

Circling back to the lost brother, which is why in order to weigh in on the lost brother I need to understand the specific circumstances. I will also add that without the possibility of failure, sandbox campaign lose a lot.

Last people forget that as a referee that they need to a coach especially for a detailed or new setting they created. Players are not going to get all the detail right off. So you need to don the coach hat and teach them what their character would know about the setting.

Hope this helps with the discussion.

 

[Fenris-77]

I guess would respond with games do not have agency - players have agency within a game.

I have actually experienced this feeling of acquiring too much influence over the game's environment quite often in both tabletop games and video games. It generally happens over the course of play.

The most recent example was in a Monster of the Week game where I played The Spooky that eventually switched over to The Divine (a changeling who ascended into Fey royalty). I eventually gained way too much ability to understand what was going on. The mysteries eventually become rote because my toolset was too strong compared to the tools the GM had to challenge us.

A similar thing happened within the context of an Exalted Second Edition game I was a player in. I eventually acquired too many perfect counters on my Zenith Caste martial artist that nothing could really happen to my character in any part of the game I could not counter.

The classic video game example is leveling too much because you do all the side quests and then the game becomes way too easy.

Both examples make sense, but both are also cases of over-powered characters, correct? Lots of games can have that problem. This conversation is sticky enough without having to account for power gaming (on purpose or not). Also I;d agree that systems don't have agency, but they do allow, foster, or restrain player agency in a multitude of ways. Stating systems have agency like you're quoting my position is pretty uncharitable way to interpret anything I've posted in the last bunch of pages. I'm not offended, just bemused.

 

[Manbearcat]

Well, ItW&W, as a supplement, is more focused on smaller wilderness areas, with the stated goal being nifty 'wilderness dungeons'. This is predicated on the (1) presence of paths of various sizes sorts and difficulties. Travel at the 6 mile hex level is about the initial binary of follow the path or not, and it goes from there. Staying on the path means encounter rolls with bespoke tables and eventual arrival at .... wherever the path leads. (2) Leaving the path means navigation tests and a roll (not easy) with failure meaning a roll on the becoming lost table, which tells you how long and where you end up. Lets call IWW (a shorter acronym) a system for regional level travel, or something between one and a handful of adjacent 6 mile hexes. The construction of these wilderness dungeons is a randomized system that scatters adventure nodes of different sizes and sorts over a hex and then connects them with various types paths.

For the perilous journey kind of travel you're talking about I'd probably use something more or less like the DW journey rules from Perilous Wilds. Navigations rolls, roles for different party members, but streamlined for OSR play and with a heavy emphasis on resource management (food and light are the gas in my adventure engine). I have a bunch of random tables that cover what DW would call discoveries, usually arranged by region and terrain type, so it's more than just wandering monsters.

In both cases, I'd use the IWW camp loop. (2) IWW focuses on water, food, and shelter as the core needs. The party roles 3d6, one for each need, with successes on a 4+ and appropriate skills granting advantage on the roll. 3 successes means everyone is fine, and less successes add one or more levels of exhaustion to one or more party members who can consume resources to mitigate the exhaustion. Six levels of exhaustion kills you, so there's some bite to the rules. The encounter rules I use have some resource consumption built into them and I also have resource consumption baked into my rules for resting during the day. The goal there is to thread food and light resource management as deep into the day-to-day as I can so it seems less like an occasional mini-game and more like a fact of life.

I enumerated and bolded some things above. Questions/thoughts:

1) So branching paths with different inputs into the decision-point (distance, danger, obstacle type, etc) yes?

a) Is there a high resolution map (you mention classic 6 mile hexes so I would think yes) where all of this is heavily prepped before hand?

b) Or is this a low res map (with 6 miles just for reference) with some dangers/terrain type and then a table that can quickly resolve the creation of each branch (this is how Torchbearer works); roll for distance > then danger > then obstacle types?

