A Question Of Agency?

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer A GM deciding something about the setting or NPC reactions to player actions isn’t removing player agency any more than a GM calling for a roll to determine those things does.

Well, yes, there is. If the GM is unilaterally deciding something, the player has no agency in that decision. If the GM calls for a check, then we need to evaluate the check mechanisms to see if agency is present. Usually, some agency is present in a check, especially if assuming good faith play, but how much is a pointed question.

If the GM sets the stakes, the outcome space, and specifies the particulars of the check (ie, 5e style), then there's little player agency involved. This can be mitigated if the GM negotiates stakes, or has gifted formally the authority to determine skill application (thus engaging build choices) in the rolls, or some other things. These are the formal changes I've made to my 5e game -- I call for the check, yes, but I negotiate the resolution space prior to the roll so the player has the necessary information to understand the ramifications of their action and can choose otherwise, and I only select the ability tested -- the player has authority to apply any relevant proficiency they think works. These are formal -- in that there's a table rules document that establishes this, and it's discussed and made clear often. They aren't against the rules, but they are in addition to them.

Contrast this to a game like Blades in the Dark. Yes, the GM can call for a check, but the player gets to set the success resolution space without regard to the GM. The GM does have some ability to limit that space with the Effect, but has to have clear justification for doing so. And, then, the player has many resources to bring to bear to adjust that limitation, possibly removing it entirely. The GM has authority over the failure resolution space only. What check is made is also entirely up to the player -- the GM has no ability to gainsay how the player chooses to address the situation. This leaves the player with quite a lot of agency -- with clear information on stakes, ability to control part of the resolution space, and the ability to directly control the test used. Not to mention the many player-side resources that can mitigate failures or alter these points of control.

So, no, it's totally incorrect to say that a GM unilaterally deciding something is the same amount of agency for the player as the GM calling for a check.

Your process:
Character Acts -> DM uses fiction to set DC of check (possible adjustments after) -> player rolls and outcome is determined.

Our process:
Character Acts -> DM uses fiction to either (a), (b) or (c)

(a): dm determined fiction would result in success
(b): dm determined fiction would result in failure
(c): dm determines fictional result is uncertain in which case the fiction is used to set the dc and the player rolls and outcome is determined.

there is a process to how resolution works. It’s not simply fiat. It’s also nearly identical to your process.

This is pretty similar to how I run 5e, yes, because that's the way that system's rules say to play. I add a lot of negotiation and limitations to this -- clear stakes, roll in the open, and player picks proficiency -- and these are formalized, so, in my game, there's more agency than in a game running strictly by the rules. This is the thing I've talked about recently, though -- when analyzing a game, you go by the rules, not what someone does at a specific table. That conversation is for how you address the baseline, and you've neatly incapsulated the 5e playloop here. I advocate for this playloop in the 5e forums, so it would be very strange for me not to do so here.

However, this doesn't describe the play loop in PbtA or FitD games. Superficially, (b) doesn't exist, and (c) operates very differently. So, there's a difference, as I note above, in how these resolution systems enable or disable agency when the mechanics are used. It's not at all the same thing as GM fiat when the mechanics are engaged, or, more precisely, it depends on how the system says the GM can deploy the mechanics. In 5e, it's still GM decides, all the way down.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think I was running good games before I started conversing here. I'm pretty sure I had at least started my second campaign by then, and the first campaign was already going well--it looks to me as though the party in the first campaign had just taken the Forge (where the Masked Ones were made) when I started the second campaign. To the extent I'm a better DM now than then, some of it is almost certainly from conscious consideration of these ideas--even in games I've rejected--but some of seems also to be a matter of getting better at a practiced skill. I'm a good deal less analytical when I think about previous sessions, than it seems many of the posters here (as in, this thread) are--but that's plausibly from the same part of my personality that never really thought about theory when I was writing fiction, or never really thought about music theory when I was playing in bands (or, now, when I'm messing around in my MIDI space). I think the time for thinking about gaming processes and preferences is before the need arises, not when, so as not to disrupt the actual gaming; the thinking about things might change a response in-game, but it's not at what I experience as a conscious level.

