D&D General What is player agency to you?

[AbdulAlhazred]

So wait, we're at the point in the thread where those who think the wise GM needs to have a veto over all player actions to preserve fidelity to an imagined reality also think the GM is naive and easy to manipulate?

Heh, you won this thread so many times over it isn't even funny This is like, the 4th one just since about page 150.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@Campbell @AbdulAlhazred @pemerton

How far off am I if I think of the classic D&D etc. RPG player as having a goal akin to writing the part of their chosen character in a play - like being portal fantasied into that characters mind and memories but with your will. So, strictly first person dialogue (internal and external) and action declarations, but not the resulting narration. And think of the Story Now RPG player as having a goal of writing the parts about that character in a shared novel. So, both the first person things above but also the surrounding narration to shape the story more directly.

Well, I think players bring different tastes, and thus pursue different agendas and try to use different techniques. One way to look at it is the 6C 'cultures of play' sort of view, but that just kind of describes prevailing styles of play. Now, what a given player will experience when they try to play their agenda in each one is going to vary, so they will probably find one or another of the 6C styles more to their liking. I'd note that some of these styles might emphasize narrative or characterization or whatever more or less.

GNS also talks about agenda, very specifically, so there's a bit different perspective there, and it isn't really either built around say 'shared novel' vs 'immediate immersive experience'. It is more about what is being explored, character/dramatic premise, situation/setting/milieu, or strategy/tactics.

So, MY experience of 'classic' D&D, in the 6C sense, was basically pawn stance, with possibly some immersion. It was goal oriented, with 'fun' being a significant concern, playability was pretty important to support fun. IME we rarely spent a lot of time 'in character' in that sort of play. Nor was fiction in some greater sense even really considered. That is not to say I can speak for everyone in the era when that was the most common style, some people pushed against it and did something closer to trad or even neo-trad. Overall I think the prevailing early GNS orientation was mostly G.

I don't think Narrativist play, as a contrast, is really focused on the end resulting narrative. It is just focused on putting the PCs in the role of protagonists where the action centers on them. This will generally create a narrative about the PCs, but I personally have not experienced being concerned about the resulting shape of that narrative, its 'quality', etc. The rewards are fairly immediate and feel more like the description of "being immersed in the moments of play" where we actually try to RP our characters and then invoke the mechanical tools provided in ways that will evince those character traits.

So, like in BitD my character has a nemesis (a mechanical aspect of the game). He finds out his nemesis is endangering his plans, plotting to cause badness to happen to Takeo. The backstory is this nemesis used to be his friend who turned against him after Takeo and the friend's daughter got close. So, Takeo has moved on from the daughter (she's not an NPC at that point that is anything but backstory) presumably, but he doesn't want to screw with his ex-friend. Now, game wise it doesn't matter, he's got to stop the clock of badness, if he offs the nemesis a new one will appear (by game rules, you always have one). Purely as an element of RP then I want to neutralize this NPC (end the clock) but as a matter of gamist play I don't care what that entails. In game I go to his place, things go south, no other option is left, I RP my character losing it and killing the guy (there's a fight, I win). After the score I create a new nemesis, the daughter! I hand that over to the GM, we go with it, later she messes with me, though it was close to the campaign's finale so she never became a big thing again.

That's how BitD works, at least. Things 'cook' and you have to mechanically deal with them, and the fiction is how you play it out and gives you reasons for whatever you do. Now, as someone above pointed out, there's a fairly gamist bent in BitD, you want to manage these clocks and whatnot adequately to avoid being crushed by the system. So with the above scenario there were the RP aspects, but there was also the gamist "if I don't retire this clock my character and the crew will suffer." Of course that suffering will also be fun and dramatic play, but its a fun challenge to try to keep your crew going for a few tiers of play!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Story Now play is a crucible for the characters involved. It certainly doesn't revolve around realizing player desires or preferred narrative arcs.

And this is so true, the GM is not there in a narrativist system to cater to players, NOT AT ALL. The GM's main activity is actually closer to screwing with the characters!

