D&D General What is player agency to you?

[EzekielRaiden]

It has been so long that I literally have no clue what you are referring to.

Mike Mearls literally repeated actual anti-4e edition warring topics on a D&D Next podcast as part of his explanation of why the Warlord class shouldn't exist. He passed them off as jokes ("Now I'm being ridiculous" were his exact words, IIRC), but he very literally echoed the "shouting hands back on" insult.

 

[Maxperson]

Mike Mearls literally repeated actual anti-4e edition warring topics on a D&D Next podcast as part of his explanation of why the Warlord class shouldn't exist. He passed them off as jokes ("Now I'm being ridiculous" were his exact words, IIRC), but he very literally echoed the "shouting hands back on" insult.

I personally can't stand the Warlord class, but I've always advocated it being in the game for the many who do like it. That really sucks.

 

[pemerton]

No?

Again is this a trick question?

Genuinely this seems obvious, and it's like you're trying to extract something by being cryptic but maybe I'm just dumb.

I think one of the important purposes of RPG rules is to tell the participants who is meant to say stuff, when, and under what parameters.

So if a player says " My PC does such-and-such-a-thing", and then looks to the GM to see what happens next, the rules tell the GM how to work out what to say, perhaps specify parameters on what might be said, etc.

Depending on what those rules are, they may mediate joint creation of a fiction. Or they may give the GM the predominant role.

I've posted an example, not very far upthread, of Torchbearer play which illustrates both sorts of possibility: jointly created fiction (mediated by the conflict rules) and GM created fiction (which the players get access to by declaring actions for their PCs that oblige me as GM to reveal that information).

 

[pemerton]

Not that I want to make a point from the other side......BUT....your missing the big word he typed: Joint.

I can absolutely say a Railroaded High Illusion game can have Genuine Rich Fiction: It's what I do.

<snip>

The DM puts in a massive amount of time and work making a game world, a more specific game setting area and an Adventure. And an adventure has a story and a plot, all made by the DM. The player then shows up, doing the bare minimum effort of making a character and play through the adventure. While playing through the adventure, the player has all sorts of very limited freedom within the story, plot and fiction to influence various directions of everything under the DMs watchful gaze.

I wouldn't characterise that as genuine, rich, joint creation of a shared fiction. It seems pretty much GM-authorship, player-audience.

I don't see any real "Player Agency" here....unless your counting "players using illusionium player agency game rules". And I guess that is what your saying: Player Agency is when a player uses a game rule that sets them "free" from the DM

I don't know about that last bit - about setting free etc - as I continually emphasise the GM's role rather than the player's "special powers". But I agree that I don't see much player agency in what you describe.

 

[pemerton]

Echoing an insult doesn't make it not an insult.

Whatever Tuovinen has to say, I will never see it because the very fact that he uses "GM story hour" means that whatever he wrote is founded in deep, deep bias against traditional playstyles. I have no interest in slogging through a ton of bias to try and glean a few nuggets that might be worthwhile.

From here: Observations on GNS Simulationism – Correspondence is about Diligence

I prefer to use a different term to reduce preconceptions and draw attention to what’s pertinent for our purposes. (“Railroading” was conceived as a deconstructive critique of this practice; it’s the name an enemy grants to the phenomenon.) . . .

to put it briefly, I believe that railroading play, despite how common it is, is generally misunderstood to concern itself mostly with the causal “A leads to B” path procession through the GM’s prepared material. This type of railroading theory leads to complex conceptualizations like hub models (alternate roads you allow the players to pick from) and magician’s choice (the players think they’re choosing, but really they’re not) . . .

What I would like to offer as a modest alternative to old-fashioned railroading theory is that the purpose. . . is not to cheat and create an illusion of freedom; it is to exquisitely prepare nuanced literary material for intimate consideration. The strength of the railroading game structure is not in hiding the tracks, but rather in ensuring that those tracks travel through scenes worthy of spending some time in. You’re literally only bothering with the railroad tracks because you don’t want to waste time preparing complex content and then just have the other players skip it; it’s much better to take the track as a given and focus on how to make your content worth the trip.

