A Question Of Agency?

[AbdulAlhazred]

@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.

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.

I think the key difference really lies in the principles and agenda of the GM. When a GM is @Ovinomancer's 'enlightened despot' they are operating on a set of principles in which the GM fundamentally sets the agenda (possibly indulging the players), directs all options by way of determining all the fiction (again indulgence being possible) and plays to whatever ends they see fit.

In a game like Dungeon World all of this is spelled out, hardcoded within the rules of the game. The agenda and principles explicitly, and in this type of game basically invariably (or why play one), describe this agenda as centered around player-originated concerns.

So, in an idealized classical sandbox, for example, presumably the players agree to play the game to start with, so there's some (unspecified) level of agreement on genre/setting/tone/format. Beyond that everything goes through the GM, who may (or not) determine the starting position based on player interest/input, decide more or less what PCs backgrounds and other attributes might be, etc. (again there is some presumed acquiescence, maybe the GM even solicits input, but this is again unspecified). From there all action takes place against a setting and fiction which is always narrated and dictated by the GM in all cases, aside from PC actions. The principles and objectives by which the fiction evolves are, again, all unspoken. At best we can presume they aim to be fun.

In the idealized Dungeon World game, the participants sit down for session zero with a blank slate. DW assumes a certain genre/milieu (basically a D&D-type world) but beyond that it is clean sheet. The players write up PCs, ask questions, answer GM questions, generate bonds, etc. The GM follows an explicit set of principles in which the starting scene is going to be "in the middle of the action", that it will be consistent with the fiction established before the scene is played out, and that the other principles of play will be followed, which all direct the GM to focus on the PCs and frame scenes which put them on the spot and give them a chance to be awesome, engaging with elements derived substantially from player responses to questions, hints, descriptions, etc. After the first session the GM will then go back, create a map with holes in it, and at least a single adventure front (some sort of threatening force/circumstance which is pitted against the PC's established interests). Again according to the principles of engaging the player's indicated interests, etc.

This is the difference between narrative play and any other sort. All the other sorts, AFAIK, that we have discussed, don't include this kind of defined agenda and principles. They all share the characteristic of a Game Master as the central determining factor in play. To put this in thread context, in a narrative play game the players are 'in the drivers seat' and the GM is fundamentally serving up what they need.

Maybe the best analogy is the school cafeteria. Classic D&D is kinda like that, if its pizza day, well, you get pizza. You can skip lunch, maybe you can get a hot dog instead, but there's a menu that is on offer.

 

[Lanefan]

Then I do not think it is really useful to talk about that activity as a game.

Why on earth not?

Playing in the moment without thought for or of anything bigger is every bit as much playing the game as is going in with long-term plans for your character's story and-or dramatic arc.

I've run PCs in the past who were just like this: all they cared about was the immediate here-and-now. Put opponents in front of me to chop down, give me my share of the loot afterwards so I can go fill myself with ale, and who cares about anything else. Other people can do the planning; and if nobody does then we'll just wander around until something bothers us, and go from there.

How is this not a game? Further, how is this not roleplaying?

 

[Campbell]

Why on earth not?

Playing in the moment without thought for or of anything bigger is every bit as much playing the game as is going in with long-term plans for your character's story and-or dramatic arc.

I've run PCs in the past who were just like this: all they cared about was the immediate here-and-now. Put opponents in front of me to chop down, give me my share of the loot afterwards so I can go fill myself with ale, and who cares about anything else. Other people can do the planning; and if nobody does then we'll just wander around until something bothers us, and go from there.

How is this not a game? Further, how is this not roleplaying?

It's definitely roleplaying.

What makes a game a game in my estimation is that games have objectives and conflict or obstacles to overcome. Games can be played more or less skillfully. Like I can say based on your play you played Apocalypse World well. I can also say you made a poor showing of it when you played D&D. Same for Burning Wheel. Same for Poker. Same for chess.

I should clarify that I am talking about the player here and getting treasure or making moves in Apocalypse World is just as valid as a character's long term plans here. Ideally the more character and player are in simpatico the better, but it's not like required.

 

[Fenris-77]

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


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.


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.

