GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

Yes. That was the point. The players have agency through having their characters say and do things that affect the game. We don't assume that a railroad is present and preventing them from exercising that agency.

Right, but players may express agency in ways that are not about what their characters say or do, is my point.

So what characters can say and do is a subset of all the ways that players have agency.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, but players may express agency in ways that are not about what their characters say or do, is my point.

So what characters can say and do is a subset of all the ways that players have agency.

If you're talking about players authoring fiction out of character, I don't see that as agency. Or at least like was said upthread by I can't remember who(sorry!), it's a completely different form of agency and has nothing to do with the kind of agency I just mentioned. And it's certainly not greater. It's just different.

 

[thefutilist]

Here's some stuff I've said about ludic agency that I think might be driving at the point you were making @thefutilist

Dealing with agency and retcon (in semi sandbox)

D&D 5E - How do you define “mother may I” in relation to D&D 5E?

I offered I think my pithiest definition was here:

Dealing with agency and retcon (in semi sandbox)

That gave me a lot to chew on. I read through the threads and saw many of the same basic issues brought up.

How about this:

We (our side) have very strict jobs regarding how we view the fiction and what we do with that and those jobs don't cross over to other players. There's no consensus required.

The Narrativists have a different job regarding the fiction but it 'does' have cross over. This can cause conflicting agencies (GM V Player say), so system mediation is required. That's why a dice roll is seen as more fair than fiat, for example.

Ludic agency is a tool/framework that operates 'within' having certain strict jobs. So the Narrativists still see it as denying agency because the job difference isn't emphasised.

Something along those lines, if that doesn't sound hopelessly arcane.

 

[Maxperson]

That gave me a lot to chew on. I read through the threads and saw many of the same basic issues brought up.

How about this:

We (our side) have very strict jobs regarding how we view the fiction and what we do with that and those jobs don't cross over to other players. There's no consensus required.

The Narrativists have a different job regarding the fiction but it 'does' have cross over. This can cause conflicting agencies (GM V Player say), so system mediation is required. That's why a dice roll is seen as more fair than fiat, for example.

Ludic agency is a tool/framework that operates 'within' having certain strict jobs. So the Narrativists still see it as denying agency because the job difference isn't emphasised.

Something along those lines, if that doesn't sound hopelessly arcane.

The narrativists have essentially created a new form of agency for their style of play, which is fine. What's not fine is to then say that our style of play denies or reduces agency, because it doesn't. Their agency doesn't exist in our playstyle, so there's nothing to deny. Neither one is better/greater than the other. They're just different.

 

[Pedantic]

That gave me a lot to chew on. I read through the threads and saw many of the same basic issues brought up.

How about this:

We (our side) have very strict jobs regarding how we view the fiction and what we do with that and those jobs don't cross over to other players. There's no consensus required.

The Narrativists have a different job regarding the fiction but it 'does' have cross over. This can cause conflicting agencies (GM V Player say), so system mediation is required. That's why a dice roll is seen as more fair than fiat, for example.

Ludic agency is a tool/framework that operates 'within' having certain strict jobs. So the Narrativists still see it as denying agency because the job difference isn't emphasised.

Something along those lines, if that doesn't sound hopelessly arcane.

I'm not sure "we" is a coherent group here. I'm solidly against the rule zero concept in a way others in that same category probably aren't, for example, and I'm only reluctantly about simulation. It's not the point, just a byproduct of creating dynamic situations that allow for broad player agency.

I'm also not sure I strictly agree; I don't think the nar critique is fundamentally flawed, the GM can just make stuff up and it could result in non-choices or insufficiently informed choices for the players. It's just the proposed solution creates a weak gameplay loop while solving for something I don't care about, so it's worse than the problem. A game that doesn't always work is better than a game that always doesn't.

Going back to my first post on this thread; the proposed fiat vs. not fiat divide is an insufficiently incisive razor. The realm getting labeled "fiat" requires more splitting, because it's generally more different than self-similar. The basis the GM uses to introduce material is as important as whether they're empowered to do so at all.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If you're talking about players authoring fiction out of character, I don't see that as agency. Or at least like was said upthread by I can't remember who(sorry!), it's a completely different form of agency and has nothing to do with the kind of agency I just mentioned. And it's certainly not greater. It's just different.

I'm talking about any and all ways that players can influence the game as players of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm talking about any and all ways that players can influence the game as players of the game.

They aren't all the same. You can't pick one kind of agency and then say that people using a different kind are reducing/using less agency. They aren't, because your kind of agency doesn't exist in that playstyle. There's nothing to reduce.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm talking about any and all ways that players can influence the game as players of the game.

I don't think we are going to resolve this, but the issue is the kind of agency you are talking about, can remove the kind of agency he is talking about. You lose meaningful choices when the players can alter things in the setting/narrative outside their character. Again I am not saying it is bad, or you aren't identifying another type of thing that is important, but it isn't simply a spectrum of ever expanding agency with ability to shape through character on one side and ability to shape beyond character on the more maximal agency side. A perfect example of this is when I ran my wuxia campaign murder mystery using Hillfolk. I get this isn't going to fit every example of what you are talking about because narrative systems all handle things very differently. But Hillfolk is a narrative system that I really like. But one thing that leapt out at me was you can lose meaningful choice in a mystery if players can shape the narrative (because it is hard to have a real mystery to solve when the players are able to invent the solution).

Again, I don't think we are going to solve this, it is a definitional argument and those never really get anywhere in these threads

 

[hawkeyefan]

They aren't all the same. You can't pick one kind of agency and then say that people using a different kind are reducing/using less agency. They aren't, because your kind of agency doesn't exist in that playstyle. There's nothing to reduce.

As I said, each game will have different limits and constraints. I would say that clearly players have different amounts of agency across different games.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think we are going to resolve this, but the issue is the kind of agency you are talking about, can remove the kind of agency he is talking about. You lose meaningful choices when the players can alter things in the setting/narrative outside their character. Again I am not saying it is bad, or you aren't identifying another type of thing that is important, but it isn't simply a spectrum of ever expanding agency with ability to shape through character on one side and ability to shape beyond character on the more maximal agency side. A perfect example of this is when I ran my wuxia campaign murder mystery using Hillfolk. I get this isn't going to fit every example of what you are talking about because narrative systems all handle things very differently. But Hillfolk is a narrative system that I really like. But one thing that leapt out at me was you can lose meaningful choice in a mystery if players can shape the narrative (because it is hard to have a real mystery to solve when the players are able to invent the solution).

Again, I don't think we are going to solve this, it is a definitional argument and those never really get anywhere in these threads

I think part of the problem, and I referred to this upthread, is the idea that one way has a "real mystery" and the other does not.

Neither do. Instead, each is a game and the players can make moves to try and attain the goal of the game... which in your example would be to "solve" the mystery.