A Question Of Agency?

[pemerton]

If we don't know when we are playing, we cannot be said to be playing 'a game'.

Sorry, but this claim isn't plausible in general or in this case. I can read a novel without knowing that I'm reading a novel - either because I'm unfamiliar with the genre, or because the book I'm reading is an atypical example of the genre that I don't recognise as such. (Eg maybe I think it's a biography, or an epic poem.)

The same is true for playing games.

 

[Aldarc]

Hmm, well I'm no FATE master myself, that's just an easy way to index metacurrency. The key difference, for me, in defining metacurrency, is that it's granted by the GM for actions X and used to influence unrelated actions Y, i.e. it's granting and use escapes the flow of the fiction, hence the use of meta. Anyway, this is an interesting but probably not terribly important bit of subtext to the larger discussion, so I'm not going to push it.

5e Inspiration is far more detached from the fictional play loop than Fate points are in Fate. Fate points have to be spent on Aspects, and they should generally be treated more holistically as part of the character. In Fate they operate more like character karma and it represents the character's sort of push and pull within the fictional setting. It's granted by the GM for Character Aspect/Trouble X (as selected by the player), and the same player can use it on Character (or Scene) Aspect Y. Aspects - whether they are character or scene based - are fundamentally lightening rods for such karmic influence. It's certainly a meta-mechanic, but I definitely don't share the same boogey-man hang-ups that some do about anything in our hobby labeled "meta."

 

[pemerton]

Urgh, sorry mate, I'm not willing to grant you the GNS story now Narrativism card here. I really don't think that character advocacy has anything particular to do with the desire to "produce something that is recognisably a story - as in it has rising action, climax, etc.". You can advocate for your character, their interests, and whatever, without having the faintest interest in telling a group story.

I didn't say otherwise. I'll repeat what I said:

as I understand it, the goal of good "story now" design is to ensure that the play of the game in which the player participants advocate for their characters will reliably produce something that is recognisably a story - as in it has rising action, climax, etc.​

If you are playing a game in which the system does not mediate or bridge character advocacy into recognisable story then you are not playing a game that answers to good "story now" design. Self-evidently, I would say, as you're not getting a story now!

Of the top of my head I don't know any RPGs expressly designed to be played this way, but I think some D&D one-shots/tournament-type games might be like this: set all the characters - typically pre-gen so as to have clear and conflicting motivations - loose and see what happens! (I'm thinking eg of the Bar-room Brawl in Best of WD scenarios 1, and Lowe Canon Court in Best of WD scenarios 2.) I've played non-D&D scenarios too, at conventions, that work like this.

 

[pemerton]

That's the rub, isn't it. There's a built in conflict between character and group advocacy, and one which is only highlighted by players with strong personalities who like to build idiosyncratic characters.

This isn't a problem in Burning Wheel or Prince Valiant. For me it's distinctive to Traveller because of the travel motif.

 

[pemerton]

Anyway, this is an interesting but probably not terribly important bit of subtext to the larger discussion, so I'm not going to push it.

Yes and no. I think it's pretty relevant to player agency, so I'm happy to go another round or two.

Hmm, well I'm no FATE master myself, that's just an easy way to index metacurrency. The key difference, for me, in defining metacurrency, is that it's granted by the GM for actions X and used to influence unrelated actions Y, i.e. it's granting and use escapes the flow of the fiction, hence the use of meta.

<snip>


The difference between that and a character feature should, I think, be obvious. The feature is an integral part of the character, it's use is specific and determined before play even begins. That's what I was getting at with the use of 'teleos'. The BM dice aren't any different than his bonus to hit, it's just a more finite character resource. The GM has nothing to do with it.

5e Battlemaster dice are, for present purposes, no different from 4e D&D martial encounter powers.

It was widely contended during the great 4e discussions that those powers escape the flow of the fiction in their granting and use. I've indicated upthread how this is true for BM dice (eg the clock is arbitrary - you recover 1 or N dice on a rest whether you used them 5 hours ago or 3 minutes ago in the fiction, and can spend them once recovered at whatever pace you like).

To say that they are "part of the character" is just to point to the resource game that the player of a BM buys into. In Prince Valiant every player buys into a framework where doing stuff that exhibits gallantry, flair and the like will earn a certificate. It's obviously filtered through GM judgement, but that can't be what makes it "metagame". (What if the GM decides the BM's rest wasn't restful enough, or introduces an encounter 53 minutes into it?)

This is why I think these all - BM dice, 4e martial encounter powers and storyteller certificates - rise or fall together.

I would contrast a Plot Point in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic. When spent, this does not (as a general rule) correspond to anything in the fiction. It's just a dice pool manipulator.

 

[pemerton]

@Fenris-77

I went back to Ron Edwards on "metagame mechanics":

Metagame mechanics, by definition, entail the interjection of real-people priorities into the system-operation. . . .