Yes, I didn't mean to imply you didn't do a good job before, but rather that consideration caused improvement in how feel about your play.

And, yes, I agree, the time to analyze is not during play, but before, so you can establish strong principles to guide your play to the place you enjoy it best. Hopefully you have fellow players that agree, of course!

 

[Ovinomancer]

I recall you have also said that if the language of terms causes more problems than it's worth, then there may be an issue with using such loaded terms. I would argue that this would be the case for "referee." I think that it reflects an older, if not outdated, understanding of the GM's role in such games, coming from a time in its infancy when D&D and roleplaying games were still being sussed out and distinguished from wargames. While a GM and a referee may both arbitrate rules, a referee may still not be the best or even all that handy of a term to describe the process. DCC, for example, uses the term "judge" to describe the role. Apocalypse World uses "Master of Ceremonies (MC)" to describe this role. The "moderator" of an organizational committee would likewise be familiar with the by-laws and interpret them for facilitating meetings.

Yeah, "referee" is not a good term for what a GM (by any title) does, for the reasons you and @hawkeyefan have detailed.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My takeaway is that y’all have decided that a GM using the fiction to make a decision about success or failure is not following a process.

What's the process?

While a GM for your games where the GM uses the fiction to make a decision about the DC of a check is somehow following a process.

That depends on the game, doesn't it?

In Apocalypse World and most of its PbtA branches, there is no DC. The numbers to fail or succeed are static; roll 2d6, on a 6 or less you miss, 7 to 9 is a hit, and 10+ is a strong hit.

For Blades in the Dark, the GM sets the position based on the situation or fictional positioning. There are 3 commonly used positions: Controlled, Risky, or Desperate. So if your PC is going to stab somebody it might be Controlled if you've successfully sneaked up on them, or Risky if you're facing off in a gang fight, or Desperate if his buddy has a hold of your arm. That kind of thing. Usually it's pretty obvious what position to use, and when it's not, the default is Risky. But even then, open negotiation by the players is actively encouraged. That encouragement is explicitly stated.

Anyone want to explain the difference there in relation to “following a process”?

Looking at those two games as examples, I would say that the differences with PbtA are significant. There's no judgment really needed on the part of the GM as far as establishing what's needed for a success; the numbers are set. The player knows their chances to succeed.

For Blades, there is GM judgment needed, but it's all very transparent and is also explicitly negotiable. The Position is established before the player has to commit to a roll, so they know what their chances are, and how much risk is involved. The three positions make sense, and the limit in number allows for more consistency in interpretation and application.

For a game like 5E, the DCs range from 10 to 30 or more. That's far more than 3 buckets when compared to Blades. The DC is also based on situation/fictional positioning, so that is similar. But that larger scale leaves a lot more wiggle room for inconsistencies. Then there's the question of if the DC is even shared with the PC. Hell, sometimes a GM in a game like 5E will ask the player to make a roll and not even tell them what for! The game leaves the question of how player facing all this is up to the GM. The players may be totally in the dark about any or all of it.

Haven't we all seen examples along the lines of the below?

GM: Hey, Mike, give me a roll for Gor.
Mike: Oh boy....what kind of roll?
GM: Don't worry about that for now....just a d20.
Mike: Okay....ugh, now I'm nervous. Something's going on. (Rolls a d20) I got a 17!
GM: Okay, cool.
Mike: What happens? Do I notice something?
GM: Nothing as far as you can tell. What do you want to do?

I've seen that kind of thing all the time.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My takeaway is that y’all have decided that a GM using the fiction to make a decision about success or failure is not following a process.

Your takeaway is incorrect. The idea is that by following this process, the GM is exercising agency and the player is not.

I follow this exact process when I run 5e so it would be incredibly strange to say that I think I'm not following a process.

While a GM for your games where the GM uses the fiction to make a decision about the DC of a check is somehow following a process.

When I run 5e, absolutely. When I run Blades, kinda. I set the position by the current fiction, but that's not at all analogous to the DC, but rather a framing of the risks -- it indicates the severity of consequences if the action is failed. The "DC" is entirely up to the player, by dint of what action they choose to undertake. This is because success thresholds are fixed and the player gets to choose how many dice are applied by their choice of action.

