A Question Of Agency?

[Fenris-77]

This here is the difference I've been trying to get at. You consider being able to make "that" particular choice to be agency. My conception of agency has nothing to do with "that" particular choice. Only that you can make some meaningful choice in "that" particular situation.



Seems you are taking that quite differently than I meant it. I had no concept of controlling success when I was talking about that. I would elaborate more but I don't want this to be the focus.

Frankly, Im not sure what youre driving at either. Lets set aside that particular choice. The specific choice isn't important at all to my definition anyway, it could be any choice so long that its meaningful somehow for the player/character making it.

 

[Campbell]

I will listen, but someone using a specialized vocabulary, particularly the way such vocabularies often get wielded here, does not mean they can teach me something. If see value in what they are saying, when I understand it, sure, I might learn something. But sometimes all the vocabulary does is make communication harder, or even create the impression that someone is talking more sense than they are. There are definitely places and disciplines where specialized vocabulary is required and/or useful. But there are also times when it is counter productive in my view. In a hobby like this one, I find that kind of jargon not terribly helpful. I also think walking around with that kind of model and that kind of jargon can distort your perception of the world rather than clarify it if the model is flawed.

My response would be that you are already utilizing a specialized vocabulary to talk about RPGs. It's just a different one that makes a number of assumptions about what play looks like that you have probably internalized. It's also one I feel does an inadequate job of describing play as it happens at the table, particularly outside of a couple sets of highly specific play priorities.

The framework I'm using is by no means perfect. It absolutely was designed mostly to express and design games with a new set of specific play priorities. It does try to account for your priorities, but describing them was not a significant goal of the project. It did also do a decent job of rediscovering challenge centered play.

We really do not have any comprehensive sort of language to talk about these things. Traditional or mainstream RPG vocabulary is highly specialized. OSR vocabulary is also highly specialized. So are the Forge and post Forge intellectual frameworks some of us are highly steeped in.

We can probably talk about games in the general sense although my instincts point to a significant chunk of RPG players mostly not being interested in playing them as games.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I am checking out of this discussion if we are going to start talking about things like "degenerate play'

I see you're responding to @Campbell here, but I don't see he commented on degenerate play. He did respond to a post of mine where I mentioned it, so I want to clarify.

I mentioned it not as a description of a play style but as an example of bad faith play. I mentioned it in the context of not using an example of bad faith play or bad faith GMing as an example to make a point against a style.

To provide an example of each that has come up in this thread fairly recently, the GM as tyrant and the player who has his character recall that he's friends with God so he can have anything he wants.

These examples are not about a style or agency or anything we've really been talking about. They're hyperbolic examples used to paint an oppositional view in as negative a light as possible.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My response would be that you are already utilizing a specialized vocabulary to talk about RPGs. It's just a different one that makes a number of assumptions about what play looks like that you have probably internalized. It's also one I feel does an inadequate job of describing play as it happens at the table, particularly outside of a couple sets of highly specific play priorities.

I have to get to work on some reading (RPG related) so if this response if my response to your response is slow to come, that is the reason (not ignoring you). I think this is something where we just have several underlying disagreements that will be hard to bridge. But first I would say, you are right we already do have a specialized language in the hobby. Much of that arise organically from the need to address concepts that are unique to the hobby. Some of it, IMO, is frankly more confusing than it is clarifying, but it also is what it is at this point. However I see that as all the more reason to restrain ourselves from constantly coining new language if we don't have to (and it may be there are places where it is needed). Personally I find when I encounter posters who communicate like many of the ones on this thread do (and to be clear, you usually speak in very plain terms, and I don't recall you employing heavy amounts of jargon, so I haven't had much issue communicating with you), I have a very hard time understanding them, even if the terms are explained to me (simply because I haven't internalized the meanings of those terms as much). Another issue is when I examine the terms themselves, or go to a model like GNS to learn more, I find I have a lot of issues with the core assumptions of the model the language comes from.

The framework I'm using is by no means perfect. It absolutely was designed mostly to express and design games with a new set of specific play priorities. It does try to account for your priorities, but describing them was not a significant goal of the project. It did also do a decent job of rediscovering challenge centered play.

this is just my opinion, but it is one formed from years of communicating with people in your camp of the hobby: I don't feel your frame work does a good of accounting for my priorities (in fact I don't even know that an idea like priorities is useful here to be totally honest). I see people telling me what it is they think I am doing, and I don't doubt that is what they believe I am doing, but it doesn't match my experience. And I don't think you and the others are as objective in this pursuit as you think. I used to be a freelance stringer, and I think I understand concepts like objectively analyzing and reporting. And one of the things that leaps out to me is your use of language describing my style. Just look at lines like "There's some lazy engagement with mechanics". That isn't objective. That is the kind of sentence that seems like an objective reporting of what you see but clearly inserts your opinion and the conclusion you want the reader to reach. And this isn't to attack you. You are actually one of the more objective posters. But it is the kind of language that is present in many of the responses. To be clear here, I have no issue with you disliking, disagreeing with, or seeing my style and thinking something is going on that I don't think. But everyone here seems so certain. To me, that level of certainty is usually evidence of bias. It isn't what I expect from someone who is engaged in real objectivity. I think the objective person understands they can be wrong. And if your response is, well Bedrock, you too are certain of your views: the answer is no I am not. I am constantly questioning my own views, which is why I asked for outside opinions on my definition of agency. Because maybe I was wrong all these years about how my segment of the hobby defined that term. What I am is very, very cautious about adopting models, ideologies and conclusions simply because someone is persuasive. I have seen a lot of bad ideas take root, because someone on a forum made a convincing case for something.

