A Question Of Agency?

[Ovinomancer]

I encourage players to ask question about the locale, creatures, and characters they are dealing with because my description are not always complete enough for them to have the information to make a decision. So they ask. With this particular session it was run as a one shot with several players who have not experience my Majestic Wilderlands setting before. So at the beginning there were a lot of questions and coaching get everybody up to speed on the situation and to the point where had a enough information to go on (and have fun).

Because it was a one-shot the inciting incident, the Bishop's Court, was contrived. A compromise given the circumstances of the session. The player were given a job to do that led them to the site of the adventure. Everything that occurred after they encountered the young couple in the road and fought the bandit was up to the players. When I first ran the adventure as part of a campaign, it was the encounter with the young couple and the bandit fight that was inciting incident.

Also this session was unique for me that it was run theater of the mind. Which I usually don't do. Instead I use maps, miniatures, and battlemaps a lot to minimize the questions. But that doesn't mean question are not asked. Usually they more precise and detailed about the immediate surrounding or character they are dealing.

And again it not because the player need to guess what is in my mind. It is because descriptions both verbal and using props are incomplete and thus the players may not have everything they ought to know as their character. I am only human and can't always guess correctly at what they think is important.

Last novices to my games often don't get right away that I am prepared to answer questions they might have. I rarely give answers that amount "just because". That if they want to details, I am willing to provide them. But on average I use my experience refereeing to make it easier by highlighting thing I found players found important in the past. It made easier with this adventure because that was my fifth run through.


If you played in one of my session I am afraid you will be disappointed if you try to figure what may notes or thinking is. I generally turn the question it around and ask what it is you want to do or are looking for. Then go from there.


I am afraid we will have to disagree on how the expansive the two approaches are. My approach allows any player to do what their character are capable of within the setting of the campaign. Whether it is the Majestic Wilderlands, The Third Imperium, Star Trek, etc. I try to create a pen & paper virtual reality that can be explored as the player wishes constrained only by the fact is with a small group of other players with their own interest. True a player can't say "I flap my arms and fly" without a reason arising from how the setting works. But as a person existing a world there is a hell of lot of things they can do as long as they break free of thinking that there are things they ought to be doing. Like trying to guess how I think about a situation when what matters is what they think about it and that they have the information about what there.

I get where you're coming from, and I'm not criticizing your play -- it looks like a stellar example of that approach (and likely a great deal of fun for the players). I'm trying, instead, to bring you up to speed on where the discussion is, because you're in a place where you seem to think that your play needs to be explained when almost everyone here has experience with it. What you appear to be lacking is experience in other approaches, which are what is leading to my analysis of your play above. This analysis is not looking for something wrong -- there is nothing wrong -- but instead putting it in the context of the larger whole of approaches. And, yes, when this is done your game is very much about finding out what is in the GM's note. I 100% believe you that you do not prep plots -- these are not the notes I'm talking about -- but you do finely detail the setting. The NPCs have pre-determined attitudes and goals, the locations are keyed, and, I'm assuming, some things are afoot that will happen in a scripted way if no one intervenes. All of this is largely the intent and point of the sandbox approach, with some differences in the exact nature of how they are accomplished (usually small differences and focusing on how things are prepped/presented). Ultimately, though, this approach using the GM as the primary mechanic for resolution -- what does the GM think is appropriate in these cases. This usually gets tagged with "fair" and "impartial" and so forth, but as @pemerton posted above, this is largely spin. Not leveling any accusation of bad faith -- I'm 100% positive there's a lot of good faith here -- but that the reality is that it's a person choosing things according to their conception of the fiction, so "fair" and "impartial" are really just one person's opinion -- it may not be shared at the table.