I mean, suppose my character has a bond with another character in DW, the VERY FIRST THING the GM will do is make a move that messes with that bond! Sure, the player may end up enacting the bond (IE protecting the other PC) or they might FAIL, or just not deal with it at all. This is what we play to find out, what will the PCs do? And even if its a PC just being proactive "Hey, lets go do X" the JOB of the GM is to say "oh, yeah, well, here's a problem you will have to solve!"

 

[bloodtide]

@bloodtide Have you ever enjoyed any contributions that your players have made to play? If so, what were they? Can you offer a few examples?

Sure, it's not a problem for the good players.

One player writes songs and poems, one makes (gnome) jokes and one likes to draw things.

Some good players write detailed back stories of 5-10 pages

But no, NEVER in my game has something like this happened: Player "My character wants some potions of healing. Lets say my character's brother is just walking down the path with 25 potions of healing for me." DM-"WOW! Ok...Roll your Circle Sike Check, DC 10. Player-"I got a 14!" DM-"Wow, wow! Suddenly you see your characters brother walking down the path RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU! He spots and says "here are 25 potions of healing, bro!"

An extremely good question. Because, frankly, the way @bloodtide talks about it, 99.9% of players are absolute jerks literally all of the time, who play exclusively to cause others pain and misery.

As Ive said before the break down is 25% good, 25% bad and 50% average.

In it's typical form, this is what I would describe as GM-driven, low player agency, RPGing.

Sounds perfect to me.

To quote <whomever>, if I wanted to tell a story, I'd write a novel.

Though I'd ask this right back at you. How is a player making all kinds of demands ANY DIFFERENT? The player hands the GM a huge block of text and says "this is my person player novel, make it happen servant GM!" and the GM says "Yes, player, we will play through your novel, just as you wish"

As to "near zero" input: in the post to which you replied, I set out in some detail the ways I have been working through my ideas about Dark Elves and Petty Dwarves over multiple games, and in both GM and player roles, over nearly a decade. That is my input. I want to put my ideas out and see what my fellow participants make of them, how they respond to them, how they might challenge them. For me, that's the point of RPGing.

Oh, so you did some input years ago and don't feel you need to do any in modern times.

I've posted examples. Many of them. In reply to you, I unpacked an episode of 4e D&D play in great detail (post 3809). If you're not interested in reading what I post, that's your prerogative, but I'd be grateful if you'd refrain from empty conjecture about my RPGing.

Well, I was just asking questions. As you did not answer, I now know the answer is : The Players.

This is me, as GM, doing my job of framing scenes, and narrating consequences for failure.

Right, like I said...you, as your role as GM are deciding. Everything is decided by the players....you just act as their agent.

I don't understand why you can't accept my account of my play.

Thurgon did not "just stand there" - as per the actual play post,

the two character's wanted to continue more-or-less due east on the other side of both streams. This was heading into the neighbourhood of Auxol, and so Thurgon kept his eye out for friends and family.​

And "the two characters came upon Thurgon's older brother Rufus driving a horse and cart."

This is not the player "altering reality". It's a declared action being resolved.

Maybe it's just your description of events. I mean all I see is "player wants X to happen". Player makes rules check. GM rolls out the red carpet and says "whatever you the player just said happens."

The only other thing I can see here is the hostile anti-GM rule.

In a D&D game, a player might 'just say' they keep an eye out for family members when then enter their home town. Then the all powerful DM, alone, decides if the character sees anyone and who in the family it is. The helpless, powerless player just sits there and waits.

Your version is the hostile anti-DM rule. The player says their character keeps and eye out, makes the check and then attacks the DM with it: "HA, I made my check, I have all the agency power! Now you MUST, By The Rules, have me encounter some of my family members...weather you want to or not! HAHAHA"

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But no, NEVER in my game has something like this happened: Player "My character wants some potions of healing. Lets say my character's brother is just walking down the path with 25 potions of healing for me." DM-"WOW! Ok...Roll your Circle Sike Check, DC 10. Player-"I got a 14!" DM-"Wow, wow! Suddenly you see your characters brother walking down the path RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU! He spots and says "here are 25 potions of healing, bro!"

