Dealing with agency and retcon (in semi sandbox)

[TheSword]

i feel like there are currently three different judgements of what defines 'agency' right now:

-the player's actions have 'meaningful consequence' and effect on the world, though they don't need to know what those are going to be beforehand
-the players are capable of establishing 'the stakes' of their actions
-the players ought to know the consequences and the odds of success of available actions so they can make 'informed decisions'

if you think i've missed or misstated a definition please clearly state how you think it should be presented it in it's clearest basic phrasing when you reply

To give a concrete example of a meaningful decision. Let’s use a famous example. I’ve put it in spoilers just in case there is a reader of these forums that hasn’t seen but still intends to see Game of Thrones…

Spoiler: Game of Thrones - Example

Rob Stark needs to cross the Trident and reluctantly agrees to marry a Frey daughter of his choosing in order to use the bridge at the twin towers. A few weeks/months later he chooses to marry someone else. He knows this might offend the Freys and could cause trouble down the line but makes a conscious decision to do it anyway.

Let’s say Rob Stark is a character in my game. His player doesn’t understand the stakes, he might have foreseen that the alliance with with house Frey could fracture and that they could cause trouble but he had crossed the bridge.

A second decision to punish the Karstark’s for killing two child prisoners was another choice. He understood that the Karstarks would abandon him leaving him vulnerable. He couldn’t have seen Freys betrayal at the red wedding that came as a result.

Does Rob Stark’s player have sufficient agency? Does Rob’s player need to see all outcomes, or is it enough to foresee the immediate ones? Is it enough that they were telegraphed even if they were ignored as being unimportant.

For the record, I think his player would have had agency. Which is all about making your own bed and then lying in it, as it were.

 

[pemerton]

Does Rob Stark’s player have sufficient agency?

Sufficient for what? This is like asking whether lottery participants have sufficient agency? Well, yes, part of the point of a lottery or raffle is that you submit to the luck of the draw. This is not an objection to raffles. But it doesn't show they're high agency - obviously they're zero agency!

Let’s say Rob Stark is a character in my game. His player doesn’t understand the stakes, he might have foreseen that the alliance with with house Frey could fracture and that they could cause trouble but he had crossed the bridge.

A second decision to punish the Karstark’s for killing two child prisoners was another choice. He understood that the Karstarks would abandon him leaving him vulnerable. He couldn’t have seen Freys betrayal at the red wedding that came as a result.

How do we know any of these things?

Depending on how a RPG is played, there can be many different relationships between players and what is at stake in the fiction.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It's my view that agency in a game is a product of inviolable rules which players know and can rely on to achieve known goals.

okay but this definition as presented implies to me no requirement of knowing particular DCs, there are ironclad rules that both the player and DM know and must obey, the known goal of an action is established when the player declares their action their intent of performing it, as well as on a larger scale directing the story itself from those cumulative individual actions, but going by this part specifically and some of the rest of the post it's from

• Transparent rules and processes that offer guaranteed outcomes (good and bad)
• Transparent goals for characters - often through authorship of them by the players
• Faciliatation of that authorship through group creation of setting and/or situation such that character goals are given meaning and context by player choice, not secret GM backstory

you say that the player must know the guaranteed outcomes of both success and failure prior to attempting anything as well as there never being any factors in universe outside the players knowledge that may influence the situation and cause outcomes they were not expecting?

are you saying that the player should never be caught unawares by anything else they never had agency in that situation???

The different judgements are purely the product of people wanting to (mis)represent minimal agency play as high agency play.

And your paraphrasing of my view was wholly insufficient. Quelle surprise.

given that i specifically asked to be corrected if you though i had misinterpreted your viewpoint i don't appreciate the insinuations that i was intentionally presenting it incorrectly or with malice thank you very much

 

[hawkeyefan]

Again. I don’t believe a good level of agency is the ability to go anywhere and do anything. See No Man’s Sky to see just how hollow that kind of experience can be.

Right, that's why I made a distinction between the two.

If I’m playing a game with other people part of the social contract is that I at least attempt to play reasonably with them. That is in itself a limitation but because it’s for the good of everyone we accept it. The same applies to players who agree to be interested the world and the things going on in it.

So what you said was "to be interested in the world and the things going on in it" but what that seems to mean, to me, is "to engage willingly with the GM's plots". Does that seem correct? If not, why not? What's the distinction between "what's going on in the world" and "the plots of the GM"?

And to be clear, there's nothing at all wrong with engaging with the GM's plots. It's just that it's not an example of a game with player agency. Doesn't mean it can't be fun and engaging.

We wouldn’t accept one player deciding that they want to use the adventure gaming session to model what it’s like to run their real world dog grooming business, but we might allow them to run around with a mastiff henchman. That’s also a limitation but another reasonable and practical one.

Boundaries are good. Focusing in allows greater depth and detail.

I'm not saying that there can't be limitations to play. Having a premise or core idea is fine. Plenty of games have a premise... the characters are all soldiers trying to get home from behind enemy lines, or the characters are a group of criminals, or the characters are spies... and so on.

