An examination of player agency

[hawkeyefan]

The stress from resistance is random, and by my understanding you need to commit to it before you roll, so you do not know whether it gives you trauma or not. You can get up to five stress from one resistance, so it is hard to gauge whether you can "afford" it.

It is not totally random. You roll the number of dice you have in the related attribute. The stress you spend is equal to 6 minus the highest die. So you can take 0 to 5 stress when resisting. But depending on how many dice you have in the Attribute (from 0 to 4, and with possible playbook or crew abilities that can add another) you have an idea of the odds.

So it’s an informed decision. If you’re 5 or less stress away from a Trauma, you know you’re risking that possibility, and that will factor into your decision making. So will the number of dice you’ll be rolling, as well as the severity of the consequence that you’re resisting.

So yeah… I think choosing to resist something that you don’t consider to be important which then puts you in a position where another resistance roll could knock you out of the score, before a satisfactory conclusion… yeah, that’s the choice you make.

Taking away the consequence of that choice… that doesn’t seem to be about player agency, it seems more about making sure the player gets the dramatic payoff they’re looking for.

 

[MGibster]

So wanting limits on Gm authority to the point where they're as bound to the rules as a player means you don't want to play RPGs? I don't follow that logic at all.

What's even the point of having a GM who is as bound to the rules as a player? One of the essential functions of a GM is to adjudicate actions, and there are always going to be cases where the rules do not cover whatever situation your players find themselves in. If player and GM are bound by the same rules to the letter, it seems to me that any actions that fall outside the scope of the rules is simply forbidden. You could have some arbitrary rule, like flipping a coin, to see what happens, but that strikes me as unsatisfactory and inelegant.

Ultimately this seems like a social problem rather than one with the rules. If you have a bad GM who makes the game unenjoyable it's not going to make a difference whether you're playing a game with agency (as defined by the OP) or some other game. You're not going to enjoy it either way.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I meant important as in for some people that is going to be the very definition of having maximal agency (and adding things in like mechanics that make the GM steer certain things towards PC background aren't necessarily adding more agency for those people). For you that might add agency, and that is totally fine, but can't you see how for some players, having something like that steer things towards another character could be seen as interfering with their own agency? It really boils down to what expectations of play people have when they sit down

Yes, I understand that. My point is that it’s not enough on its own. Agency is about more than that.

 

[Emberashh]

I meant important as in for some people that is going to be the very definition of having maximal agency (and adding things in like mechanics that make the GM steer certain things towards PC background aren't necessarily adding more agency for those people). For you that might add agency, and that is totally fine, but can't you see how for some players, having something like that steer things towards another character could be seen as interfering with their own agency? It really boils down to what expectations of play people have when they sit down

An argument I've favored is that if you want true agency, you should design the game in such a way that it doesn't care how the player plays it.

For example in my game's system for moving around, the game anticipates that people will game it by running in circles and doing all kinds of 'gamey' tricks to stop themselves being pulled into danger.

And this is fine, first because I'll be framing that behavior as cowardice, and also because the game still seeds consequence into that behavior. But then I'm going to be going a step further, and designing the world maps and their mechanics with this behavior in mind, to add some pleasant friction to being a coward. These ideas together should keep the subsystem enjoyable and ultimately squarely focused on its overall purpose, as it doesn't have to waste time and structure on trying to combat players who may be cowards, or might just be reasonably cautious, or indeed might just be cynically gaming the system.

It ultimately doesn't care, and agency as a product of volition is preserved in the process.

Another argument, Id make though, is that true agency requires the possibility of failure, and the commensurate consequences of that failure in whatever form it takes. Thats where we really get into the meat and potatoes of designing for volition and agency while still being fun.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've seen this said multiple times and "+1'd" on top of that. But this needs a lot more unpacking, because if we're merely "outsourcing the decision to the mechanics" and there are no other dynamics happening within play procedures, then I would say 100 % there is either a dearth of gameable space there or a complete vacuum. It should never be something like:

* GM frames situation/obstacle without any foregrounding of consequences and in such a way that the only permissible action declarations and consequence-suites are univariate. I would go so far as to extend that to bivariate. It is certainly substantially better than the univariate dynamic of "the GM has basically made the decision for you (thereby played the game for you)," but multivariate is so much better than bivariate.

