A Question Of Agency?

[Bedrockgames]

I think Blades would run just fine with the GM determining all those setting details if the players chose not to offer any suggestions. There's certainly nothing that requires players to contribute to that kind of thing. That probably does come up more in some of the more PC centered elements.

One of the guiding principles is for the GM to ask questions of the players about their characters. So if you have a Whisper PC (the kind of wizard or spellcaster class of the setting) and that character uses their ability to Attune to the Ghost Field (the setting's spirit realm which exists alongside the material world) the GM should ask the player what that looks like, and how it works. The mechanics are clear, but the specifics are up to the group to decide.

And I've found that starting point for player input is often a nice first step toward more, and that players become more willing to contribute ideas for the setting in broader ways. That smaller PC centric stuff works as an example of how that kind of input can work, and that it doesn't cause the whole setting to come crashing down. This is just another way in which I think this game promotes agency on the part of the players.

I really appreciate these responses on Blades in the Dark. This is the quite helpful. Hopefully I will get to check it out sometime this month

 

[Fenris-77]

You 5 or 6 are the only handful that I've ever seen define it the way you are. I'm sure there's more but I think that's the experience with most of us.

And it's not that we are rejecting what you call agency as being the correct definition because we aren't thinking through implications, it's really that you are describing something totally different than what we've ever used or heard the term used for. At best that makes 2 different definitions of agency and if that's the case the issue is the lack of acknowledgement on your side of that.

The difficulty always lies in connecting the way I talk with what someone else is saying. I've tried pretty hard in this thread to keep the jargon to a minimum. It becomes an issue when you use it and just kind of expect everyone else to know precisely what you mean, which we can see in this thread isn't how that works at all.

One of the reasons @Manbearcat and I were talking about an agency matrix was to help unpack the idea little, to look at the different ways agency appears in RPGs and is either fostered or constrained, whether it be by convention, mechanics, or something else. Something we could all look at and say oh yeah that there, that's what I meant when I said agency. For me at least it has nothing to do with my definition versus someone else's, I don't care to dicker over definitions like that, it's about trying to figure out how we can all talk about the same thing without kicking each other in the nuts over perceived sleights.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I honestly think it mostly has to do with the expected division of responsibility. It’s simply what the predominant game has conditioned people to expect.

When I suggested reducing or limiting GM power, a common counterpoint was that I didn’t trust the GM.

But I feel like that trust needs to go both ways. Do folks who want to keep most responsibility with the GM not trust the players? It kind of seems so....they always assume players will use any and all power they have to reduce risk and overcome obstacles with no challenge.

This seems to me an artifact of one mode of play that gets applied across many modes.

I mean, one would think that responsibility and power being distributed a little more would promote trust because there’d be less ability to actually abuse the power, as well as less need to do so and less desire.

Right, and 'contempt' is probably a bit harsh of me, but there is certainly a strong conceptual bias towards not just rejecting the proposition that other modes of play simply add something to the game, but even an insistence on redefining terminology and related analytical tools in such a way as to produce a specific result. I hate to say that this hugely reminds me of a lot which is going on in the outside world now. I don't think drawing such a parallel is necessarily wise, but OTOH it seems like a similar sort of human cognitive/social process is involved! People can build world views with almost arbitrary relation to 'how things are'. Anyway, there are also points made on each side which are useful/valid and can add to the discussion, at least up to a point.

I think my response to @Manbearcat's call for play experience is to kind of wonder if maybe we could build a kind of 'decision tree framework' that would elucidate some of the different process choices, preferences, desired outcomes, and thus techniques and elements which would harmonize with those desires. Do we know enough to do something like that? Would it be valuable? I can envisage a kind of 'road map' that would narrow choices down to general techniques, and then even further to specific implementations. A further layer would then be to establish what agendas, principles, and overall game 'decision loops' might best support specific combinations (and identify what appear to be incoherent combinations, and maybe highlight how they could be rationalized).

I guess that would amount to a handbook on RPG design in the end, lol.

 

[FrogReaver]

The difficulty always lies in connecting the way I talk with what someone else is saying. I've tried pretty hard in this thread to keep the jargon to a minimum. It becomes an issue when you use it and just kind of expect everyone else to know precisely what you mean, which we can see in this thread isn't how that works at all.

One of the reasons @Manbearcat and I were talking about an agency matrix was to help unpack the idea little, to look at the different ways agency appears in RPGs and is either fostered or constrained, whether it be by convention, mechanics, or something else. Something we could all look at and say oh yeah that there, that's what I meant when I said agency. For me at least it has nothing to do with my definition versus someone else's, I don't care to dicker over definitions like that, it's about trying to figure out how we can all talk about the same thing without kicking each other in the nuts over perceived sleights.

lol.

I was on board with the matrix idea as it will help me talk about my games in your terminology better.

But even then I think the real culprit is two totally incompatible definitions of agency and so holding up your definition as the definition is nearly always going to be perceived as a slight.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't think the two definitions are mutually incompatible really, just coming from very different angles and directions, which makes them hard to reconcile. The lack of shared vocabulary has also complicated things.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The jargon you've seen in this thread isn't even remotely a case of PbtA players making up words to describe what they're doing. There's an established enough body of research and writing into RPGs that a vocabulary has developed to talk about the moving parts. You might not be familiar with that vocabulary, which is fine, but tossing it aside as something someone made up in order to be gatekeep-y betrays some significant misapprehension on your part.