What happens, though, is that, like with most hobby endeavors, you find that you form a group of like-minded people to play with. This means that the "fair" and "impartial" and even the general approach to games is shared among people with like minds and like tastes. And that leads into a kind of narrowing of vision -- where it's very difficult to tell what's a social agreement part of the game and what's actually the game. These things blur. And, it's difficult to step out of this, even when you're aware of it. You, and this is no negative criticism, seem to have found people that you enjoy gaming with and a style that you enjoy playing it. This is the entire point, and I'm happy. However, you also seem to have a lack of awareness of other approaches, and this means that you're not really evaluating your game in a broad scope of how things can work, but instead only in comparison with nearby styles -- styles that are still, largely, similar to you own. This is what gives rise to your claims that the players have lots of options to choose from because they do compares to a similar game that has a prepped and planned plot. Both games feature the GM as the setting and the GM as the core resolution method (ie, the GM decides is the core mechanic -- the GM decides what happens, or the GM decides to engage which mechanic -- the players do not do this). The difference is whether or not the GM has a planned plot arc that the players are intended to engage in. So, rightly, in this comparison your statement are true. However, if we look to a larger field of styles, the similarities between your approach and, say, a published adventure path are stronger than the similarities between your approach and a game where the players really do drive the action (look to Blades in the Dark as a key example).

That's my point -- not to say you're doing it wrong (if you're having fun you're 100% doing it right!), but to point out that you placement and assumption of freedom isn't as strong as you think it is, if you just broaden the scope of your comparisons.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This usually gets tagged with "fair" and "impartial" and so forth, but as @pemerton posted above, this is largely spin. Not leveling any accusation of bad faith -- I'm 100% positive there's a lot of good faith here -- but that the reality is that it's a person choosing things according to their conception of the fiction, so "fair" and "impartial" are really just one person's opinion -- it may not be shared at the table.

You have the ideal of fairness, and there is subjectivity there, but I think there is a difference between a GM striving for it, and one who doesn't (and I mean genuinely striving for it, which my experience with a GM like Rob is you can sense it at the table). There is also a difference between a GM who succeeds more at achieving that state at the table than one who doesn't (there are GMs who are consistently regarded as more fair than others). Further, having done plenty of competitive sports, even in the sports arena, fairness is often disputed because everyone is investing emotions in outcomes, seeing the event from slightly different points of view, etc. Just because that fairness is not going to be universally agreed upon, is hard to achieve, and perhaps an impossible goal to attain in its 'platonic form', it is still a horizon you can move towards, and again, there is a difference between a referee who strives to be fair in sports and one who simply calls things based on who he wants to win. So a GM, in my view can be more fair, or less fair in a given moment, and when people throw up this argument about how its just 'spin', I just don't think that matches what I have seen through the years. Or at the very least, it dismisses a concept that does actually matter, based on it being more complicated than this GM is fair and that one isn't.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I get where you're coming from, and I'm not criticizing your play -- it looks like a stellar example of that approach (and likely a great deal of fun for the players). I'm trying, instead, to bring you up to speed on where the discussion is, because you're in a place where you seem to think that your play needs to be explained when almost everyone here has experience with it. What you appear to be lacking is experience in other approaches, which are what is leading to my analysis of your play above. This analysis is not looking for something wrong -- there is nothing wrong -- but instead putting it in the context of the larger whole of approaches. And, yes, when this is done your game is very much about finding out what is in the GM's note. I 100% believe you that you do not prep plots -- these are not the notes I'm talking about -- but you do finely detail the setting. The NPCs have pre-determined attitudes and goals, the locations are keyed, and, I'm assuming, some things are afoot that will happen in a scripted way if no one intervenes. All of this is largely the intent and point of the sandbox approach, with some differences in the exact nature of how they are accomplished (usually small differences and focusing on how things are prepped/presented). Ultimately, though, this approach using the GM as the primary mechanic for resolution -- what does the GM think is appropriate in these cases. This usually gets tagged with "fair" and "impartial" and so forth, but as @pemerton posted above, this is largely spin. Not leveling any accusation of bad faith -- I'm 100% positive there's a lot of good faith here -- but that the reality is that it's a person choosing things according to their conception of the fiction, so "fair" and "impartial" are really just one person's opinion -- it may not be shared at the table.

But plenty of us have been in this conversation from the beginning and don't agree with your pronouncements about what the objective reality at the table is.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Both games feature the GM as the setting and the GM as the core resolution method (ie, the GM decides is the core mechanic -- the GM decides what happens, or the GM decides to engage which mechanic -- the players do not do this). The difference is whether or not the GM has a planned plot arc that the players are intended to engage in. So, rightly, in this comparison your statement are true. However, if we look to a larger field of styles, the similarities between your approach and, say, a published adventure path are stronger than the similarities between your approach and a game where the players really do drive the action (look to Blades in the Dark as a key example).