But our point is there IS NO GAME where this would happen. This is not some sort of narrativist system trait! It isn't anything resembling any RPG I've ever heard of!

First of all, what sort of a 'dramatic need' is wanting some healing potions? That's just basic materialistic "give me stuff." If that's the level of characterization in a game, well, good luck! This is also why ever Narrativist system worth its salt builds characters around who they are, what motivates them, how they relate to the premise of the game, etc. not "how much stuff do they have/want/can get." Sure, it may be that my PC in DW wants a bunch of healing potions, to cure all the villagers! Why does he want to cure them? Because he's Lawful Good! And I will get XP for doing lawful good stuff too!

Nor is there any game I am aware of where you simply get what you want, even when achieving success as you are describing here, and magically your every wish falls out of a tree at your feet. You MIGHT meet your brother, the healing potion maker guy in, say, my DW game if you make success on a 'Supply' move (which can only happen in a 'town') your brother shows up with some potions, but you need to pay for them (its part of the move). Now, maybe you can Bargain with him, or whatever, but there's undoubtedly going to be more to it, because I as the GM am going to put pressure on you! The gold is not enough, you are going to have to go find some more, or do someone a favor, or gather supplies, whatever.

No rule in this game, nor in BitD, nor TB2, nor Agon, 4e, etc. which are games I've played enough to be confident of, is going to just give you what you want because you rolled a dice! Its absurd.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Your version is the hostile anti-DM rule. The player says their character keeps and eye out, makes the check and then attacks the DM with it: "HA, I made my check, I have all the agency power! Now you MUST, By The Rules, have me encounter some of my family members...weather you want to or not! HAHAHA"

No, the problem is you have this tiny little narrow view of what RPG play is and the relationship between the participants which doesn't allow for seeing what the vast majority of possibilities is all about. You seem to be stuck in some weird land of 'us' vs 'them' where game play is almost like some sort of prison filled with bad actors who have to be shuffled around from cage to cage and watched every minute lest they shiv someone. Its weird to be honest.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure, it's not a problem for the good players.

By the standards you've presented, literally all but one player I've ever gamed with, out of easily a hundred, has been a bad player--and all the rest have been good players, not even average.

But no, NEVER in my game has something like this happened: Player "My character wants some potions of healing. Lets say my character's brother is just walking down the path with 25 potions of healing for me." DM-"WOW! Ok...Roll your Circle Sike Check, DC 10. Player-"I got a 14!" DM-"Wow, wow! Suddenly you see your characters brother walking down the path RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU! He spots and says "here are 25 potions of healing, bro!"

Nothing like that occurs in any of the games we have been discussing. Period. You keep inventing these examples which are nothing at all like the examples I, @pemerton, and others have given you. Why? This is simply not something that happens or even CAN happen in these games!

As Ive said before the break down is 25% good, 25% bad and 50% average.

See above.

Though I'd ask this right back at you. How is a player making all kinds of demands ANY DIFFERENT? The player hands the GM a huge block of text and says "this is my person player novel, make it happen servant GM!" and the GM says "Yes, player, we will play through your novel, just as you wish"

Firstly: You are, again, being incredibly dismissive and hostile here. "Servant GM!"? Really? Second: Nothing you have described here happens in these games. Literally not even one of these things.

The players do not make demands. They describe things which interest them, or they use the rules of the game to indicate their interests. That's not a demand. It is precisely the same as when a family sits down to plan their meals for the week, and each person gives input on what kinds of food they like. "I like pasta" does not mean "ALRIGHT, SLAVE PARENT, BETTER GIVE ME PASTA RIGHT NOW OR I RIOT." It means, "Some kind of pasta is something I'd like to see on the menu, please." There are a zillion things made with pasta though!

The player hands the GM things they care about, and that acts as useful input for framing (which includes creating!) scenes. Generally, those "things they care about" are only a few sentences, nothing even remotely close to novel-length. A five-page backstory would be quite excessive here, unless the player was feeling deeply inspired, and even then, it shouldn't--couldn't, in many cases--be five pages of narrowly-specific requirements. Just...stuff they think is neat.