Both have the GM using judgement of the fiction to set, though, so this isn't the point of contention you think it is. That exists further downstream.

Anyone want to explain the difference there in relation to “following a process”?

They're different processes. I mean, didn't you bring up earlier the difference between following a recipe for a casserole and following a recipe for a pie? Different processes have different inputs and outcomes. Just having a process isn't a point of similarity.

 

[robconley]

It's worth pointing out again that no one is accusing you @Bedrockgames or @estar of being a bad person, a bad/unfair GM, a bad player, or having badwrong game preferences. @Ovinomancer, for example, has gone to great and admirable lengths to repeatedly reaffirm that your games are a valid and fun playstyle, as well as being one that he partakes in as well for his own enjoyment. The point is simply to highlight some salient places in the various games' mechanical or GM-player power structure where the player's agency is more restricted than what are found in other games.

Well putting aside the whole "no this is what really happening with you" vibe of the responses, it all good.

I did notice something about your phrasing about the issue that may clarify the disagreement

where the player's agency is more restricted than what are found in other games.

We been talking about games that require a small group of individuals to play. In traditional tabletop there a referee and the players.
It seem that the way you put it and not looking back at the other posts like @Ovinomancer that we are not talking about the same thing.

I focus on "players as their character" agency. My points only make sense if you realize that players in my campaigns can only do what their character can do, know what their character.

You and other are talking about the agency of people participating in a small group activity. In traditional tabletop campaigns these are very different roles with different responsibilities.

Now I been playing tabletop for over 40 years. I tried just about every type of RPG out there multiple times. I played the first glimmers of what many games try to do like Whismy. Played Fate, played Blades in the Dark.

My opinion while fun they don't try to do the same thing as traditional tabletop campaigns. At least mine. Over the past two decades a class of games have arose that resolves around collaborative storytelling using a system of rules. In these games to be collaborative, the responsibilities are allocated different. What the participants can do by the system is allocated different. While this can be picked apart in general my experience with the games I played within this class that the overall theme is all the participants are allocated some or all of the creative responsibilities that were consider part of the responsibilities of a referee in a traditional campaign. The nuances of this ability is found in the specific system being used whether it Fate, PbtA, or BitD.

So by that definition you, @Ovinomancer, and other are correct.

But not relevant to what I do. I focus on techniques that increase the agency of the player while under the limits of what their character know and can do. If you were join one of my campaigns, I would now say to you. Will you have fun being limited only to what your character can do within the setting and what your character knows about the setting?

The basic challenge of my campaign since I was 15 years old how far can you go in the setting as your character. Giving them carte blanche to "trash" my setting in the pursuit of glory or whatever goal they set for themselves. One player in a early campaign goal was set up a secret cable of evil wizards. Another liked being the long-lost heir of a throne on a quest to win his father's throne back from the usurpers. All of this was started with "OK here your character, here where you start, how you go about this."

Back then I thought more of it as a really flexible and expansive wargaming scenario. Then morphed to a focus on roleplaying and immersion by the late 80s. And finally over the 90s, after realizing that people playing a version of themselves with the abilities of their character worked out just as well, focused more on bringing the setting to life in a way that player had a wealth of choices to pursue. To the present day where I realized what defines my campaigns was how the setting was described not the system I used. That if the system conflicted with how the setting was described, I altered the system to conform not the other way around which is the common case.

But I still held on to earlier goal (except I wasn't so anal about the immersion part any more). So player still get to try to "trash" my setting in a way they find fun.

So what about player agency in general
I will be straight with you. After trying them, I dislike fate (but not fudge), I dislike PbtA games, I intensely dislike Blades in the Dark. The basic issue I have is that their distinctive mechanics are a distraction from what I do as a player (I immerse myself in my character) and are overly fussy for what I do as a referee.