I’ve written about this in more detail elsewhere, but the key consideration is treating your game prep the same way an adventure video game does: your core strength is being able to prepare carefully, and the freedoms you give to the player are carefully constrained to ensure that you actually get to show off your stuff. It is still interactive, as the player has the primary control over the pace (how quickly you go over your material) and focus (what parts of your material are particularly observed) of play, even as the GM by definition holds primary content authority. The GM decides what play will be about, but the other players decide how they investigate that aboutness. . . .

It is extremely important that the introduced matter is good stuff, creatively relevant to the participants. Tracy Hickman understood this in his magnum opus Dragonlance, pushing the AD&D content delivery chassis to its extreme ends and beyond in an effort to deliver a true high fantasy epic via a game structurally very poorly suited for the purpose; Hickman understood that if there was to be a measure of grace to the project, it would be in the fact that the GM would . . . be delivering actually legit fantasy literature. (Not discussing the Dragonlance novels here, note, but the adventure modules.)

You never, ever want to be in a position to deliver . . . trivial material. Respect yourself, respect your friends, and . . . bring something you actually want to tell the other players about. Something that you can describe to them, and then let them ask questions, and then answer those questions gladly, confident that you’re engaging in an intelligent, meaningful activity. If you can’t convince yourself about your material being interesting, don’t expect others to care, either.​

Upthread I've posted about CoC scenarios that I have enjoyed that have exactly this character. And @AbdulAlhazred has often posted about his friend Mike who was an awesome GM along these lines. Eero is talking about, and trying to analyse, this very popular approach to RPGing.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Mike Mearls literally repeated actual anti-4e edition warring topics on a D&D Next podcast as part of his explanation of why the Warlord class shouldn't exist. He passed them off as jokes ("Now I'm being ridiculous" were his exact words, IIRC), but he very literally echoed the "shouting hands back on" insult.

Sure. But if you understand that, you should probably stop and first say, "Yes, I can understand why you disagree with 'DM Story Hour.'"

Otherwise, this is just classic "Whataboutism."

Look, if you don't start understand that "DM Story Hour" is a terribly loaded and pejorative term, then I'm sure you would be happy with everyone here saying:

I don't understand why this thread, ostensibly about D&D (and tagged as such), keeps getting diverted into discussing Amateur Bad Improv Hour. I mean, we are supposed to be talking about agency within D&D games, not talking about Amateur Bad Improv Hour games. I'm sure that Amateur Bad Improv Hour games might have some useful features for some people, but look, I realized that Amateur Bad Improv Hour games weren't for me after I played it, and I realized that it was just a bunch of people loosely doing terrible improv, and I was like, "Nope, you have got to me kidding me. I mean, Whose Line is it Anyway is barely tolerable, but I don't need to see Maximum Derek trying to bring it. No thank you.

Oh, wait. You think that's a pejorative term? Look, I read an essay once by some dude fifteen years ago, and since he said, it's totes cool. So suck it up and use my term. Story now? Fiction first? Narrative games? Naw, he called it Amateur Bad Improv Hour, and that's what it is.

See? I almost feel like I've discussed the topic of why this hobbyist-invented jargon is usually used to denigrate styles of play, in order to elevate other styles of play. Again, if you are with other people that like a certain style of play, I am certain that the jargon can be useful ... but you shouldn't be surprised when there is pushback when you are using it with people that don't agree with you.

 

[soviet]

Sure. But if you understand that, you should probably stop and first say, "Yes, I can understand why you disagree with 'DM Story Hour.'"

Otherwise, this is just classic "Whataboutism."

Look, if you don't start understand that "DM Story Hour" is a terribly loaded and pejorative term, then I'm sure you would be happy with everyone here saying:

I don't understand why this thread, ostensibly about D&D (and tagged as such), keeps getting diverted into discussing Amateur Bad Improv Hour. I mean, we are supposed to be talking about agency within D&D games, not talking about Amateur Bad Improv Hour games. I'm sure that Amateur Bad Improv Hour games might have some useful features for some people, but look, I realized that Amateur Bad Improv Hour games weren't for me after I played it, and I realized that it was just a bunch of people loosely doing terrible improv, and I was like, "Nope, you have got to me kidding me. I mean, Whose Line is it Anyway is barely tolerable, but I don't need to see Maximum Derek trying to bring it. No thank you.

