A Question Of Agency?

[prabe]

I'm not sure I agree. I find that the stories that originate from character advocacy to be far more surprising, but I'm unwilling to call them more interesting (there's a difference, I think, between interesting and unexpected). And, I think a number of quite common games feature a lot of subsuming character to story, at least in the sense of avoiding character advocacy because it goes against the party.

Full throated character advocacy can very easily not play well with others. Some games handle this well -- again I point to AW -- but 5e is not one of them.

I think I agree that we have a difference in viewpoint here, or maybe taste (the stories I find interesting are not always the stories you find interesting). I haven't found 5E to struggle with the players at the tables I run playing their characters honestly, but different experiences are anecdotes not data, I think.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Articulating one's focus is always a good thing. When it was the early 2000s and the major forums where hitting their strides, it made discussion a lot easier when I said "Hey this was my focus or goal is for doing this." Which helped later when talking about sandbox campaigns in the mid 2000s as part of the Wilderlands boxed set promotions. Look if you want a campaign where characters set the direction and the freedom to go anywhere, this is why the hexcrawl format of the Wilderlands is a good thing.

Which is why in 2020 I included this in the book I just published
View attachment 131043


True but be aware that when it comes to publishing as opposed to a discussion like this. I am more focused on the nuts and bolts than the overall picture.

This section is here if you want to do (or have) X, Y, and maybe Z.

When talking to folks, I find the vast majority of campaigns are kitbashes centered around a system. Basically 75% of what they use comes from say GURPS, or D&D 5e, and rest comes from elsewhere. The common denominator is that the referee and/or group found it fun to have their campaign.

So my philosophy of publishing my system is to present in discrete chunks. I just published the Basic Rule that serves as the foundation tying everything together. The next book will be the Lost Grimoire of Magic which not present stuff like class, and spell list but material on bringing magic users to life within the setting. My focus is not on creating stories about magic-user but enabling a referee and their players to experience life as a magic-user within a medieval fantasy setting.

Since thanks to D&D, medieval fantasy is a common trope, it works out in terms of utility across the larger hobby.



It too nuanced as far as my goals go. Blades in the Dark assumes that players using it want to experience a heist movie. So it narrowly focuses on supporting that idea. It neither good or bad. I on the other hand focus on giving my players the experience of being characters in a medieval fantasy setting. Which could mean that they try to execute a heist, or build a castle, or explore a dungeon, or weave a basket.

So I focus on not only how my subsystems work, but why they are there. My expectation if it not relevant to the referee then don't use it.

The same way with my referee advice. I have sections in the basic rules. One is on my experience making rulings with the OD&D mechanics. The other on how to bring the world outside of the dungeon to life as a place to adventure and experience.

What I don't do is focus on collaborative storytelling because that not what I write about. What I do is talk about my experience in making this work for players of different interest and skill. For example this comment I have on coaching.

View attachment 131045

Finally so do I have a structure or not in the sense of the Fate Economy or the BiTD heist? Kinda of which I will happy to discuss but in general I found while sharing and publishing stuff it doesn't really help other people trying to use my material. Eventually I will get to writing an Axioms of Adventure as part of the series but in general I prefer to show not tell as people find that more useful in figuring out whether my material is useful to them or not.

Like my ability system, if you don't do much outside* of combat or spell-casting, if your players don't care* if they better as some things outside of combat or spellcasting. Then the sub system is a distraction and shouldn't be used.

*I avoid trying to say, imply, or judge what people ought to be doing with their hobby. It counter productive and doesn't accomplish anything. Just explain why you do what it is you do and be done with it. The reason that some of my part in the thread is a debate is because I accomplish many of the goals of player agency sketched out here, but in a different way.