To clarify for purposes of the essay, compare the following: (1) an in-game essence or metaphysical effect called "Karma," which represents the character's moral status in that game-universe according to (e.g.) a god or principle in that game-world; (2) a score on the sheet which has literally nothing to do with the character's in-game identity, also called "Karma," recognized and applied by the real people with no in-game entity used to justify it. In both systems, Karma is a point-score which goes up and down, and which can be brought into play as, say, a bonus to one's dice roll. But I'd say that #1 is not metagame at all, and #2 is wholly metagame.

Mechanically, how do they differ? One thing to consider is how the score goes up and down - by player-use, or by in-game effects? Another is whether the score is integrated with the reward/improvement system - does spending a Karma reduce one's bank of improvement points? In fact, is Karma a spent resource at all? Still another issue is whether in-game effects must be in place, or inserted into place, to justify its use. No one of these indicators is hard-and-fast, however; one must consider them all at once, and how they relate to Simulationism (and non-Simulationism) is a fascinating issue. At this point I tend to think that the main issue, basically, is who is considered to "spend" them - character or player.​

Looking at Storyteller Certificates in this light:

(1) The resource goes up by GM response to in-game effects, and goes down by player use;

(2) The resource is not integrated with the reward/improvement system;

(3) In-game effects must be in place, or inserted into place, to justify their use (see the example of play upthread, where the PCs find something hidden because they are looking for it);

(4) It is the player, not the character, who spends the resource.​

Looking at Battlemaster dice in the same light:

(1) The resource goes up by in-game effects (ie short rest) and goes down by player use;

(2) The resource is not integrated with the reward/improvement system;

(3) No in-game effects need be in place, or inserted into place, to justify their use;

(4) I think it is the player, not the character, who spends the resource.​

That (4) might be controversial - how I've presented is consistent with the overwhelming weight of 4e D&D commentary, but I don't know if 5e has changed people's minds. Looking at the others, the (1) for manoeuvre dice is less metagame than for Storyteller Certificates, but the (3) is moreso.

This is why I think they rise and fall together.

For completeness, MHRP Plot points:

(1) The resource goes up and down by player use or GM decision-making but with no reference to ingame effects;

(2) The resource is not integrated with the reward/improvement system;

(3) No in-game effects need be in place, or inserted into place, to justify their use;

(4) It is the player, not the character, who spends the resource.​

These clearly are metagame.

 

[Fenris-77]

Hmm, that's a nice analysis @pemerton. I wasn't trying to kick you in the balls about the certificate thing btw, just trying to clarify. I might still disagree a little bit with your analysis of the BM dice. I compare it to Ki for the Monk, another short rest resource, but one that seems pretty clearly spent by the character. The only difference between the two is the fluff describing the resource. At that point my tendency would be to call all the SR resources character spends and call it a day, but that might be because I don't care enough about 5e to think very hard about it.

Back to Story Now! for a moment. I also struggle to think of game where this is a primary design goal. Thanks for clarifying btw.

 

[FrogReaver]

Doesn't the D&D player decide which Orc to attack, which weapon to use, whether or not to use a special ability (eg power attack or similar; backstab if that is limited to once per turn; Battlemaster dice; a magical item ability that works on charges; etc), etc?

Doesn't the player also decide whether to attack to cause damage, to attack to disarm, to attack to grapple, whether or not to kill if the Orc is dropped to zero hp, etc?

I don't get why you're dropping all these decision points out of your account of D&D combat.

I don’t get why you are being pedantic instead of engaging with the important content

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I didn't mean materialize in the sense that it popped into being in the setting but I meant it looked like the detail was decided by the players basically. Again I could be wrong on how you are describing it. I am now unclear if this was a matter of procedure (you empowered the players to make the decision) or if it was simply a spur of the moment thing (the players assumed something about a thing you described, you liked the assumption, so you went with it). If that the latter, the only difference between what you are doing and how I would do it, is I would have settled on that detail already by the time of description. There was one time I can think of where a player came up with an explanation, and I liked it so decided to run with it (but that was pretty exceptional, not something that I typically do).

 

[FrogReaver]

Well in that case a Battlemaster's dice are a metagame mechanic, as is Action Surge and Second Wind on a 5e fighter. And many if not most other rationed 5e mechanics too.

But I didn't think @estar was counting those as metagame mechanics given he said he doesn't use such mechanics.

I consider Battlemaster Dice to be a metagame mechanic.

The major difference between them and something like a fate point (as I understand them) is the Battlemaster dice's extremely limited scope, both in terms of when they can be applied and what they can affect. Maybe to highlight that difference it'd be better to call them a metacharacter mechanic as their scope is basically my character whereas metagame mechanics are not.