We really do not have any comprehensive sort of language to talk about these things. Traditional or mainstream RPG vocabulary is highly specialized. OSR vocabulary is also highly specialized. So are the Forge and post Forge intellectual frameworks some of us are highly steeped in.

One of the things I like about the OSR is it hasn't really embraced an explosion of jargon. There are a major terms that matter, and often there is more than one word for it. What is usually important is the concept more than the language I think. But within the OSR, within the side of the hobby that I am from (and I honestly am not sure the best way to characterize that) my view has always been we should be very slow to build new language (and what language emerges should be honest and organic). Sometimes you have to come up with a term to convey an idea. That is fine. I don't have a big issue with individual writers describing their style in such a way. What I think becomes a problem is parts of the hobby having such specialized langauge, that they are impossible to understand. And I can tell you honestly there are posters here who, because of the jargon they use, I find almost indecipherable.

We can probably talk about games in the general sense although my instincts point to a significant chunk of RPG players mostly not being interested in playing them as games.

I am not sure exactly what this means, but it seems like an interesting point so would you mind clarifying this one ?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I see you're responding to @Campbell here, but I don't see he commented on degenerate play. He did respond to a post of mine where I mentioned it, so I want to clarify.

I mentioned it not as a description of a play style but as an example of bad faith play. I mentioned it in the context of not using an example of bad faith play or bad faith GMing as an example to make a point against a style.

To provide an example of each that has come up in this thread fairly recently, the GM as tyrant and the player who has his character recall that he's friends with God so he can have anything he wants.

These examples are not about a style or agency or anything we've really been talking about. They're hyperbolic examples used to paint an oppositional view in as negative a light as possible.

I understand. I am not trying to to attack you or campbell. I just don't want to see the conversation to get into discussion of degenerate play

 

[FrogReaver]

Frankly, Im not sure what youre driving at either. Lets set aside that particular choice.

The very notion of a particular choice is the difference...

The specific choice isn't important at all to my definition anyway,

I don't claim it is the specific choice you picked that matters, only that you you would view being restricted from making that specific choice as a reduction of agency.

That's not the case in my definition. Being restricted from certain choices doesn't reduce agency as long as their are other meaningful choices you could choose instead.

it could be any choice so long that its meaningful somehow for the player/character making it.

Agreed, but as stated above, that's not what I'm driving at when I bring up the idea of a particular choice mattering in your definition of agency.

I could be wrong about your definition. If I am feel free to correct me.

 

[Campbell]

Quick Clarification : I meant lazy in the sense of lazy evaluation of a function. Meaning delayed until absolutely necessary. I meant no particular judgment in that. As contrasted with active engagement where picking up the dice and engaging with the game's mechanics is an exciting part of play.

I do not aim for objectivity in discussions. I aim for precision. I strive for everyone to know exactly what I mean. We're talking about something incredibly subjective. I could not be objective about it if I tried so I just try to share my perspective as precisely as possible so we can get to the interesting parts of the discussion. I leave it to you to provide for your perspective.

I am software engineer with a business degree working in the medical billing industry. I live and breathe in complex sets of specialized vocabulary. Some of it quite opinionated and do not mind engaging in a robust discussion of opinions.

What I personally eschew is debate and rhetoric. I do not think interesting conversations come from attempting to convince people of things, particular in a debate club format where winning the debate overtakes any sense of intellectual curiosity.

If you think I am mischaracterizing how you play please tell me how.

When I speak about mainstream or traditional play I am not speaking directly to the way you play or even fairly common GM authority structures. Rather my sense of the generalized play culture which I might be wrong about. I find providing an unfiltered perspective often leads to more honest and possibly interesting conversations then not sharing my personal feelings.

 

[Aldarc]

Either in the core book or perhaps Further Afield, the process is one where the players do add detail to rhe surroundings, but at the level of rumour, folklore and myth, which the GM then actualizes. Thanks btw, I was trying to remember where I read that earlier.

Thanks. It's a setting and character creation process that I would like to see ported to other games. It's almost surprising to me that it hasn't. IME, it gives the players both a nice starting sense of place as well as personal investment in the setting. It's also easy for players to create kickers or play agendas from that as well.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Quick Clarification : I meant lazy in the sense of lazy evaluation of a function. Meaning delayed until absolutely necessary. I meant no particular judgment in that. As contrasted with active engagement where picking up the dice and engaging with the game's mechanics is an exciting part of play.

This terminology is not neutral at all is the problem. Just in a vacuum if you have choice between 'lazy evaluation' and 'active engagement' you always pick active engagement. One is an attractive descriptor, the other is an unattractive one.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Quick Clarification : I meant lazy in the sense of lazy evaluation of a function. Meaning delayed until absolutely necessary. I meant no particular judgment in that. As contrasted with active engagement where picking up the dice and engaging with the game's mechanics is an exciting part of play.

If I understand you, here is how I would describe our style: setting and action focused. We being with the flavor, the setting details, and the mechanics are in service to that. The mechanics themselves don't need to be fun or interesting on their own (in fact, if mechanics are a mini-game themselves, we often dislike them). We do like mechanics though. We are looking for smooth, streamlined, easy to deploy mechanics that reflect what is happening in the game and don't interfere with it.