System matters and free kriegsspiel

[Campbell]

As I understand it agency is a measure of your ability to impact your environment. Autonomy is your ability to choose what you will do. If we are playing a game and there are no meaningful constraints on what any player (including the GM) may choose to do based on the actions we choose to take than we have perfect autonomy and no real agency. If we cannot affect each other reliably and be vulnerable to consequences for our choices than no real agency exists.

Those constraints do not have to come from resolution mechanics, but they do have to be there in some way. We can be constrained by our prep, by the shared fiction, etc. We get to this in OSR play by instructing the GM to be a neutral arbiter and referee.

My use of agency here is coming from the dictionary meaning of the word. Not some RPG theory lexicon.

Definition of AGENCY

the office or function of an agent; the relationship between a principal and that person's agent; the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power : operation… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Here's autonomy for comparison

Definition of AUTONOMY

the quality or state of being self-governing; especially : the right of self-government; self-directing freedom and especially moral independence; a self-governing state… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is partly where the issue of trust comes in. A couple things might sub-in for trust: a dice mechanic, a specific rule, an adjudication framework, or gm prep. The idea is that, the dm cannot possibly decide on the spot what happens in a neutral way, there needs to be a reference to something outside of the moment, ideally something written down somewhere. Trad games might lean a bit more on rules and gm prep, osr games might lean more on random tables. This is a fair point when it comes to rpgs, and has to do with the possibilities and limitations of just making stuff up at the table. If the dm has not prepared what happens when you go left and what happens when you go right, and there is no random table to refer to, then there is a sense that player agency has potentially been negated when they open the door to the left and discover the encounter originally slated for the door on the right.

But what happens in blades in the dark when you open the door on the left? There, the players authority, as @Snarf Zagyg, puts it, to determine the fiction. The GM might say there is a person, who, as a consequence of how loud the PCs are being, starts to scream. And the players can say--no, wait, I spend stress to resist that consequence, or introduce a flashback in which I dealt with this person the previous day, or I have been carrying this special item this whole time that muffles sound. You aren't just "playing your character" and waiting for the dm to respond, you are also taking steps to "play the world" to some degree. Any rough edges are rounded out by the principles in the book: the gm should to hold on lightly to any fiction they introduce, but the players should also be playing their characters like stolen cars. Both should be thinking off screen and cinematically.

When I play dnd, the players will say their character opens the door, I check my notes and tables, and tell them what they find when they attempt that action. Using whatever mechanics we have at hand, we resolve the encounter. In Blades, the PCs open a door, and I ask the group what they think this scene calls for and make a suggestion, and guided by principles and mechanics, resolve the next story beat.

As for trust, the only reason trust comes into play is that the GM does hold all of the authority, and you need trust to assume the GM is going to deploy that authority in a way the players expect. This is basically admitting the low-agency playstyle but claiming that the GM can share that agency back to the players by gifting them through an understanding of how the GM will adjudicate things. It's going right back to rules, which are exactly this, but trying to claim that there's something special about "trust" that ennobles this rather than obfuscates it.

Just lean into the play -- the GM is going to use their authority to present a game that the players make moves to get more of from the GM. Perfectly fine way to play. It's largely how I run 5e, although I do adhere to the rules as presented and don't overrule them if at all possible. Still that choice is my gift to the players to give back agency by informing them, clearly in my case, how I plan to utilize my authority to adjudicate. I don't pretend that some mystical call out to trust ennobles this.

 

[overgeeked]

We get to this in OSR play by instructing the GM to be a neutral arbiter and referee.

The Referee in FKR games has the same instructions.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I suspect we aren't going to agree about this, but that's ok. I think the scaffolding provided by, for example, the D&D rules in terms of adjudication does impact player agency, and pretty significantly. I was not, I repeat not, assuming bad faith play though. When you have bad faith play any RPG falls apart. To put my position simply, I think that good faith play plus an adjudication framework provides move agency than just good faith play by itself. However, when we start to look at specific FRK systems I will freely admit that the landscape could change.

If we disagree about how much player agency is inherent simply in good faith play I can live with that.

So, this touches on a slightly different issue which I briefly mentioned in the prior post (subject to a much longer post I've been thinking about for a while)-

What you're saying when you talk about "scaffolding" is the concept of published and known rules. Others might use the term "player-facing" rules.

Rules (as in published, generally known explicitly official regulation) allow for reliance.
"If you roll over a 15, you hit the Boojum."
The player knows that if she rolls over a 15, she will hit the Boojum! Boom!

This type of published, known rule is part of the process of play- in that when the player declares their action (I attack the Boojum!) they know what the consequences will be (they have a 25% chance of hitting the Boojum).

The thing is- other things can be important and relied upon as well. Written principles (Don't Be a Weasel, from BiTD). Heuristics (Rule of Cool, Say Yes, Fail Forward). Unwritten guidelines (If the fiction fits- try it).

These can all be relied upon! There is some advantage to the written rule... don't get me wrong! But there are also drawbacks (especially when it can grow to resemble the prolixity of a legal code). I do think it is a mistake to think that something must be written to be relied upon for adjudication, especially when it comes to TTRPGs.

 

[Malmuria]

I disagree with “the rules comes in (or should come in) at point 3 of the gameplay loop (and your final paragraph points to this)” and I think this is something that we get caught up on a lot in these conversations.

