A Question Of Agency?

[pemerton]

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

I posted, about seven (?) pages upthread, a comparison/contrast of two instances of play: an imagined one from the AW rulebook, and an actual one from my Prince Valiant campaign.

Any thoughts?

That also applies to @FrogReaver, @Bedrockgames, @estar.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

It appears I have mistaken your position then. I am truly sorry.

 

[Fenris-77]

If we're going to read play excerpts, we should probably be reading with a purpose, something beyond simple compare and contrast. @pemerton , is there a particular mechanic or decision loop you wanted people to look at, or issues of agency in any particular light?

The post in question is here

 

[Fenris-77]

It appears I have mistaken your position then. I am truly sorry.

Well, don't be too sorry, apparently I did the same thing to you. I'm putting it down to the thread having sooooo many moving parts.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, don't be too sorry, apparently I did the same thing to you. I'm putting it down to the thread having sooooo many moving parts.

I'm not crazy though? There are some on this thread that I actually have a difference of opinion with on that?

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm not crazy though? There are some on this thread that I actually have a difference of opinion with on that?

I don't think so actually (although I could be wrong). There were a lot of examples flying around and I think we just got our brains tangled. It happens.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

This doesn't describe sandbox play at all.

In sandbox play, the GM frames the world, places in the world, factions and NPC's in it. In sandbox play the players set their agenda. They have complete autonomy to do what they want and to interact with what they want as long as it's done via their character. Nothing they do is by way of DM permission either. In sandbox play it's the player's unalienable right to be able to set their own agenda.

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.

Agreed

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.

Sounds correct, though there are important details you are missing. The GM's job in sandbox play is twofold.
1. He sets the stage that the characters act upon.
2. He continually updates the stage by reacting to the players input into the setting via their characters actions. This part is much more principled than it's being made out to be by you. At the very least NPC beliefs and personalities are considered as a plausibility test for any potential actions. The DM is responsible for picking one of the plausible reactions and adding it to the setting. This updates the stage and the players are able to react to that change.
3. The above describes a static sandbox. In a living world sandbox, the above is true, but additional NPC factions make their actions that result in the stage being updated as well.

The principles and objectives by which the fiction evolves are, again, all unspoken. At best we can presume they aim to be fun.

So what?

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.

Sure.

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.

That same driver's seat description makes sense of a sandbox as well. Players determine what is important to them and take actions via their characters in the fiction in order to obtain the things they want. They are in the driver's seat and the DM is reacting to what they do.

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.

That's not how sandboxes work. Players don't have a menu of adventures. They have a world that they interact with. If you are wanting to call the world the menu and all the things in the world the menu items, there's nothing stopping you - but that's pretty shaky ground IMO.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not crazy though? There are some on this thread that I actually have a difference of opinion with on that?

I'm fairly certain so, but merely because I see two possible ways you can make that argument -- one is trivially true, and the other I disagree with.

If you mean something like being able to pick your flavor of ice cream for dessert, but strawberry is off the menu, then, sure, trivially true.

If, instead, you mean that you cannot pick any dessert, but you're welcome to go dig ditches instead, then, no, there's disagreement.

 

[FrogReaver]

I will say this on sandboxes. I tend to hate sandboxy video games. Those really feel to me like a small menu of items that they serve up on request where the choices feel pretty inconsequential.

a well run tabletop sandbox is nothing like this though.

 

[pemerton]

but this argument has come up again and again, and the point my side makes is of course it isn't an actual pond. But the purpose is for the GM to emulate causality as best he or she can

And the point I make in response is that it can't be true both that the GM is making those decisions and that the GM is not the agent responsible for those decisions and what they mean for the fiction. And if the GM is the responsible agent, it basically follows that the player is not.