It's the player that just comes up with a random act, and then wants it to work 100% and work 100% exactly the way they want it to benefit their character. Then when I say it does not happen they whine about 'agency'. The classic example here is the rock toss. Two orcs guard a back door. Player Bob has the idea to have his character toss a rock "over there". I have the guards ignore it. Bob gets all upset as in his mind the guards should have abandoned their post and run off into the woods for at least an hour looking for the source of the noise.
No. You should look at the context. I was asked for examples of player choices which cannot be mapped to character choices, or at least not mapped 1:1 with them.
You count character back grounds as player agency? That is a new one.
Sure. It's not
character agency. But it is player agency.
Setting lore, common sense and DM whims will always trump whatever random stuff a player says.
See, when you say things like this, this is why I talk about players being led around by the nose--and about tyrannical GMs who force players to obey, in your own words, mere "whims."
I see people do it all the time. But I'd need to see some game play to point it out.....maybe if someone had a play by post to share?
What games? What systems? What rules? Just saying you see it is
nowhere near enough. People see a lot of things.
And, yes, in the examples the GM always agrees...but that is part of the game. The GM read the rules and on page 44 it said "let the players make up stuff and alter reality", so the GM nods and says "ok,".
Which.
Games.
Do.
That?
Because you keep
SAYING that these games exist. That there's a rule on page 44 which explicitly says it. But you have never--not once, not a
single time--actually given me a game where such a rule exists. While I, and others, have given you
game after game where it DOESN'T exist. Game after game after game where nothing of the sort occurs.
Unless and until you actually give me a game where there's a rule on page X that says that, I think you are at absolute best grossly mistaken.
No, that is accurate. Though I use the Invisible Railroad and I'm a Smooth Operator. But I do think that most of the time there is only one way when talking about such vague marco things.
Like if I want the PCs to take a ship, I will alter the world to make it so. Like the destination they want to reach is on an island....so they HAVE to take a ship to get to the island.
So your players, by definition, have no agency whatsoever. Whatever you want to happen, you
make happen, no matter what.
Their choices are irrelevant. They
will do what you have decided they will do. It's simply a matter of how long it takes them to clue into the "correct" choice. Lovely.
Not following you here....
You have said, repeatedly, that you will override what players are interested in, that in fact you
aggressively do not care what they want out of a game. If they come out the other end copacetic to your goals, awesome; if they come out hating your guts, well, sucks to be them. Is that not correct?
If so, why do you not apply that same concept one level higher? Instead of "running 5e because that's the only game players are willing to play" (meaning, you yield to the players' requirement that you run 5e), you go for the hilt, and tell people you just ARE running Call of Cthulhu or whatever and if they want to play some other game,
sucks to be them, they can find a "buddy" DM that coddles them and never does anything they don't want to do etc. etc. whatever other things you think are bad about actually listening to others.
Every example I've seen or read or heard about sure fits. Maybe you or someone could give some examples.
First: How can I give you an example of something that does not exist? I am telling you that, in the entirety of the PbtA games I have played (which is easily 4-5 different systems), none of them have the kinds of rules you describe. How can I point to a page and say, "See? Look at the
absence of a rule telling GMs to accept whatever a player invents." Seriously, you are asking for an impossibility. This is why I keep asking
you to tell me what game--ANY game--that does what you claim it does. Because that's actually possible! It is actually possible to point to a page and say, "See, written on this page, it says 'the GM must accept whatever the player said.' " It is not possible to point to a book and say, "See, in the whole of this 120-page book, none of these pages say that!"
Second: Above, I gave
an example of a (made-up, not actually real) Spout Lore roll, which is a thing from Dungeon World (and similar such moves exist in other PbtA games, e.g.
Open Your Brain to the World's Psychic Maelstrom from Apocalypse World). Someone in this thread
explicitly called out Spout Lore, by name, as an example of a move that lets the player simply declare that something exists. I showed how that move actually works in practice, and that
it does not permit the player to declare ANYTHING, let alone freely declare an advantage for themselves.
So. Again. I challenge you to name any of these systems you claim to see "all the time" that have explicit rules forcing the GM to accept fiat declarations from players. Give me context. I am happy to go looking up the rules myself. But you have to actually name a game--
one game--that actually works the way you describe. Unless and until you do, frankly, I'm calling BS on this whole argument.
I don't see it, do the players in your game tell the GM 'I attack the Orc and chop off his head, killing him instantly' ? That is telling the GM what happens. Saying 'I attack the Orc' is telling the GM what you do.
Or in case you complain about there being rules for combat, how about 'I search the cupboard and find a sword +1 and two healing potions' rather than 'I search the cupboard'?
Why do you assume that telling the GM what happens means always giving yourself an amazing, unprecedented, unrealistic, overpowered advantage?
Why do you instantly cast this in the most degenerate light possible?
Why do you not account for the possibility of dialogue and discussion?
Why is there no room for, as an example, giving a player the chance to explain what their childhood home looks like, under the condition that it has been attacked and set on fire by demons (remember, essentially
every "narrative" game has the requirement that established fiction cannot be simply contradicted)? Or, for another example, describing what emotions they feel upon cresting the hill and seeing the shining city up ahead, and then saying what landmark they notice first? Etc. Because those examples are a HELL of a lot more like what playing DW is actually like.
None of my players--not a single one, not even the most munchkin-y among them--ever even
considered doing the kinds of $#!+ behavior you describe.
Apart from that, a lore book does not limit player agency, the rules do and the situation does.