How is the premise selected? What say do the players have in how they engage with the premise? What are the goals of play? Who chooses those goals?

Players agree to adventure in the parameters set by the DM, with an understanding that if they want to step outside of that then they need the DM to be willing and they need to give them time to prepare. That’s just respectful.

So D&D has this vague notion of "adventuring" as its most common central premise. When it comes to agency, this can be both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing in that it allows for a wide range of activities for the players to engage with. It's a curse because most of those activities come in the form of hooks for the GM to dangle and which they must "agree" to follow.

The players agree to stay in the Kingdom but the DM agrees to fill that area with engaging, interesting stuff to see and do… social contract.

I have played and run plenty of games where the social contract is nothing like this.

If plate armour grants AC 18 and a foe is in plate armour then the PC can deduce a potential range of AC. What is the virtue of giving them the exact number?

This has already been answered. It's to let them make an informed decision. So they can evaluate their different options, and reliably know the odds for each. This allows the player to understand the state of the game.

What is the virtue of not giving the actual number?

 

[TheSword]

Sufficient for what? This is like asking whether lottery participants have sufficient agency? Well, yes, part of the point of a lottery or raffle is that you submit to the luck of the draw. This is not an objection to raffles. But it doesn't show they're high agency - obviously they're zero agency!

How do we know any of these things?

Depending on how a RPG is played, there can be many different relationships between players and what is at stake in the fiction.

We know them because the information was revealed to the reader as events unfolded. With internal consistency and logic giving some reasonable foreseeable potential outcomes and clearly a lot of unforeseen ones.

I agree that lottery participants get a single decision - buy or don’t buy. More complex games aren’t lotteries though. They are complex structures (where they are interesting) and feature many decisions with varying levels of impact.

 

[chaochou]

okay but this definition as presented implies to me no requirement of knowing particular DCs, there are ironclad rules that both the player and DM know and must obey, the known goal of an action is established when the player declares their action their intent of performing it, as well as on a larger scale directing the story itself from those cumulative individual actions, but going by this part specifically and some of the rest of the post it's from

you say that the player must know the guaranteed outcomes of both success and failure prior to attempting anything as well as there never being any factors in universe outside the players knowledge that may influence the situation and cause outcomes they were not expecting?

are you saying that the player should never be caught unawares by anything else they never had agency in that situation???

given that i specifically asked to be corrected if you though i had misinterpreted your viewpoint i don't appreciate the insinuations that i was intentionally presenting it incorrectly or with malice thank you very much

Oh. Well, I didn't appreciate being clearly and obviously misrepresented and then the onus put on me to correct you. I see you haven't edited the original post though. So you clearly weren't that interested in accuracy.

On which topic, I'm not minded to pick my way through the knowledge gaps and faulty assumptions to correct this latest post. There's nothing in it for me.

 

[TheSword]

So what you said was "to be interested in the world and the things going on in it" but what that seems to mean, to me, is "to engage willingly with the GM's plots". Does that seem correct? If not, why not? What's the distinction between "what's going on in the world" and "the plots of the GM"?

And to be clear, there's nothing at all wrong with engaging with the GM's plots. It's just that it's not an example of a game with player agency. Doesn't mean it can't be fun and engaging.

You say this isn’t a game with agency. I say that relies on a very narrow interpretation of what agency means. Essentially the ability to make meaningful choices which can be broken into four components

-Awareness: the player has to know that a choice can be made

-Consequences: the player’s choice has to be accurately represented in the game

-Reminders: the player has to be reminded of the choice after they make it

-Permanence: the player cannot go back and undo their choice (after seeing its effects)

I think all of these can feature fine in a scenario with GM plots if by that you mean the locations, NPcs, hooks and Events that exist in the world created by by a GM.

I'm not saying that there can't be limitations to play. Having a premise or core idea is fine. Plenty of games have a premise... the characters are all soldiers trying to get home from behind enemy lines, or the characters are a group of criminals, or the characters are spies... and so on.

How is the premise selected? What say do the players have in how they engage with the premise? What are the goals of play? Who chooses those goals?

My preferred approach is the pitch. Followed by Q&A discussion. I say, I’d like to run an investigation based game at a time of political unrest in the city of Ubersreik using the WFRP. Is this interesting to you? What kind of characters do you want to run? I then go away and prepare a campaign that fits that.

Once they agree part of the assumption is that they will create a character that has a reason to adventure in Ubersreik and that they won’t create a character with a burning desire to travel to Altdorf!

So D&D has this vague notion of "adventuring" as its most common central premise. When it comes to agency, this can be both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing in that it allows for a wide range of activities for the players to engage with. It's a curse because most of those activities come in the form of hooks for the GM to dangle and which they must "agree" to follow.

I see adventuring as doing adventurous things. I.e not running a bakery or picking flowers on the verge. Raising your head above the parapet in a way that most most denizens of the world won’t. I don’t think you need to be a travelling mercenary - you can be a baker or a herbalist - but you’ll be stepping out of that hun drum space to do something extraordinary.