To expand the latter, I don't need a set of rules to have a player create stuff for my campaign. If somebody has a suggestion we talk about it and if it sound good we incorporate it. Like I said earlier, even after four decades my description of the Majestic Wilderlands is incomplete. There room for more and player pitch in material both for the setting and their character all the time. If it sounds good but sound implausible for the current campaign, then I will throw into the next campaign I run in the setting.

For those who know me, know that I have a strong passion for creating content to be shared under an open license. Among friends I am even more liberal and had friends reuse material from campaigns all the time. Mostly it just a specific detail they like something it more expansive.

While I am the referee, outside of the session, I am just one friend among a group. Everybody opinion is considered and incorporated about the setting and rules of campaigns I run as it is in Fate, Blades in the Dark, etc. It governed by the rules of good sportmanship, good manners, and by not being a dick about it. I consider it more flexible because as long as we have the time or interest, anything happen.

For example in the 90s, we were bullshitting about my campaigns with them. We are talking about Ars Magica and other RPGs of the time. "One goes hey Rob what would be like to live as a magic-user in the Wilderlands". I said mmmm, well we got X, Y, and Z but we don't really know do we? Everything thought it was a good idea to run a GURPS campaign where everybody played a mage that is a member of the Order of Thoth. From that the background of magic expanded enormously for my setting.

Then we did the Thieves Guild
Then the City Guard
Where everybody was nobody living in a neighborhood in the City-State of the Invincible Overlord to see what life was like for regular folks.
Hint: They drop blankets on a vampire, douse it with holy water and proceed to blanket beat it as a mob with furniture, clubs, pots, and pans.

When I start a campaign with my oldest players who are familiar with the setting they invariably pick where the campaign will start because it some place or aspect of society they haven't experienced before. I am running a D&D 5e campaign centered around the City-State of Lenap because one of the players was so taken with how corrupt I portrayed the city in the previous campaign so wanted to play a campaign set in that region.

So player agency as defined by you and other in this thread exists in my campaigns. Just not executed in the same way as it is with Fate and similar system. And I would argue that approach is far more flexible because it not bound by a system where ability to change or create things is rationed or follows a formal procedure.

Hope that clarifies why continue to disagree about some of the points being made, and why I do the things I do.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well putting aside the whole "no this is what really happening with you" vibe of the responses, it all good.

I did notice something about your phrasing about the issue that may clarify the disagreement



We been talking about games that require a small group of individuals to play. In traditional tabletop there a referee and the players.
It seem that the way you put it and not looking back at the other posts like @Ovinomancer that we are not talking about the same thing.

I focus on "players as their character" agency. My points only make sense if you realize that players in my campaigns can only do what their character can do, know what their character.

You and other are talking about the agency of people participating in a small group activity. In traditional tabletop campaigns these are very different roles with different responsibilities.

Now I been playing tabletop for over 40 years. I tried just about every type of RPG out there multiple times. I played the first glimmers of what many games try to do like Whismy. Played Fate, played Blades in the Dark.

My opinion while fun they don't try to do the same thing as traditional tabletop campaigns. At least mine. Over the past two decades a class of games have arose that resolves around collaborative storytelling using a system of rules. In these games to be collaborative, the responsibilities are allocated different. What the participants can do by the system is allocated different. While this can be picked apart in general my experience with the games I played within this class that the overall theme is all the participants are allocated some or all of the creative responsibilities that were consider part of the responsibilities of a referee in a traditional campaign. The nuances of this ability is found in the specific system being used whether it Fate, PbtA, or BitD.

So by that definition you, @Ovinomancer, and other are correct.

But not relevant to what I do. I focus on techniques that increase the agency of the player while under the limits of what their character know and can do. If you were join one of my campaigns, I would now say to you. Will you have fun being limited only to what your character can do within the setting and what your character knows about the setting?

The basic challenge of my campaign since I was 15 years old how far can you go in the setting as your character. Giving them carte blanche to "trash" my setting in the pursuit of glory or whatever goal they set for themselves. One player in a early campaign goal was set up a secret cable of evil wizards. Another liked being the long-lost heir of a throne on a quest to win his father's throne back from the usurpers. All of this was started with "OK here your character, here where you start, how you go about this."

