A Question Of Agency?

[hawkeyefan]

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.

The flowchart is metaphorical, mostly. Although the more I’m thinking about it, I think we could likely breakdown all play into a flowchart of some kind. And I don’t think I’m introducing a new concept here, just this is what’s been bubbling in my mind.

So if you can accept for now my idea of play as a flowchart, with the boxes on the chart corresponding to the points of discovery in the sandbox and the connections from box to box being some mix of the relation between those elements and the things that lead the players from one to the next....if we try to look at play that way, perhaps it helps shed some light.

What are the boxes? What are the poibts of discovery in the sandbox?

So, perhaps it’s geographical. Town is the starting point of the flowchart. Perhaps another box on the chart is “The Lost Caves”, a dungeon nearby.

How do the PCs get from Town to The List Caves? And why? This is the line on the flowchart between the two boxes. Perhaps they want gold and treasure, a pretty typical and general goal. Perhaps they find out about the Lost Caves through rumor or hearsay. Perhaps they have to do some hexcrawling type exploration to find the Caves’ exact location.

If we break up the sandbox like this, I think it helps to examine what we’re doing and maybe how and why.

I don’t think this is at all about style. I thibk maybe this is maybe a tool that can be used to analyze any style.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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?

To be clear, this is the portion I am unclear on. Not sure if this helps, but I don't think of my campaigns as being prioritized around one thing. So exploration and discovery are elements of play, but when it comes to sect conflict, I wouldn't say I see that as an act of discovery (it may involve gathering information and individual acts of discovery but it will also discover a great deal of social interaction, planning, combat, etc). All I am doing with these sects is trying to create a vibrant martial world that is active, that the players can interact with, etc. The movie I usually point people to is Killer Clans. This is a bit like the Godfather (in fact it seems to inspired a lot by the Godfather), where you have a powerful sect leader in the martial world whose supremacy is challenged by a rival and being undermined by traitors from within his own organization. If I introduce the players to this martial world, I want them to be able to approach is however they like. They may start in a particular organization with its own agenda, so that will shape things at the start, but like the traitors in the sect leaders group, they are free to change alliances themselves if they want to. They could seek an alliance with the rising challenger in the martial world, try to work with the powerful sect leader to restore his hold on things, or maybe they just go around committing bank heists while everyone else is focused on a power struggle. I don't really care what they do, as long as they do something.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The flowchart is metaphorical, mostly. Although the more I’m thinking about it, I think we could likely breakdown all play into a flowchart of some kind. And I don’t think I’m introducing a new concept here, just this is what’s been bubbling in my mind.

So if you can accept for now my idea of play as a flowchart, with the boxes on the chart corresponding to the points of discovery in the sandbox and the connections from box to box being some mix of the relation between those elements and the things that lead the players from one to the next....if we try to look at play that way, perhaps it helps shed some light.

What are the boxes? What are the poibts of discovery in the sandbox?

So, perhaps it’s geographical. Town is the starting point of the flowchart. Perhaps another box on the chart is “The Lost Caves”, a dungeon nearby.

How do the PCs get from Town to The List Caves? And why? This is the line on the flowchart between the two boxes. Perhaps they want gold and treasure, a pretty typical and general goal. Perhaps they find out about the Lost Caves through rumor or hearsay. Perhaps they have to do some hexcrawling type exploration to find the Caves’ exact location.

If we break up the sandbox like this, I think it helps to examine what we’re doing and maybe how and why.

I don’t think this is at all about style. I thibk maybe this is maybe a tool that can be used to analyze any style.

But it isn't a flow chart in my case. So I don't know how I can weigh in in that respect (at least in terms of how I run things)

 

[Bedrockgames]

What are the boxes? What are the poibts of discovery in the sandbox?

So, perhaps it’s geographical. Town is the starting point of the flowchart. Perhaps another box on the chart is “The Lost Caves”, a dungeon nearby.