In a game like D&D where skilled play is a big priority, these sorts of things MUST BE an input (often the primary if not exclusive) which informs a player’s OODA Loop.

Perhaps not in every conflict, but the bulk of conflicts should be undergirded by players skillfulness informing their orientation to the fiction and their attendant action declarations. If any large number of moments of play is instead governed by arbitrariness (THESE goblins are fire resistant and there was/is no way for you to suss this out because there was little to no telegraphing/portending it - a soft move in PBtA parlance - from which the player could draw the inferrence/puzzle solve) rather than skill and engagement with the the fiction.

There must be a feedback loop where fiction + rules binds GM narration and informs player OODA Loop and vice versa or there is no skilled play (instead it becomes an unsteady ground of arbitrariness monster lurking at any given moment of play).

I guess skilled play can have a variety of meanings too. In 5e, players might know that to look for traps you roll perception or use passive. To disarm you roll dexterity. I don't think in the OSR this knowledge of the rules would be considered "skilled play." The OSR prefers to stay in the fiction, where the player has to describe in detail how their character looks for traps and use their (mundane) items creatively. The "skill" comes in staying within the fiction, not in "pressing buttons" on your character sheet. Similarly, in combat, the "skill" would come in everything that happens outside of initiative, the ways the PCs can survey the situation and stack the odds in their favor and, again, less about what "buttons" they push during combat itself (putting quotes around everything because I don't mean to sound pejorative, just repeating my understanding of how osr games work).

5e combat in theory has a try-anything approach, with advantage and the "rule of cool" and what not, but in practice comes down to things like figuring out how many creatures you can get inside of your cone-shaped spell. There's an interesting and probably contentious conversation to have there about whether codified rules are somewhat in conflict with "tactical infinity"--e.g., 'no you can't stab the guard in the throat, you can make a generic melee attack for 4 pts of damage. To that end, reliable and relatively extensive rulesets might enable player agency because they will know how an action should resolve, but might disable agency that occurs outside of the predefined box. That is, an adjudication framework that keeps the dm honest might have the effect, intended or unintended, of constraining player tactics.

 

[Campbell]

To clarify there is nothing wrong with GM decides. Even a completely unqualified GM decides. It's just without qualification there is no real way to reliably have a demonstrable impact on play.

GM decides based on whatever. No agency.
GM decides based on known x, y, z. Agency is possible because players can make decisions trusting the GM will consider x, y, z.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Snarf Zagyg I don't disagree with anything you said there. It doesn't really change my mind, but I do indeed see what you're pointing at. I wasn't really indexing rules-heavy games either. I personally find those a bit of trial, and many of my favorites rely to a great extent on principles. Anythewho...

 

[Malmuria]

That's a terrible attempt to portray Blades in the Dark play. You're starting from a trad game, standard GM-provided premise of a door that the players have to declare an action to get the GM to tell them more about the play, and then assuming that the gear rules or resistance rolls actually integrate into this play at all. They don't. There's never an opening situations like you've provided, to start, and the resistance or gear deployment don't operate in that manner.

Please enlighten me. I mean it! I'm relatively new to Blades in the Dark, not an expert, so I would appreciate knowing how I'm looking at it the wrong way. (it is disheartening to hear that I can read the book several times and read advice for how to run things online and ask questions on the discord server and still get it so wrong, but I'm trying)

 

[Manbearcat]

I guess skilled play can have a variety of meanings too. In 5e, players might know that to look for traps you roll perception or use passive. To disarm you roll dexterity. I don't think in the OSR this knowledge of the rules would be considered "skilled play." The OSR prefers to stay in the fiction, where the player has to describe in detail how their character looks for traps and use their (mundane) items creatively. The "skill" comes in staying within the fiction, not in "pressing buttons" on your character sheet. Similarly, in combat, the "skill" would come in everything that happens outside of initiative, the ways the PCs can survey the situation and stack the odds in their favor and, again, less about what "buttons" they push during combat itself (putting quotes around everything because I don't mean to sound pejorative, just repeating my understanding of how osr games work).

This I agree with.

Skilled Play in Magic the Gathering is different than Skilled Play in Pictionary or Telephone (whether you’re conveying the message or decoding it).

Both of these Skilled Play paradigms can (and do) exist in the same game (I’ll put “however” here as I’m unclear if you agree or disagree).

@Snarf Zagyg

I did a post upthread about governing principles.

The thrust of that was they matter in proportion to (a) how well they delineate this form of play from that (or another) form of play in the moment and (b) how well they engender a coherent experience that integrates with the whole of play (including the macro agenda/goal and all adjacent micro goals/aspects of play).

So for this to be true, the principles can’t be generic (they need to have sufficient zoom/resolution and they should sufficiently delineate in a way that matters to actual play) and they need to have just enough text (no less…no more) so that they’re easily digestible and their routine application leads to coherent play.

“Skip the gate guards and get to the fun” is crap. I mean I know what it’s saying…but it’s crap.

How about “At every moment…drive play towards conflict” or “Cut to the Action” (where “the action” has been laid out prior)?

Much better.

You know what else sucks? “Have fun!” (for the same reasons).

Thoughts?

 

[Fenris-77]

@Malmuria Egad, don't feel bad about Blades taking some getting used to. My reaction to a bunch of the rules after my first read through was WTF?!. After some time with rules it gets easier. Position and effect was the thing I had the most trouble wrapping my head around. I think it's worth the effort though, I love the game.