Excellent and thanks.

hehe, yeah, see, I have this setting. When I was a kid, before I even played D&D, so age 10 maybe, I drew the map. Heck, its not even a bad map! I loved world building, but not so I could do some expository thing about it, just as pure self-indulgence really. Played a lot of D&D using that world though, but I had the same idea about it, just that it was nothing but a place for people to play in. I can't imagine some idea that I needed to be in charge of it, or tell people what (not) to do in it. Its a little constraining to stick to that one setting nowadays, but I do still run some games in it. Usually there's someone I played with back in the 80s or 90s in most games, so they get a kick out of running into some long-forgotten PC.

I just got to where I had neither really the time, nor the sheer mental energy to build things like that, with no expectation that they would end up being used, but with the constraint that they MIGHT. I can write endless whatever, if I never need to actualize it, but for play, I have grown attached to pure ad-lib. It does work, but for me it is a fine mix of process and consciously arranged agenda, with lighter rules. I liked 4e a lot (oddly, it isn't exactly light) but I've now cut it back and rewritten it so it is pretty hard to recognize.

Now, we play almost effortlessly. I almost want to go out and start a few more groups, see what more people think, but I darn well know it will eat up time I don't even have. Oh well.

 

[Ovinomancer]

5e doesn't have systems to manage strong character advocacy anyway, nor does it encourage it.

Exactly. If I"m not advocating for my character, or I cannot do so very well, what am I advocating for?

I suppose there's a null state here? That's depressing.

What I'm suggesting is that a collaborative gaming experience is not the same thing as collaborative storytelling. The things you describe are of course desirable and good.

Again, the word is advocacy. I can advocate for story and not be involved in a collaborative storytelling exercise. However, if I choose actions that advocate for party unity over character, the reason for this is because this tells a story one prefers -- that of a party. Why one would prefer this is left to the individual to answer.

In other words, this choice is made because doing so advocates for a specific type of story. One need not script scenes to engage in story advocacy, you must merely put the concerns of the story foremost. And the decisions involved in party play absolutely put a specific kind of story first, explicitly over character concerns.

 

[FrogReaver]

And we're talking about my character, not me

exactly!

The real world, by the way, is not a game of D&D. This may be the root of a number of our disagreements, come to think of it...

Derp, thanks for enlightening me great wise one. Whatever would I do without your boundless wisdom.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Eh. The replacement for mechanics isn't a goal of telling a story, but a goal of "replicating reality," or any other similar term. Granted, I find this goal a grand lie, as all that is happening is that one person's assumptions are being substituted in and then reified as replicating reality, but the goal isn't storytelling, and I'm not sure the outcome can rightly be called crafting a story. A story results, but, again, this is so broadly true as to be trivial. I think that the label storygame only really fits if the goal is to craft a story primarily and/or story advocacy is strongly indicated by play.

Right, storytelling isn’t the goal, but it seems to be one of the most often used tools. As you say, the process being used is one that ostensibly is “reflecting reality” but really is just the GM telling a story.

So I thought the characterization that other games being discussed may have storytelling as the goal to be a bit odd. They may, I would expect, but I don’t think it’s inherent.

The word I used was advocacy. What are you advocating for? There's always a story that will emerge, for better or worse, entertaining or not, from any play. The point of my post wasn't to say that story didn't happen with character advocacy, but that forming a good story was not the motivator for the player's actions.

Advocacy is a good way to look at it. For what are the participants advocating? I would expect that the answer for this can be entirely independent of the rules system or playstyle used, though it doesn’t have to be.

I mean, I can imagine versions of many games of all kinds whose participants have decided to place emphasis on, and therefore advocate for, the story.

I’d say many livestream games with an audience would fit this description. It seems far less to me like a quality of a particular game or subset of games.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Ovinomancer - I agree with everything you're saying except your use of the word story. Advocating for group goals over your own is part of a collaborative endeavor. I just don't think a desire for story is the right word to describe it. I'm sure it is in some cases of course, just not as a broadly descriptive term. People are playing a collaborative game, not telling a collaborative story.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In my experience Lovecraftian horror is something best sprinkled onto other games, like spice when finishing a dish. There are bits of it in the campaigns I run, but it's never the undiluted thing: I like my TRPGs too heroic for that to appeal to me.