No one is disagreeing that these approaches are different. I mentioned playing HIllfolk, and that couldn't be more different than the kind of game that Rob was running. I think we are disagreeing on what that difference means. I also think within the context of games where GMs are the ref, you can't get much more different than an adventure path and the kind of game Rob runs. In fact, structural issues aside, the end result of a game like Hillfolk and a game like Rob's, is a lot closer in my opinion than the end result of an adventure. In both Hillfolk and in Rob's game, even if there is a starting point, we have no idea where that will lead by the end of the night, the end of the adventure or deep into the campaign (Hillfolk is specifically designed for long term campaign play so it is actually a good game to compare to the kind of campaign Rob runs for this purposes, as his tend to be long term campaigns). Contrast that with an adventure path, where there is a clear outline of what will happen that evening. There is a situational element to Robs games and my games people are missing here, and I think both of us would reject terms like scripted. Yes you are occasionally going to have events in a living world that are meant to unfold like real events (a kingdom going to war, a plague, etc) but neither I nor Rob, in any conversation we've had together or in any game, have dealt with scripted storylines within the setting. Characters and NPCs may have plans, they may want things, but seems to be the starting point more than a narrative thread of events. Even if I do have something planned, like The 87 Killers and the Celestial Plume Masters get into a conflict over the Celestial Plume trade inside Lady 87's territory, I am not going to plan that out as a series of beats. I will know Lady 87's overall strategy, the Celestial Plume's overall strategy, but because there are so many gray areas, I would abstract the conflict into a series of check to see who is gaining territory and losing men, etc. I get that you are saying this is something the GM has generated, I just think scripted is entirely the wrong word for it, and highly misleading one. And in this conversation that is often my objection, the language and terms frame the discussion in a way that I just don't often agree with.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Bedrockgames He's not saying you script plots, in fact he said the opposite. What he is saying is that your style lies closer on the spectrum to a scripted adventure path than it does a play to find approach like you get in a PbtA style game. That analysis is based, IMO, on the existence of GM prep. I suppose that's fair to a point, but personally, from an agency standpoint, I think you game lies closer to PbtA than it does adventure paths. That's probably because I'm reading your examples and style a little differently than @Ovinomancer is.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What happens, though, is that, like with most hobby endeavors, you find that you form a group of like-minded people to play with.

This, I think, misses what is going on (at least in most of my games). Definitely there needs to be some kind of agreement at the table (which is just as true for the kinds of games you are talking about: believe me if you have a staunch anti-story game player at your table, you are going to have problems if GM powers are being distributed among the players in any way). But my games are made up of people who like and play radically different games. We are just reasonable people with one another, and we are good at accepting the concept or conceit of a game and playing it on its own terms. I've mentioned countless times the other games I have played. They haven't been Burning Wheel or Blades in the Dark (though I am literally just waiting for a few more points of credit in my Drivethru account to buy the print and PDF of the book for BitD). But like I said, I have played Hillfolk, I have run essoterrorists, I have Fiasco, etc. All my questions to people about elements of the games that have come up here have been sincere and I haven't attempted to cast them in any kind of negative light (yet I have seen our styles compared to things like dictatorships, or guessing what the GM has in his notes-----neither of those are particularly charitable in my opinion). One GM in our group focuses a lot more on character arcs and drama between characters, and playing those stories out. That isn't how I run games, but I am happy to be in his games and play the way he likes to run them (and its fun). He could easily have run something like the long lost brother scenario Pemerton mentioned, and that wouldn't have been an issue at all. But if he were to play in my sandbox, he wouldn't object to the long lost brother situation yielding a dead brother. I think this has a lot more to do with how people behave in general and at the table. I have never been a sore loser, and the only type of player who has ever bothered me, on either end of the screen, is the sore loser (people who complain because they don't get their way in a game or something bad happens to their character). That doesn't mean there can't be reasonable disagreements over outcomes, but I find good faith, goes a long way towards bridging style gaps. And I find being mature in the face of not getting everything you want out of a game goes a long way too. So I wouldn't say I try to form groups of like minded people. I do try to avoid playing with people who respond to style differences or disagreements in ways I find unreasonable or immature (and honestly I haven't met too many people like in decades of gaming). And I think that can be a problem in either direction

 

[Aldarc]

(yet I have seen our styles compared to things like dictatorships, or guessing what the GM has in his notes-----neither of those are particularly charitable in my opinion).