You keep doing this, by the way. Turning the players into the most twisted, wicked people you possibly can. Please stop doing that. It's simply erroneous. Most players are not at all like you depict them. They are not wicked. They do not treat the GM like a "servant." They do not make a novel and demand it be played. They cooperate with others, a mutually-beneficial exchange.

If you can just...let go of the idea that most players are monsters, and instead embrace the idea that the typical player actually does wish well of others and wants everyone to have a good time, much of this will make a great deal more sense. I swear to you, such people are quite common!

Oh, so you did some input years ago and don't feel you need to do any in modern times.

Uh...no? That's literally not at all what they said there. They said they've been continually working on this for years. It's an evolving understanding.

Well, I was just asking questions. As you did not answer, I now know the answer is : The Players.

Not at all. I, too, have given you explicit examples of things I introduced, and things my players have introduced, and how those have twined together into something much better and more interesting than either of us could have come up with on our own. But, since you seem to have forgotten them, I will spell them out again.

Example 1: Devils and Demons.
I told my players, I didn't really want to have too much of this stuff in the game, as I wanted to focus on Arabian Nights concepts, which tend to be more interested in djinn than demons or devils per se. However, one of my players wanted to play a tiefling, so we talked about it. I asked why he wanted that. He said, more or less, "I just think they're neat." I asked which one of his parents is a tiefling, and he said both. That--that moment right there--was what struck an idea in my head. So I asked, "Are they related to demons, or to devils?" He thought for a moment, and said, "One of each." From that, tons of adventures and concepts have flowed, because this is a GOLDEN opportunity to challenge the character, and the player, with all sorts of things.
As a result of this, I came up with my explanation for why devils and demons are Always Evil, because many folks don't like the idea that a sapient being could just be inherently evil. My answer? They fought in a War in Heaven that, to them, took infinitely long. Devils kept to the Divine Plan (lawful), but used their powers to coerce mortals to obey (evil). Demons broke the Divine Plan (chaotic), and enjoyed breaking things solely to fuel their rampant appetites (evil.) I created that--no player asked for it. But it flowed from having questions about the difference between them, which only mattered because the player wanted to play a tiefling--because tieflings are neat to them.

Example 2: Druids, Shaman, and Spirits
In the first attempt at this game, I had a player with a Shaman character. So we talked about the Spirit World, and what that's like. Based on advice from someone with experience on ancient (pre-Islam) Arabic beliefs, I said that Druids and Shamans were two sides of the Kahina, those who work with "living" spirits (animals, plants, locations) and "dead" spirits (ghosts, souls, archetypes) respectively. With the second attempt (which is still ongoing, 6+ years later), I had a Druid player, which meant seeing the "other side" of this idea. And that player was fascinated by the difference, yet ironclad unity, between these two traditions. So we explored that. What does it mean to be a spirit? How do Kahina do magic? Can someone be both a shaman and a druid? That's super rare--but it seems achievable.
As a result, we have articulated many ideas about spirits in this world. "Living" spirits don't speak a true language, not words like humans and elves and such do. Instead, they "speak" in sensations, experiences, emotions. "Dead" spirits can speak in mortal language, but don't have to if they don't want to. And just because they're associated with death and the afterlife, doesn't mean they have to be dead themselves. Sometimes, spirits straddle lines too; Mudaris, a spirit ally of the party, was originally a spirit of sedimentary rock, but then mortals came into existence--people who "sediment" things like traditions, and written words. So Mudaris grew in power and influence, due to humanoids' beliefs and actions empowering it. Being exposed to language, being a spirit of language in some sense, means Mudaris can speak and think like mortals do, even though it started as a "living" spirit rather than an archetype-related "dead" spirit. All of this--Mudaris as a spirit, the way different spirits work, their sub-verbal "language," etc.--all of that is stuff I invented or developed in order to frame new scenes that would interest the players.