Eh, I'd call it 'Cosmic Horror', that is the heart of it, so its hard for it not to be central to the cosmic aspects of a setting. That doesn't have to touch the PCs much though I guess. After all, the conceit is that most 'ordinary humans' never really notice what lies just under the surface of their supposed reality...

The Laundry Files are really the best stuff. Lovecraft himself is kinda just too vile of a human being to really admire, sadly.

 

[pemerton]

The first thing is the bit about the ghosts in the forest. In my game, the players wouldn't propose that kind of thing, and I wouldn't materialize it based on their proposal.

I asked the players who would be with the four of them if they were scouting ahead to verify whether the band could pass safely through the forest, and they nominated their two NPC hunters - Algol the Bloodthirsty who is in service to Sir Morgath, and Rhan, the woman who had joined them at the end of the last session I posted about.​

​

I was using the Rattling Forest scenario from the Episode Book, and described the "deep and clawing shadows [that[ stretch across the path, and the wind [that] rattles through the trees." The PCs soon found themselves confronted by a knight all in black and wearing a greatsword, with a tattered cape hanging from his shoulders, and six men wielding swords and shields, their clothes equally tattered. The scenario description also mentions that they have "broken trinkets and personal effects" and I described rings and collars that were worn, notched and (in some cases) broken. The description of the collars was taken by the players as a sign that these were Celts (wearing torcs), and I ran with that. . . .​

I'm not sure what "materialisation" you are referring to.

I narrated that the PCs came to a forest. I asked them who would be with them - they nominated their hunters.

I described the "deep and clawing shadows" etc and that they were confronted by the knight and his men. I narrated the "broken trinkets and personal effects". The players, as their PCs, took these to be a sign that that the knight and his men were Celts, Which as I say I ran with.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think I agree that we have a difference in viewpoint here, or maybe taste (the stories I find interesting are not always the stories you find interesting). I haven't found 5E to struggle with the players at the tables I run playing their characters honestly, but different experiences are anecdotes not data, I think.

Again, I think if you carefully look at this, it's because the players have chosen to play characters that fit party play. As I said before, this is a challenge to tease out because the motivations are deeply ingrained and are largely invisible because that's just how you play.

Look at what you consider if making a character for D&D versus what you might consider in making a character for AW -- the goals and aspects of character are very different. This also usually shows up in the "no evil" or "no CN" rules for tables -- the idea is to not introduce character concepts that fight against party play. Interestingly, the game I was speaking of that featured a lot of story advocacy on my part? I was playing a very selfish and evil character. This was, in fact, a large part of the reason for the story advocacy -- I had to subsume these strong aspects of character to other concerns, which were rationalized as an unwavering loyalty to another character and a general avoidance of screwing over crewmates. Often. Well, when you could be caught. Look, they'll get over it, really. Alright, fine, it's a bad idea, but this is the reason we're still poor!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What do you feel is the minimum bar for something to qualify as a game?

Three things right off the bat seem clear to me:

1) There isn't a minimum threshold of participants. Solitaire (and games like it) are games.

2) Not all activities, past-times, and/or leisure pursuits are games. Looking at Christmas Lights is not a game, but I Spy while you look at Christmas Lights is a game.

3) Calvinball (where one participant changes the rules at will to perpetually facilitate their desired gamestate, undoing the integrity of play) is not a game.


So, to me, it looks like (a) something about shape, (b) something about desire/goal, and (c) something about structure giving shape to play and aiding integrity of play with respect to desire/goal (this is essential when two parties' have designs over desire/goal that collide).

Thoughts?

There needs to be a 'process of play', otherwise we cannot draw a bound which says "this is the game, this is not." If we don't know when we are playing, we cannot be said to be playing 'a game'.

There needs to be a participant or participants, each of which serves some function in the game.

There is some sort of 'game state', or there cannot be 'play', because play is a process, and all processes involve some sort of state space and some functions which map from inputs of the participants onto that state space and transform it.

Am I mathy enough?