I am struggling to connect this to how I run things. I may be missing your point. I just don't understand having a flowchart and a starting point for 'points of discovery' in a sandbox. I simply don't think of a sandbox as points of discovery.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

Here it is below. I think you did respond since then. I had not yet seen all replies when I made my post. He talks about faces and factions as the “map” for his game, which I think is the kind of thing I’m talking about with my flowchart analogy.

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.

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.

I mean, you just provided a good example of the kind of thing I’m talking about. It’s not an exact match, but it’s very much along the lines of what I’m going for with the flowchart thing.

What is it that you want your players to discover through their characters? Geography? Competing factions? Personal revelations? The fractured pieces of the rod of seven parts?

Then, how is discovery of those elements facilitated in play?

 

[Fenris-77]

If it helps, the faction and face map I'm talking about is something I use for more socially indexed urban fantasy campaigns (although it could be used for any social exploration game I guess). What it isn't is a node based clue crawl, although my firm decision not to do that informed some of my design choices. I don't show the map to my players either, but the products of the map are something they get. Influence and favors measure ease or possibility of access to various factions and individuals (and places). The point is to give the players something tangible to use for planning.

So, for example, you need to see the duke but he won't see plebs like the players, so you investigate his secretary looking for foibles or something to exploit. As it turns out the secretary has a gambling problem. The players decide that they're going to engineer some gambling debts which they will then take on as a favour after some carousing allows them to position themselves as new friends. That gets them a favor owed. The favor isn't exactly a metacurrency, it's an actual in-game measure of indebtedness. In this case the payers cash it in to get the meeting they need. In another scenario they might keep it and count it as influence with the the duke's faction (those are the two ways favors get used in my game). The idea of influence works as a bonus to reputation, but just with that faction.

So, back to tangible for a moment. They players get a list of favours owed and influence with various factions. The point of that is to allow them, at a glance, to have a good handle on where they stand in the political currents of the place. Having something specific, something written down, gives the players handles for planning and execution that they wouldn't have with a more nebulous list of "this is who you know". This doesn't have to be tied to the plot either, in fact I prefer it not to be. This but accretes over time in the campaign, and favors earned several adventures ago can all of a sudden prove useful later in ways I could never have predicted as the GM. It gives the players a lot of control over things, which was the goal.

What I really need to do is write this up more formally, as the system currently exists more in the form of post-its, scraps, and after game analysis.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

Because I wanted to make the point that we have beaten that dead horse enough.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Here it is below. I think you did respond since then. I had not yet seen all replies when I made my post. He talks about faces and factions as the “map” for his game, which I think is the kind of thing I’m talking about with my flowchart analogy.





I mean, you just provided a good example of the kind of thing I’m talking about. It’s not an exact match, but it’s very much along the lines of what I’m going for with the flowchart thing.

What is it that you want your players to discover through their characters? Geography? Competing factions? Personal revelations? The fractured pieces of the rod of seven parts?

Then, how is discovery of those elements facilitated in play?

again, it isn’t about discovery the more I think about it, that is just a component. The diagram is for me, so I can decide how factions act and respond. It is more about the interactions. Yes, the players may want to learn something about one of those sects as they plan and act, but I think it would be a mistake to liken that to hex crawl discovery. Sorry if this text terribly clarifying, I just think we can over essentialize play if we distill it to a concept like points of discovery: it is much more comprehensive and dynamic than that ImO

 

[darkbard]

What I really need to do is write this up more formally, as the system currently exists more in the form of post-its, scraps, and after game analysis.

This thread may not be the worst place to pilot such a write up, allowing you multiple inputs from various playstyles and perspectives.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because I wanted to make the point that we have beaten that dead horse enough.

Okay then engage with something else man.

I was connecting my post back to the topic of the thread, but doing so that let anyone draw whatever conclusions about agency that they’d like. It was a comment on how examining play can help us understand agency or any other goal of play.

So, to move away from the dead horse....what would you say might be some of your goals in play? You sit down to start a new campaign....what are the things you want to see your players engage with?

This is just a question and is not a trick or a trap. It literally is me trying to have a conversation.