I would never have done either of these things if I had not had players telling me the things they care about. And yet, I clearly have had freedom of action to develop what interests me, too. There were no "demands" here. Players communicated to me things that interest them, through their class choices, their brief descriptions of their characters and where they came from, their Bonds and Alignment, etc. Through those inputs, and just things I find interesting or curious or whatever, together we have developed something none of us could create individually.

Right, like I said...you, as your role as GM are deciding. Everything is decided by the players....you just act as their agent.

No. A thousand times, no. See the things above. I was not the "agent" of the players when I developed the idea that Devils, Demons, and Celestials were three factions in the War in Heaven. Yet I only did those things because I knew my players thought devil- and demon-related things were interesting. Having a world where such things were reasonably confined, rather than widespread, also meant I had more ability to frame situations that would challenge assumptions and push players into situations they didn't expect.

I have put my players on the spot, and given them reason to feel pity for murderers and hope to reform assassins. Their choices shaped the outcomes. I presented them with unresolved conflicts. I have quite a bit of freedom on what kinds, and contexts, of conflict to present them--and I very, very much angle for things the players never expected, but which they say, on looking back, "Of course it was that, what else could it have been? Why didn't I see it before!"

Maybe it's just your description of events. I mean all I see is "player wants X to happen". Player makes rules check. GM rolls out the red carpet and says "whatever you the player just said happens."

Then you have not understood what is said. This post is already overlong, but if you would like, I can try to give you an example, in as close to blow-by-blow format as I can, of how this actually works. Because I swear to you, this is NOT what is being described. Not even slightly.

The only other thing I can see here is the hostile anti-GM rule.

What "hostile anti-GM rule"?

In a D&D game, a player might 'just say' they keep an eye out for family members when then enter their home town. Then the all powerful DM, alone, decides if the character sees anyone and who in the family it is. The helpless, powerless player just sits there and waits.

Yes. That's what I have generally understood your descriptions to refer to. You do as you like, and the players can either accept that, or leave.

Your version is the hostile anti-DM rule. The player says their character keeps and eye out, makes the check and then attacks the DM with it: "HA, I made my check, I have all the agency power! Now you MUST, By The Rules, have me encounter some of my family members...weather you want to or not! HAHAHA"

Attack? What on Earth? Where are you getting the notion that there is an attack? How? Why? I'm genuinely completely baffled by this. That's not at all what @pemerton said. Not even close. I just...what???

This is like telling someone that you baked a pie and having them tell you "OH SO YOU INTEND TO ASSASSINATE SOMEONE WITH IT??" Like....that's so far from what was said I literally can't see how you connected the two together.

 

[AnotherGuy]

We must be careful not to caricature each other's playstyles. It's OK not to understand them and then its good to ask but jumping to the extremes doesn't do well for conversation and understanding.

If I may (as a complete noob of these style of games) take a stab at @bloodtide's scenario which he put forth

I'd imagine the PC could state that last he heard a distant relative versed as an apothecary resided in this town - and he'd roll the appropriate skill mechanic per the system to find them.

Success could lead to a person who knows the relative and where they stay.
Success with consequence - relative is out-of-town and should be arriving the day after tomorrow (this consequence would be important if time is of an issue otherwise a difference consequence would be more suitable that heightens the stakes).
Failure might have the PC find out his relative moved on/passed away but his business was taken over by the burgomeister's son-in-law (fail forward).

 

[Golroc]

Right, like I said...you, as your role as GM are deciding. Everything is decided by the players....you just act as their agent.

It is possible to have something in-between these two extremes. I mean you let them create their characters with some freedom as to race/class/etc I assume? And they also get to choose what their characters do (even if you do reign them in, if they go outside certain boundaries of behavior).

That's also the players make decisions. I don't know if you do dungeon romps, sandboxes, "traditional" module style adventures, or whatever. But in any but the most simplistic adventures there's tons of room for players to steer the game. Do they flee and hide from the large cohort of mounted marauders suddenly cresting the hill? Do they parlay and weasel their way into the host? Do they make a heroic stand at some terrain where they can funnel the enemies and face them only a few at a time? If we say the marauders were intent on sacking a nearby settlement, these three outcomes vastly change the rest of the session. They didn't impose their will through story mechanics, but still they changed the future of the adventure by their actions.