I am confused. As far as I can tell we are complete agreement about this. I don't think I'm going to spend any more time trying to convince you that we aren't arguing here. We good.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I do this kind of thing all the time, for one of two reasons:

--- it's a false roll, to help disguise real rolls. Whether there's something to be nervous about or not, Mike's "now I'm nervous" reaction above is exactly what I want.
--- there's something going on that the PC, and by extension player, is as yet unaware of; and on a poor roll (which 17 would be: in my game lower is better for things like knowledge or perception) I want to keep it that way.

I make no apologies for this.

Nor should you! It’s perfectly fine to play that way.

I was speaking about that kind of thing through the lens of player agency and how different games establish that through the way checks are made, and the way GM judgment is involved in those checks.

And this example was of a game that isn’t as concerned about agency. Or at least, is not worried about it as a part of this process.

 

[Ovinomancer]

With regards to agency, we can make a comparison that should ring pretty true by using popular video games. Look at Minecraft. The very concept of the game is that there are few limits on what the player can do in the game. There's very little "game" there, really, in that goals are entirely player set. There is an end, kinda-sorta, but it's not required to fully enjoy the game nor does the game finish when you reach it (in fact, a lot of the game exists past the "end"). Minecraft is high agency for video games.

Contrast this with Doom Eternal. You're on rails -- you will do the story in the order it is presented. You will follow the hallways. You will fight these creatures. You will accomplish these tasks to progress. Etc. You have a lot of leeway on tactics -- the specific hows you kill monsters -- but very little other agency. Doom Eternal is a low-agency game.

Which is more fun to play?

 

[Fenris-77]

Nor should you! It’s perfectly fine to play that way.

I was speaking about that kind of thing through the lens of player agency and how different games establish that through the way checks are made, and the way GM judgment is involved in those checks.

And this example was of a game that isn’t as concerned about agency. Or at least, is not worried about it as a part of this process.

I think the need for secret rolls, and thus for fake secret rolls is a very interesting topic vis a vis agency in general.

 

[pemerton]

@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.

I don't believe anyone but you has used the verb remove. Because of course one can't remove what another doesn't have. The phrase I would use, which I believe is pretty consistent with @Ovinomancer's posts, is permits less agency than other approaches might.

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.

Given that both @Ovinomancer and I have described it as a resolution technique, I'm not sure where this is coming from.

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.

But the processes are not nearly identical. Yours includes steps (a) and (b) which are unilateral exercises of GM authority. Which is the entire basis for the suggestion that adopting a different process may permit more player agency!

 

[Campbell]

I am currently a player in friend's Vampire game that utilizes a hacked setting and ruleset. One of the really cool things about from my perspective is that it really plays around with player agency.

Players actually begin play as mortals. The game I am in started as something of a spy thriller. My character at that point was an Israeli venture capitalist with ties to Mossad. So a good deal of power and influence in the mortal world. As mortals we had a lot of autonomy to pursue goals, but were somewhat lacking power compared to the conspiracy we faced. Now that we are Vampires our movements are much more restricted. Just maintaining appearances requires a good amount of blood. We have additional social responsibilities.

Right now we are in process of shopping our characters around the clans (in our hack joining a clan is a joint decision between the vampire and clan). In order to get the power associated with that bloodline we need to make commitments that bind us. Right now Ariel (my character) still very much is trying to maintain his mortal life and achieve the things he was never able to while he was alive, but he has all these new responsibilities and he has his beast.

So we do a form of negotiated play between players and GM when it comes to interacting with the Beast and Frenzy which comes pretty often in our games. Here's what your beast wants is a common refrain.

A big focus of the design is the relationship between power and freedom to act. Humanity loss is also a negotiated thing. As you lose humanity you acquire Stains which are negotiated behavior strictures. There's also this relationship with Disciplines, Blood Potency, and Generation which is setup specifically to encourage Diablerie (drinking another vampire to death destroying their soul in the process) which has severe social repercussions and can result in a fairly potent addiction.

Less agency does not always have to be negative. Sometimes constraints can actually make decisions more meaningful.

 

[pemerton]

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.

It's probably also news to you that at least one person in the world - namely, me - thinks that The Alexandrian's essay on "node-based design", which he thinks is advice on how to avoid railroading, is in fact a recipe for running a railroad.

What can I say - there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamed of in your, perhaps in anyone's, philosophy!

EDIT: OK, there is something more I can say: you complain repeatedly about other posters using vocabulary in ways you don't agree with, but you also want to police my use of the phrase player agency. What's up with that?