Back then I thought more of it as a really flexible and expansive wargaming scenario. Then morphed to a focus on roleplaying and immersion by the late 80s. And finally over the 90s, after realizing that people playing a version of themselves with the abilities of their character worked out just as well, focused more on bringing the setting to life in a way that player had a wealth of choices to pursue. To the present day where I realized what defines my campaigns was how the setting was described not the system I used. That if the system conflicted with how the setting was described, I altered the system to conform not the other way around which is the common case.

But I still held on to earlier goal (except I wasn't so anal about the immersion part any more). So player still get to try to "trash" my setting in a way they find fun.

So what about player agency in general
I will be straight with you. After trying them, I dislike fate (but not fudge), I dislike PbtA games, I intensely dislike Blades in the Dark. The basic issue I have is that their distinctive mechanics are a distraction from what I do as a player (I immerse myself in my character) and are overly fussy for what I do as a referee.

To expand the latter, I don't need a set of rules to have a player create stuff for my campaign. If somebody has a suggestion we talk about it and if it sound good we incorporate it. Like I said earlier, even after four decades my description of the Majestic Wilderlands is incomplete. There room for more and player pitch in material both for the setting and their character all the time. If it sounds good but sound implausible for the current campaign, then I will throw into the next campaign I run in the setting.

For those who know me, know that I have a strong passion for creating content to be shared under an open license. Among friends I am even more liberal and had friends reuse material from campaigns all the time. Mostly it just a specific detail they like something it more expansive.

While I am the referee, outside of the session, I am just one friend among a group. Everybody opinion is considered and incorporated about the setting and rules of campaigns I run as it is in Fate, Blades in the Dark, etc. It governed by the rules of good sportmanship, good manners, and by not being a dick about it. I consider it more flexible because as long as we have the time or interest, anything happen.

For example in the 90s, we were bullshitting about my campaigns with them. We are talking about Ars Magica and other RPGs of the time. "One goes hey Rob what would be like to live as a magic-user in the Wilderlands". I said mmmm, well we got X, Y, and Z but we don't really know do we? Everything thought it was a good idea to run a GURPS campaign where everybody played a mage that is a member of the Order of Thoth. From that the background of magic expanded enormously for my setting.

Then we did the Thieves Guild
Then the City Guard
Where everybody was nobody living in a neighborhood in the City-State of the Invincible Overlord to see what life was like for regular folks.
Hint: They drop blankets on a vampire, douse it with holy water and proceed to blanket beat it as a mob with furniture, clubs, pots, and pans.

When I start a campaign with my oldest players who are familiar with the setting they invariably pick where the campaign will start because it some place or aspect of society they haven't experienced before. I am running a D&D 5e campaign centered around the City-State of Lenap because one of the players was so taken with how corrupt I portrayed the city in the previous campaign so wanted to play a campaign set in that region.

So player agency as defined by you and other in this thread exists in my campaigns. Just not executed in the same way as it is with Fate and similar system. And I would argue that approach is far more flexible because it not bound by a system where ability to change or create things is rationed or follows a formal procedure.

Hope that clarifies why continue to disagree about some of the points being made, and why I do the things I do.

I submit that it is very relevant. You've closed off agency by restricting the discussion, when, in reality, you are doing something social with a small group of people. By dint of reducing the scope, you've eliminated entire kinds of RPGs from discussion -- ones that do not so limit the scope. As a point of reference, yours is only valid within a subset of games. The other evaluates all games. However, agency, in and of itself, isn't not a good -- it's a point of reference only, and how it is valued is related to many other things and personal preference. More or less agency isn't a value statement, it's an observation that, with other things, can allow an individual to deploy their preferences more accurately and make their own value statement. For example, I play and enjoy 5e, so for me acknowledging it has less agency than other games I might play is not indicative of my valuing of the game. I don't really like FATE, but it has more agency than 5e, so that more agency is not really indicative of my valuing of that game, either.

The point of my responses to you wasn't to tell you how to think, but to bring you up to speed on the position of the discussion in the thread. So long as you continued with explaining how you use agency, there was going to be no progress unless you were contrasting that to the way it's being used in the thread. I'm glad we've reached that understanding, and I think you're game sounds like a serious labor of love that's well enjoyed by those that participate.

