GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

Then I’ll ask in a different way. What makes those things greater forms of agency?

Greater ability to influence the shape of play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Greater ability to influence the shape of play.

If that greater ability comes from outside your PC's sphere of knowledge and Influence, it is unwelcome to some. Certainly I feel that way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I am thinking more about the agency of this situation than the agency leading up to it. So I would assume the player characters ends up on the table as a result of a combat that went south (just bad dice rolls)

I think this is akin to analyzing a traffic accident and only considering the last split second before the head on crash. Sure, you can say the cause was driver X didn't swerve, but calling that the cause when driver Y was drunk, travelling twice the speed limit and in the wrong lane is missing all the critical factors.

Likewise, here, the lack of agency, if there was any, resides in the bigger picture. Analyzing the concluding act of this drama in isolation tells us very little, or nothing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If that greater ability comes from outside your PC's sphere of knowledge and Influence, it is unwelcome to some. Certainly I feel that way.

It may or it may not… that’s not really relevant to the matter being discussed about the bare minimum form of agency for an RPG to function is the player being able to prompt the GM with questions.

If the player can declare actions and have their character do things that affect the events of play… that’s greater agency than the bare minimum described above. And this is nothing I think you’d have a problem with the player doing.

Aside from the above point, and as far as being outside of the character’s knowledge… what about goals of play? Do you let players have any say there?

 

[Bedrockgames]

If that greater ability comes from outside your PC's sphere of knowledge and Influence, it is unwelcome to some. Certainly I feel that way.

This is part of the key. A lot of people see agency more as a character's ability to make choices and do things within the setting itself, some seem to extend agency to the player having power over the setting. I think these two groups are talking about very different concerns. The latter is more about how power is distributed among players in the system.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is part of the key. A lot of people see agency more as a character's ability to make choices and do things within the setting itself, some seem to extend agency to the player having power over the setting. I think these two groups are talking about very different concerns. The latter is more about how power is distributed among players in the system.

Two things on this. First, in either case, you’re talking about players who have more agency in the game than just the bare minimum of asking the GM questions and getting answers.

Second, characters have no agency. Players have agency. We really have to discuss agency from the perspective of the player. How much can the player influence the state of the game? That’s what defines agency. What can the player do? Not what can their token do.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think this is akin to analyzing a traffic accident and only considering the last split second before the head on crash. Sure, you can say the cause was driver X didn't swerve, but calling that the cause when driver Y was drunk, travelling twice the speed limit and in the wrong lane is missing all the critical factors.

What I am saying is assume the player had full control and everything was fair into the lead up to that (i.e. the GM didn't plan all along to have the character end up strapped to a table: this outcome was purely because they fought teh Mind Flayer fair and square and lost.

Likewise, here, the lack of agency, if there was any, resides in the bigger picture. Analyzing the concluding act of this drama in isolation tells us very little, or nothing.

But surely we can examine individual moments. This is just another way of talking about the three door example and blind choices. The issue I am trying to show here is I think there is daylight between a blind choice about a concrete hidden number that results in life or death, and one where the outcome is simply determined by random chance. No one is suggesting this is the same amount of even close to the agency you would feel if you had information about the choice that helped inform your decision. But I think everyone can tell there is a small distinction here that does matter, especially in terms of how it feels in the moment

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If you say so. And I didn't say you cannot do it, it is just there are elements that undermine it. But perhaps "skilled play" is wrong word. I just feel that malleable myth combined with high level of randomness and the game being geared toward there being consequences most of the time results it not mattering that much what you do for the things going badly. Like whatever you do, the dice are likely to screw you over one way or another.

How would you analyze, say, AD&D then? It has initiative, surprise, stealth checks, saves, attack rolls, find traps, sense secret doors, hear noise, reaction, morale, wandering monster checks, probably others. That's all on top of the often unknown and possibly unknowable DM judgement calls and hidden facts. Yet we call it, generally, a game of skill! Dice determine MANY things in 1e, much as they do in BitD. Players play the odds in both games, balancing risk management concerns against gamist and others.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Two things on this. First, in either case, you’re talking about players who have more agency in the game than just the bare minimum of asking the GM questions and getting answers.

Second, characters have no agency. Players have agency. We really have to discuss agency from the perspective of the player. How much can the player influence the state of the game? That’s what defines agency. What can the player do? Not what can their token do.

I would push back on the second point. When we talk about player agency, I think we are really talking about the agency of their characters in the setting most of the time. A character on a railroad has no agency. A character who can make choices and explore freely does have agency. Characters in novels don't exist either, but we speak of them as having agency all the time. This is about players ability to shape the action, shape the plot through their characters choices. I get that you can add an additional layer of the players having more control of the plot directly, in teh way a GM might be able to. But i think that goes beyond agency and into power dynamics among players in the system itself

 

[Bedrockgames]

How would you analyze, say, AD&D then? It has initiative, surprise, stealth checks, saves, attack rolls, find traps, sense secret doors, hear noise, reaction, morale, wandering monster checks, probably others. That's all on top of the often unknown and possibly unknowable DM judgement calls and hidden facts. Yet we call it, generally, a game of skill! Dice determine MANY things in 1e, much as they do in BitD. Players play the odds in both games, balancing risk management concerns against gamist and others.

I'd say AD&D is a mixture of chance and skill. And some modes of play put more emphasis on one or the other