Oh, wait. You think that's a pejorative term? Look, I read an essay once by some dude fifteen years ago, and since he said, it's totes cool. So suck it up and use my term. Story now? Fiction first? Narrative games? Naw, he called it Amateur Bad Improv Hour, and that's what it is.

See? I almost feel like I've discussed the topic of why this hobbyist-invented jargon is usually used to denigrate styles of play, in order to elevate other styles of play. Again, if you are with other people that like a certain style of play, I am certain that the jargon can be useful ... but you shouldn't be surprised when there is pushback when you are using it with people that don't agree with you.

Have you not read the thread? Most of this was said.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Have you not read the thread? Most of this was said.

Great! So no one is using or defending "DM Story Hour," and you are using your powers for good to engage those people that are.

Thanks you!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure. But if you understand that, you should probably stop and first say, "Yes, I can understand why you disagree with 'DM Story Hour.'"

Otherwise, this is just classic "Whataboutism."

Look, if you don't start understand that "DM Story Hour" is a terribly loaded and pejorative term, then I'm sure you would be happy with everyone here saying:

I don't understand why this thread, ostensibly about D&D (and tagged as such), keeps getting diverted into discussing Amateur Bad Improv Hour. I mean, we are supposed to be talking about agency within D&D games, not talking about Amateur Bad Improv Hour games. I'm sure that Amateur Bad Improv Hour games might have some useful features for some people, but look, I realized that Amateur Bad Improv Hour games weren't for me after I played it, and I realized that it was just a bunch of people loosely doing terrible improv, and I was like, "Nope, you have got to me kidding me. I mean, Whose Line is it Anyway is barely tolerable, but I don't need to see Maximum Derek trying to bring it. No thank you.

Oh, wait. You think that's a pejorative term? Look, I read an essay once by some dude fifteen years ago, and since he said, it's totes cool. So suck it up and use my term. Story now? Fiction first? Narrative games? Naw, he called it Amateur Bad Improv Hour, and that's what it is.

See? I almost feel like I've discussed the topic of why this hobbyist-invented jargon is usually used to denigrate styles of play, in order to elevate other styles of play. Again, if you are with other people that like a certain style of play, I am certain that the jargon can be useful ... but you shouldn't be surprised when there is pushback when you are using it with people that don't agree with you.

I've never used that term, so I can't really comment. "DM Story Hour," I mean. Like, I've literally never used the phrase "story hour" on this forum, and I'm fairly sure I've never used it anywhere else, either. From what I can tell, folks certainly have used it in this thread. I didn't actually read any of those posts (as I have more than once checked out of the thread), and it looks like at least some of the relevant posters have been directly told off--which would seem to be the repudiation for such terms you are hoping for.

So what jargon exactly have I used? Where have I spoken badly of things? I have, as much as possible, endeavored to factor in the opinions of actual posters in this thread--some of whom have explicitly said they want "less" agency, whether in terms of fewer instances of it (not many want that, but some do, the abnegatory/"I just want to sling dice and not think about it that hard" interest) or in terms of fewer forms of it (something to the effect of an improv actor/"I just want to take care of my character.")

Sometimes I want that too. Not often, mind, as I usually get those itches scratched in other ways. And sometimes I want even more agency than gaming can meaningfully provide. At which point I turn to the pen and page (or, well, the keyboard and Google doc) and work something out in that space instead. Even my favorite games can't always give me the agency I want from something; they don't offer enough. I'm not sure any game could.

Am I slighting my own preferences by saying that? Am I slighting 4e by saying that I think it's probably a lower-agency game than 13th Age, which is probably a lower-agency game than Dungeon World?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@EzekielRaiden

If someone is complaining about A, and your only response is, "Why aren't you complaining about B," then this is called "Whataboutism."

Which is what happened. If you had nothing to contribute to the actual issue (DM Story Hour) that you were responding to ... which is fine ... then why introduce your own specific complaint that had nothing to do by responding to that person and that topic? Again, I'm not the boss of you, and you can write what you want, but maybe you should be aware that this is exactly how it appears.