That said, the kind of agency you're describing is pretty much the baseline for an RPG -- the ability to play-act your character or declare actions for your character is the default position. It's present most everywhere, and where it isn't, it's exceedingly obvious -- you don't have to search for the difference. It is limiting, though, in that the player can only ever express their character within the confines of the GM's chosen setting constraints. However, games are designed intentionally with such limits so that they can do other things -- it would be silly to propose a game where you deal with the mortality of man but you can create potions of youth easily. So, limits have great functions in games. Noting a limit isn't a criticism of that game, it's observational only.

 

[FrogReaver]

Your takeaway is incorrect. The idea is that by following this process, the GM is exercising agency and the player is not.

I follow this exact process when I run 5e so it would be incredibly strange to say that I think I'm not following a process.

When I run 5e, absolutely. When I run Blades, kinda. I set the position by the current fiction, but that's not at all analogous to the DC, but rather a framing of the risks -- it indicates the severity of consequences if the action is failed. The "DC" is entirely up to the player, by dint of what action they choose to undertake. This is because success thresholds are fixed and the player gets to choose how many dice are applied by their choice of action.

Both have the GM using judgement of the fiction to set, though, so this isn't the point of contention you think it is. That exists further downstream.

They're different processes. I mean, didn't you bring up earlier the difference between following a recipe for a casserole and following a recipe for a pie? Different processes have different inputs and outcomes. Just having a process isn't a point of similarity.

You seemed to have been saying that 5e dming was fiat because it didn’t follow a process.

if that’s not the case then what makes you consider 5e dming to be fiat?

 

[FrogReaver]

It is limiting, though, in that the player can only ever express their character within the confines of the GM's chosen setting constraints. However, games are designed intentionally with such limits so that they can do other things -- it would be silly to propose a game where you deal with the mortality of man but you can create potions of youth easily. So, limits have great functions in games. Noting a limit isn't a criticism of that game, it's observational only.

This criticism applies to every RPG ever made?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I recall you have also said that if the language of terms causes more problems than it's worth, then there may be an issue with using such loaded terms. I would argue that this would be the case for "referee." I think that it reflects an older, if not outdated, understanding of the GM's role in such games, coming from a time in its infancy when D&D and roleplaying games were still being sussed out and distinguished from wargames. While a GM and a referee may both arbitrate rules, a referee may still not be the best or even all that handy of a term to describe the process. DCC, for example, uses the term "judge" to describe the role. Apocalypse World uses "Master of Ceremonies (MC)" to describe this role. The "moderator" of an organizational committee would likewise be familiar with the by-laws and interpret them for facilitating meetings.

That isn't exactly what I said. But I am not sure what I said applies in this case, as neither I, Estar or Frogreaver are trying to tell you to use the term referee or imbue it with any kind of meaning that would nullify your use of the term agency (My issue with a lot of the language getting thrown around was the language seemed selected for its rhetorical power in the discussion). Here I think the use of referee is clarifying what Estar means. I don't actually use the term referee that much. In fact, I usually just say game master. And if people ask about what I think the role of the GM is, I would say a facilitator (and that isn't prescriptive, that is simply how I view my role as GM-----there are other ways to view it). When Estar invokes Referee, I immediately get a sense of what he means. I understand he is emphasizing things like the importance of making fair, impartial rulings, and I also understand he is referencing a more old school conception of the role (which is important if you want to understand what Estar is going for).

That said I have no objection to other titles being used. I think that is a longstanding thing in RPGs. In D&D it is Dungeon Master. The generic term is Gamemaster. But games, for flavor and philosophy pick other labels. Master of Ceremonies seems fine to me if that fits the focus of GMing a game like that.

I think where use of language gets bad is when you tell Estar, he can't use referee because its different from a sports referee, or if I tell you, you can't use Master of Ceremonies because that is a whole other kind of thing than RPGs. I think we all get that these are both involved because they point to something, and they are even a little playful and flavorful, to help get you in the right mind space for what you are about to be doing.