It was compared to "Enlightened Despotism" or occasionally "Benevolent Despotism," as in the 18th century political philosophy regarding absolute monarchs who pursued reforms inspired by the Enlightenment. "Enlightened Despotism" is the field-appropriate term. "Despot" in this sense is not a "tyrant" or "dictator," which shows a misunderstanding of what I was saying and possibly a lack of historical awareness, which is fine.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Bedrockgames He's not saying you script plots, in fact he said the opposite. What he is saying is that your style lies closer on the spectrum to a scripted adventure path than it does a play to find approach like you get in a PbtA style game. That analysis is based, IMO, on the existence of GM prep. I suppose that's fair to a point, but personally, from an agency standpoint, I think you game lies closer to PbtA than it does adventure paths. That's probably because I'm reading your examples and style a little differently than @Ovinomancer is.

I am objecting to the term scripted, and I am agreeing with your point here: these are not scripted adventures. Keep in mind, both videos we posted were not organically coming out of a typically campaign. The one I was running, was a location in a campaign book I wanted to playtest live as I was developing the basic ideas for it (so it was a dungeon scenario------which in the normal campaign is just a location that could come into play in a variety of ways). When I sit down to prep between sessions there really isn't a sense of 'this is the adventure the players are going on'. The game is too fluid and I am reacting too much to the things the players are doing. It is more like, okay here is what Lady 87 will be planning to do, here is how the Seven Demons respond to players killing twenty of their men, here is where the emperor moved his stash of heart boxes after the players broke into the statue of the bold king, etc. The players may have ongoing conflicts, but those are not adventures. Any 'adventures' are usually things the players just decide they want to do (for example that location I was running with Rob, Elliot, Adam and Deathblade, could arise if players decided they wanted to steal the Passionless Heart Manual----but even then that could play out so many different ways. It would only really come off as a dungeon adventure if they broke in and explored the place to steal it. But they might walk up to the front door and introduce themselves to the leader of the Four Uglies, and have some other plan, that doesn't involve any kind of dungeon exploration at all (because it is living complex that is a sect headquarters).

 

[Fenris-77]

Like I said, no one is using the phrase scripted to describe your game. That would be obviously incorrect.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Bedrockgames He's not saying you script plots, in fact he said the opposite. What he is saying is that your style lies closer on the spectrum to a scripted adventure path than it does a play to find approach like you get in a PbtA style game. That analysis is based, IMO, on the existence of GM prep. I suppose that's fair to a point, but personally, from an agency standpoint, I think you game lies closer to PbtA than it does adventure paths. That's probably because I'm reading your examples and style a little differently than @Ovinomancer is.

My analysis hinges on the core resolution mechanic. In either a scripted plot or in the sandbox approach described, that core resolution mechanic is "GM decides." This puts a hard upper limit on player agency -- outside of action declaration, presumably most character build, and presumably combat, agency is largess by the GM. I'm fully cognizant that a lot of these work really well under a benevolent GM, but from a broader analytical standpoint, it's not a useful approach to delineate analysis by how this or that specific GM uses the established frameworks, but rather looking at the frameworks themselves. As such, there is a very similar amount of player agency in plotted and unplotted GM decides games. I fully grant that there is less in a plotted one, because there, at least, the GM will be constraining action declarations more tightly.

Contrasted to a game where there is no GM decides mechanic, but where the GM is tightly constrained on where and how they can do things, we're into games where the players do possess more agency by a clear and obvious margin -- there are many fewer places where the GM can impose their view by fiat.

NONE of this evaluates whether or not a game is fun or the participants enjoy it.