2) Can you (a) give me a quick example of this happening because of acute pressure on food/water and/or fleeing exposure to shelter (and what would be the positive feedback loop that would lead to this...I know how it manifests in Torchbearer and I wonder how much overlap there is?), (b) what the action declaration > action resolution > fallout loop would look like. (c) Please make "become lost" as part of the fallout and then depict how a character might die as a result.

Thanks in advance.

 

[robconley]

Those 4 are why I feel its important to develop some kind of clarifying matrix that discretizes (while simultaneously understanding interdependence) the mediums by which players express agency, the types of agency they will express, and the impact on play of any given configuration.

Or one could visualize the setting as a form of virtual reality brought to life by the referee. The players are free do anything their characters could do within the setting. The referee is judged by the players in a sense on how well this happen. Does it feel like a place that could exist given it premise. Do results make sense given the choices?

 

[prabe]

1) A difference of opinion on what makes a choice palatable. Total legitimate in isolation, but not when it unknowingly gets folded into meaningful. This has happened and it make extracting the palatable and confronting only the meaningful much more difficult. Or, worse still, some will say that its impossible to extract palatable from meaningful. That couldn't be more of a non-starter.

This seems likely to be true. While I wouldn't deny that choosing between multiple undesirable outcomes could be meaningful, I'd find it an unpalatable choice to be forced to make as recreation; which seems to indicate they're at least sometimes separable.

2) And there are also some who feel (theoretically, but not empirically) that a certain menu/archetype of choices made possible for players will or should render the play priority of testing skill anathema or impossible to coherently achieve. I would like to see this empirically demonstrated.

I don't think I have a particularly relevant opinion on this.

3) And there are others still that feel that a certain menu of choices that empowers content creation that imposes on singular authority (GM) over setting will invariably render setting incoherent (which has x, y, z downstream effects). Again, theoretical, not empirical.

I found that sharing worldbuilding (before and/or during a campaign) made it harder for me to run the setting with a degree of consistency that I'm happy with. I have expressed this as, roughly, "the setting I was running felt incoherent to me." I found when I was playing (not running) a game wherein the players could change elements of the setting (at will, by spending currency/tokens) that the setting eventually felt kinda incoherent to me as a player, but there were other issues with that campaign and that was not my largest problem with it.

I'm specifically not saying that my experiences are universal, or even the norm.

4) And I wonder if there is some level of choices are only meaningful if Protagonist Agency is being flexed. I'm not sure if this is a thing, but, if it is, I don't agree and its empirically not true (because Pawn Stance Skilled Play disproves this).

As with 2, I don't think I have a particularly relevant opinion here.

Those 4 are why I feel its important to develop some kind of clarifying matrix that discretizes (while simultaneously understanding interdependence) the mediums by which players express agency, the types of agency they will express, and the impact on play of any given configuration.

The possible downside of this approach is that it seems possible shading to likely that none of these types of agency is purely binary, so rather than something like tic-tac-toe you'd be playing something like n-dimensional chess. Not that you should be discouraged, just that "matrix" (as I understand it) might not be the shape of the data here.

 

[Manbearcat]

Or one could visualize the setting as a form of virtual reality brought to life by the referee. The players are free do anything their characters could do within the setting. The referee is judged by the players in a sense on how well this happen. Does it feel like a place that could exist given it premise. Do results make sense given the choices?

For "meaningful", this is necessary but not sufficient for a lot of gamers.

Where one falls in this fault line is only the starting point of our conversation.

What "not sufficient" entails is what this thread has been about. Understanding the architecture of that and the pretty profound nuance of that is a bold undertaking. But it is absolutely worthwhile.

 

[FrogReaver]

Deadly diseases are a part of our world. Brothers die all the time to disease or random violence in such a way that we cannot intervene.

In the real world we don’t lack agency because we can’t control these things, we have agency despite our lack of control over them. Because, even though we have no control over such things, we do have meaningful choices about how we respond to them.

That’s what real world agency looks like.

*Note - this is pretty much identical to the sandbox conception of agency.