And I am not tossing it aside, and I am not saying it was invented by PbtA players. And I am less versed in it than you are (I am not steeped in things like GNS theory, though I am familiar with them for example). But consider also what it feels like to have a highly specialized vocabulary (that comes with many playstyle assumptions of its own) imposed on you in a conversation like this.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that players who are used to having to fight the GM for everything, when presented with a game situation where they have more ... agency (mechanical or social--I'm talking about practical agency, here, not theoretical) might overreach in the direction of making things easy for their PCs, but that's not a matter of their being abusive, IMO. It's plausible that a given GM or player more used to a more top-down gaming structure might not see it that way, and might lean harder into giving the players less agency--I think some of this shows up when you see a GM (presumably on the inexperienced side) talking about the players "ignoring my plot" or similar; or, more likely, after the event in question, that GM takes to railroading harder to get their precious plot (purchased or self-written) into the game. Clearly this is not what @estar and @Bedrockgames are doing or talking about in the games they run.

Yes, I think you're close to my thinking on this.

I get the sandbox approach those guys are describing, and I agree, there's not a script or anything like that. I do agree that this grants more agency than let's say something like adventure path play.

But I think these are degrees, right? So is there another degree? Does that degree involve players having some authority typically held for the GM? If so, how and why?

And I think a major area you're touching upon is why we may see the trends in the first place, and why we may see resistance to any questioning of those trends. Yes, players who have limited agency may leap wildly at any possible opening to express their agency. And this may cause issues because they don't yet know how to handle that responsibility. You don't give a kid who just got his learner's permit the keys to an 18 wheeler with 12 gears and say "bring her back in one piece, you hear?"

 

[robconley]

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.

Really? That how my point is going to be dismissed? Because I choose to deal with the issue being raised in this thread by having the group talk about and more importantly establishing an atmosphere where everybody feel comfortable pitching in.

By dint of reducing the scope, you've eliminated entire kinds of RPGs from discussion -- ones that do not so limit the scope.

Definitions and philosophy aside let's talk specifics. In your mind what I or any other participant are able to do that my take doesn't offer? What agency they have?

For example under my approach,

Player A: "Hey wouldn't be cool to have a campaign where everybody is part of a temple?"
Me: "Yeah that sound cool. Everybody good with that"
Group: "Yeah that sound fun."
Me (to Player A): "Do you have any ideas on what kind of religion the temple is part of?"
Player A (and Group): Have a discussion about which religion I have in my setting would be fun to roleplay. Settles on the Goddess of Justice.
Me (to Group): "OK here the material I have currently on Delaquain. It a bit thin in these area especially on temple life. If you have any ideas this a good time pitch them."
Player A and C: "We have some idea, we will work on it over the week and get with the group to see if it works out."
Me and the Group: "Sounds good"

Following that we hash out those details and then the players generates characters and their background. I answer any questions they may have. I in turn will generate the specifics of life around the temple incorporating the details the player come up with along with my own ideas. Then after the backgrounds are done, I incorporate those details.

Then the next session we start playing and I describe the initial circumstance and we go from there using the process I described in earlier
posts on this thread. Incorporating feedback from the players and the group along the way.

The "product" of doing things this way is some background on the setting, background on main locale the temple, background on the religion, and each of the character background which will have elements involving temple and religion and elements that involve the larger setting.

Contrast this with an example of the other approaches you talk about. If it helps it doesn't have to involve character centered around a temple.

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.

If I wasn't clear I get that. The issue I have is that traditional roleplaying have less agency when it comes to actual play. That the point I am disputing. To be clear, my contention both have it, it achieved in different ways. That the way the games you mentioned handle work better for a sizeable segment of our hobby. Enough that it now it own niche. That both are subject to the vagaries of small group dynamics. To points like "fairness", "impartiality", "sportsmanship", etc are equal important to both. Finally that system can't fix this.

But to resolve this debate we are at the point where we need to talk specifics. What people do in actual situations. Then we look at their behavior and see how it work with my thesis or yours.

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.

I disagree that my approach is the baseline. I get a lot of pushback on many of my points on sandbox play from traditional roleplayers. The baseline is the use of the tournament style adventure. It gotten better but the general expectation still appears to be that it is polite to stick to the adventure that the referee has chosen. Time and time again, I have to tell players do what your character would do, don't worry about what I have prepared. Sounds like I am not the only one that needs to get up to speed.

It is limiting, though, in that the player can only ever express their character within the confines of the GM's chosen setting constraints.

Is real life is limiting because we are bounded by the laws of physics? Yet people seemly achieve many things despite that.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think the two definitions are mutually incompatible really, just coming from very different angles and directions, which makes them hard to reconcile. The lack of shared vocabulary has also complicated things.

That’s where I started at as well. But the more a critically think about what I mean and have heard meant by agency it’s looking more and more to be incompatible.

there’s a notion in your agency of the ability to do X and that by not having that ability you lack agency over X. That’s not even a valid premise in my agency. My Agency is about having meaningful choices in a situation.

 

[Fenris-77]

And I am not tossing it aside, and I am not saying it was invented by PbtA players. And I am less versed in it than you are (I am not steeped in things like GNS theory, though I am familiar with them for example). But consider also what it feels like to have a highly specialized vocabulary (that comes with many playstyle assumptions of its own) imposed on you in a conversation like this.

Me? GNS?! You take that back! Seriously, I'm the last guy to impose jargon, I'm just using the most precise words I have for the thing I'm talking about. I can't speak for anyone else of course. My goal in this thread was to try and get everyone on the same page and sharing at least a provisional definition or framework for the thing we are all here to discuss. That has proven ... difficult. It's still a worthwhile goal though.