Some tables want additional ways for the players to affect the narrative. That doesn't have to be any more all-or-nothing than the above. Depending on the mechanics and discretion involved, it can be anything from "you can ask the GM to edit reality, but the GM has final say"* to where the GM is purely framing the narrative weaved by the players.

* (regarding "GM final say" - some in this thread claim this kind of GM veto invalidates player agency, but I disagree - having the opportunity to contribute constitutes agency, unless the GM always vetoes (which is a weird hypothetical scenario). It might not be the preferred agency for everyone, and some might even hate having this kind of mechanism, but it's still a form of agency. We also have agency when we invoke game mechanics gated by random chance.)

I understand why you might not like players being able to contribute outside of character actions, but one can dislike something and still acknowledge that it exists. I'm sorry you have so many problematic players - but this doesn't mean that everyone else has the same ratio. It is possible to reach a compromise with players without being a servile GM. It is even possible to have similar tastes on how to distribute authority and create influence.

Earlier you said that you didn't use the term Table Harmony when I mentioned that concept. But I didn't use the words table and harmony as capital-cased words expressing some grand theoretical concept. English is not my first language, so maybe the words chosen weren't ideal, but the point was that it is possible to have more common ground with players. Not that I think it is so simple, but going by your categories, I would say I've had 75% good players, 22% average players and 3% bad players over the years. I don't think I have a particularly low standard. GM numbers are similar. Some of both kinds were even spectacular.

I've had problem players, sure. I've played with bad GMs. But not every case of having different preferences means they're bad. If you're playing with people who have different approaches than you, and they're not mature enough to stick to the social contract, then yeah sure, you can't play games where players have high agency when it comes to stuff like the narrative and the overall direction of the game. But is it really even worth playing the game then?

Social groups differ I guess, and it's also a matter of age. Kids, teenagers and very young adults sometimes lack the maturity for high trust styles. But when dealing with adults, I really don't see why one would accept playing with people one cannot trust to keep the social contract? It's a backwards perspective to me - assuming that players will just ignore the consensus reached before playing. Under such circumstances I certainly understand why you'd want low player agency, but are the players happy with this?

One cannot perceive the entirety of RPG gaming and the vast variety of styles and approaches through the lens of having to deal with one particular (and very pessimistic) player archetype. We might as well all just play board games and video games in that case. Why as an adult (and sorry if I assume incorrectly, but I'm guessing you're not a youngling) would one put up with such a status quo? Why not find a fixed group of like-minded individuals - or at least some of those 50% average that you probably compromise with - and avoid all the hassle of low-trust, low player agency?

Or (and I'm not being facetious) do you prefer if players are focused on interacting with your prepared material and playing out the roles and scenarios you set up? That's perfectly valid - and some players also enjoy this style. It's ok to not like players participating creatively, as long as this is agreed on beforehand. But that doesn't make it so all other kinds of players are all egotistical weirdos. Some just want a little (or a lot) more influence - very rarely do they want all the authority.

 

[pemerton]

From these posts, it seems that the mooted gaming of the GM is hoping for softer consequences.

But I'm not sure how that's an advantage, other than in the sense that we're imagining it might make play more fun for this particular player.

This is the sense in which, if I was having the "show me playing the GM" discussion with Max, I would be saying "I cannot see how you do that in Dungeon World" because you really cannot. I mean, I guess you could try to make up a character that you think the GM will have an inordinate degree of sympathy with and thus play softball with you and give you a high rate of 'you achieved your goal' vs adjudication loops? I don't see how that gains you much, it might create a lower-quality experience, at least in some people's reckoning. I think @Manbearcat might say that PbtA games are intended to push hard against the PCs and playing softball is bad play, but it is all a bit subjective anyway. I don't see this as a 'strategy' to play the GM, at most it is a set of preferences of the type of play you want, and trying to achieve it.

I think we're on the same page here.