I see dangling hooks as one of a DMs most important duties. The more appetizing the better.

I have played and run plenty of games where the social contract is nothing like this.

This has already been answered. It's to let them make an informed decision. So they can evaluate their different options, and reliably know the odds for each. This allows the player to understand the state of the game.

What is the virtue of not giving the actual number?

Mysteries are fun. Otherwise why not give them an open map of the dungeon complex with a brief description of each room at the same time as giving the AC?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Why would all abilities map to description? I was always taught not to judge a book by its cover.

Maybe it won't, but it still adds up to "Does large lizard tell you anything?" In reality, that should give you some idea how hard something would be to kill, and that's not even getting into the question (always controversial) of whether people who are professional adventurers shouldn't have some idea about what all else is out there in the world (from word of mouth) and thus be able to go "Oh, that's got six legs. Crap, its probably a basilisk."

But its almost irrelevant. The issue is still that if you minimize the information someone has, you minimize their agency. That's just as true in real life as in games.

A large lizard could be a monitor lizard or it could be a dragon. Better descriptions are needed I think. I wouldn’t expect to get any more from that than I would a ‘tall man’ about a persons fighting ability. Now if he has the sash of a master of the Aldori fighting school and has numerous scars suggesting he can handle himself then we might be getting somewhere.

That's kind of my point.

Part of the art of successful war is surprise. So how clearly a creature telegraphs its strengths and weaknesses is all part of the tactical element of the game. Probing attacks to test a creatures skill and further study. I personally love monster knowledge tropes like the Witcher and would allow players to recall information with knowledge checks.

And that sort of thing helps a lot. But I'll note the hobby is full of people who think players should always be as much in the dark as possible.

I also think you can reveal more information with interaction. When a person misses I give a rough indication of how much. When a blow hits and deals damage I show the proportion of hp this removes. This allows people to make estimations.

Well, there's always the problem in some games that by the time you've actually engaged with an opponent, it may be too late; see my basilisk example above.

 

[Thomas Shey]

i feel like there are currently three different judgements of what defines 'agency' right now:

-the player's actions have 'meaningful consequence' and effect on the world, though they don't need to know what those are going to be beforehand
-the players are capable of establishing 'the stakes' of their actions
-the players ought to know the consequences and the odds of success of available actions so they can make 'informed decisions'

if you think i've missed or misstated a definition please clearly state how you think it should be presented it in it's clearest basic phrasing when you reply

I think "odds of success" can cover a wide range of grounds; you don't need to necessarily know precise numbers (though as I've argued, that's the only reliable way to make sure the GM and players are on the same page) but you ought to be able to know enough to set expectations.

And to be clear, in a campaign maybe you don't always even have to have that every time. But don't kid yourself when the players don't know what they're dealing with and don't have a way to find out before engaging that there isn't a significant loss of agency there, because there is. That doesn't necessarily mean it should always be off the table, but you should be aware that's what's happening.

 

[TheSword]

Maybe it won't, but it still adds up to "Does large lizard tell you anything?" In reality, that should give you some idea how hard something would be to kill, and that's not even getting into the question (always controversial) of whether people who are professional adventurers shouldn't have some idea about what all else is out there in the world (from word of mouth) and thus be able to go "Oh, that's got six legs. Crap, its probably a basilisk."

But its almost irrelevant. The issue is still that if you minimize the information someone has, you minimize their agency. That's just as true in real life as in games.

Well gathering that information in the method that the players choose can be part of the game. I.e the party want to retrieve something from a noble’s manor. Do they kick the door down and go in crossbow’s blazing? Do they capture one of the servants and interrogate/bribe them? Do they obtain a map of the facility? Do they send in a scout to gather info?

I don’t believe this stuff needs to be handed to the PCs on a plate. I also don’t think every choice needs to be meaningful for there to be a good degree of player agency. Arguably making an attack roll against a creature they know nothing about is not a meaningful choice. After a round of combat they get an idea of how tough the creature is and how dangerous it is, deciding then to continue attacking or beat a hasty retreat is a meaningful choice. If that is a possibility then those characters have agency.

And that sort of thing helps a lot. But I'll note the hobby is full of people who think players should always be as much in the dark as possible.

I get that. Elaborate back stories that never come to light, 2D foes, too many journey style adventures where you never actually learn anything about your surroundings. These are not my favorite things.

Well, there's always the problem in some games that by the time you've actually engaged with an opponent, it may be too late; see my basilisk example above.

I agree totally. I am disheartened by the over reliance on fire and forget combat. Dozens of small and relatively unimportant combats designed to wear PCs down that individually mean little beyond filling rooms and levelling up. Paizo were a burger for doing that in their APs.

Some of that is ok to set a scene but I’m far more interested in combat being more important, more meaningful and something that can, and should be broken off where necessary. I think that should be easier for both PCs and DMs. I quite like the idea of being able to switch to a chase mechanic that steps outside of the normal initiative structure once a creature decides to break for it.