A Question Of Agency?

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, if the game is focused more on human geography the standard hexcrawl is less than helpful. Personally, I tend to use faces and factions and their web of connections and motivations as the 'map' for that kind of game.

I usually rely on both a map of the sects and NPCs, and a geographic map. I also do it as notes in my entries (sects will usually have a list of enemies and allies, and sometimes do this for NPCs too). But my sect maps would normally just be a bunch of boxes with lines connecting them (and the lines have symbols indicating the nature of the connection), along with notes about their goals

 

[Fenris-77]

I usually rely on both a map of the sects and NPCs, and a geographic map. I also do it as notes in my entries (sects will usually have a list of enemies and allies, and sometimes do this for NPCs too). But my sect maps would normally just be a bunch of boxes with lines connecting them (and the lines have symbols indicating the nature of the connection), along with notes about their goals

Yeah, you still need a map of the physical space, for sure, its just way less important than it is in other games. My faction maps look just like yours btw, flowncharts. Lots of lines and boxes. I do a lot of social gating to keep things interesting too. Some people are harder to get a meeting with or find than others. A reputation mechanic can be a good tool there, as can something that tracks favors and influence

 

[FrogReaver]

I didn't have it tied to a particular location. I had it tied to a particular session - in the sense that I'd looked through the Episode Book for something good to run, and the Bone Laird looked like it - and therefore I framed the PCs into a forest. That forest could have been in Britain, or France, or anywhere else there are forests. As it happened, I used a forest in Dacia/Romania.

Yea. I'm in total agreement. I thought that was obvious from your post. I said that about it not being wrong to tie that to a particular location as many sandboxes would have - not because i thought you did.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Again, I think this is where living world becomes important. For me it is much less about hex crawl discovery and more about what is there to work with in the setting. My games place a lot of emphasis on sects, grudges, and politics. So if players are seeking to establish their own sect for example, while they may venture into crazy dungeons to obtain a manual with a special technique or go off to the southern lands where they trudge through unknown places in order to gain audience with some powerful being, inside the known world, they are very much more focused on things like arranging a meeting with a rival sect leader, forming an alliance with one of their enemies enemies, securing salt mines in the desert so they have wealth to use for gaining recruits, etc. They may be looking at the geography more from a 'where is the ideal location for our headquarters' kind of thing.

Right, okay cool. So if your game is less about discovery or exploration of the geographical kind, then the question is what are in the boxes of your flowchart?

Is it rival groups and factions? Mysterious locations or items? @Fenris-77 gives an interesting take on it; would you say your game is similar to his (generally speaking, there will always be exceptions)?

I think if we’re examining our play, our first step is to find out what are the points of discovery. What are the boxes on the flow chart?

Then I think we have to look at how they inform one another. How do the players go from one box to the next?

And then the next step may be to look at how the boxes and their connections are determined. Are they decided ahead of time by the GM? Are they procedurally generated in some random way? Are they based on player input in any way?

I think the answers to these questions (knowing some may be difficult to pin down or quantify) are going to reveal a lot about the amount of player agency in a given game.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think the answers to these questions (knowing some may be difficult to pin down or quantify) are going to reveal a lot about the amount of player agency in a given game.

Maybe. For the moment I've given up talking about agency. It seems counterproductive toward having a good conversation about playstyles.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Right, okay cool. So if your game is less about discovery or exploration of the geographical kind, then the question is what are in the boxes of your flowchart?

Is it rival groups and factions? Mysterious locations or items? @Fenris-77 gives an interesting take on it; would you say your game is similar to his (generally speaking, there will always be exceptions)?

I think if we’re examining our play, our first step is to find out what are the points of discovery. What are the boxes on the flow chart?

Then I think we have to look at how they inform one another. How do the players go from one box to the next?

And then the next step may be to look at how the boxes and their connections are determined. Are they decided ahead of time by the GM? Are they procedurally generated in some random way? Are they based on player input in any way?

I think the answers to these questions (knowing some may be difficult to pin down or quantify) are going to reveal a lot about the amount of player agency in a given game.

I think we might be talking past each other. I don't use flowcharts. I have boxes on my sect conflict diagram simply to track all the groups in play, what they want, etc. Sometimes I don't even use a map of it (I just note down who is in conflict with who).

I don't think I understood the rest of your post hawkeye. Again, I think there is a fundamental difference here in how we approach play and understanding play, which isn't bad, but it makes real communication across our styles very challenging. I have a world, with a map, and I have groups and NPCs in that world that are active. I drop the PCs into that world and let them do what they want. Any mechanics, procedures or tools I use are simply done to help bring that to life, to settle unknowns and certain interactions, etc.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Maybe. For the moment I've given up talking about agency. It seems counterproductive toward having a good conversation about playstyles.

Okay, then maybe reply to any other part of my post other than the one you don’t want to talk about?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Maybe. For the moment I've given up talking about agency. It seems counterproductive toward having a good conversation about playstyles.

I don't think we are going to make much headway on agency either

 

[Bedrockgames]

Is it rival groups and factions? Mysterious locations or items? @Fenris-77 gives an interesting take on it; would you say your game is similar to his (generally speaking, there will always be exceptions)?

Can you quote the pertinent post from Fenris (think I responded to it already but not sure)

 

[Bedrockgames]

And then the next step may be to look at how the boxes and their connections are determined. Are they decided ahead of time by the GM? Are they procedurally generated in some random way? Are they based on player input in any way?

Just to be clear, I think you may be reading my boxes through the lens of another style of play and design. This is literally just a map of a conflict and the groups involved. Or a diagram of various alliances. It would be something the GM creates ahead of play, but actions the players take might alter it (for example if they successfully cause problems between two allies on the map). Also, this map is just a tool I use as the GM. It isn't something I lay on the table for the players to interact with. Below is a small section of a map I sketched for the Lady Eighty Seven campaign. The T lines indicate a working relationship, the straight lines indicate an alliance and the Xs indicate conflict. I also have a diamond, not seen on this map, which indicates things are moving towards conflict.