* Player makes rote, or relatively rote, decision and either (a) GM rolls behind the screen for the player or (b) the player has no handles/currency to muster or any consequential PC build or build/spend dynamic to leverage.

I mean...yeah. If the situation/obstacle-framing is utterly weak + consequences are black-boxed such that players can't orient themselves and execute a compelling & multivariate decision-tree...and maybe tack on the player having little to no build/currency decisions to employ? Yes, that is tantamount to "outsourcing the decision to the mechanics." In scheme and consequence, that looks basically like GM disclaims decision-making when handling offscreen Faction/setting (eg non-PC) resolution in Blades in the Dark (or something kindred). But those two things shouldn't look like each other at all unless a table or a game intentionally (or perhaps accidentally) composes deterministic, univariate, adynamic decision-spaces for players (which...isn't gameplay imo) or the play in question aims for or accidentally lands upon Calvinball/Ouija play (which...again, isn't gameplay imo).

Circling back to my Torchbearer anecdote here, this is a relatively small (though of high magnitude) moment of play. This is the span of 1 singular turn in Torchbearer and 2 x tests in that singular turn. But the decision-space managed by both the Ranger Surveying and the Mage employing Aethereal Premonition was both vast in scope and consequential in impact. Though ultimately they both grabbed dice to resolve, what was baked into their decision-making scheme went way way way way way way beyond "outsourcing to the decision to the mechanics." And, what's more, all of this was downstream of the synthesis of a series of consequential decisions (around selected and employed Beliefs/Creed, around gaining the Enemy in question, around befriending the Friend in question, around actions taken in Town phase to Build Kit and Do Research, around preceding actions/resolution and elaborate currency management in this Adventure phase, around planning Camp phase which includes building up "checks" to power said phase).

I really hope we can agree on that (because man...what an absolute dead-end of the conversation if we can't agree on this); that "outsourcing the decision to the mechanics" resembles (a) GM Disclaiming Decisionmaking in something like Blades or (b) a truly feckless situation/obstacle-framing > action declaration loop of TTRPG (which, again, I would call "not rising to a gameable space")...and bears pretty much zero resemblance to something like (c) the attached Torchbearer actual play anecdote. This (a) and this (b) are not even in the same category as (c), right? Or are you actually saying they are effectively all the same?

I genuinely have no idea. I don't have time or brainpower to decipher your post at the moment. But ultimately whenever a decision about the fiction (content, outcome, etc) is dictated by mechanics, instead of decided by any of the participants, then that decision has been outsourced to the mechanics. This doesn't mean it doesn't matter how you do this and which decisions you outsource, it of course matters quite a lot and makes the game play completely differently.

 

[Emberashh]

What's even the point of having a GM who is as bound to the rules as a player? One of the essential functions of a GM is to adjudicate actions, and there are always going to be cases where the rules do not cover whatever situation your players find themselves in. If player and GM are bound by the same rules to the letter, it seems to me that any actions that fall outside the scope of the rules is simply forbidden. You could have some arbitrary rule, like flipping a coin, to see what happens, but that strikes me as unsatisfactory and inelegant.

Ultimately this seems like a social problem rather than one with the rules. If you have a bad GM who makes the game unenjoyable it's not going to make a difference whether you're playing a game with agency (as defined by the OP) or some other game. You're not going to enjoy it either way.

The thing about ajudication is that its just a middle man to improv. This isn't strictly a bad thing, as maintaining Tone is an important concept in improv (even more so with narrative improv, which is the specific flavor we're dealing with in RPGs), but the usual structure of a GM handling its maintenance is clumsy, and as we know leads to all kinds of issues that are often left to the person to navigate, even if the game gives some cursory attempt at advice.

Its far, far, far easier to get everyone on the same page about what maintaining Tone means and how to do so, and then putting the trust in everyone to maintain it, not just one person.

Improv doesn't need third party judges, after all. The Players organically keep things straight as a function of knowing the rule and implementing it.

 

[Campbell]

I do think people generally come to an unspoken agreement. And I think it can be useful to do what you are saying. One topic I often raise with players is establishing 'what franchise' we are in. I once had a player launch an arrow onto a boat and his expiations of what that meant and mine, and I was GMing, were misaligned. I was aiming for a more realistic outcome in that adventure and he was expecting something more out of a 60s adventure film (where the boat soon becomes engulfed in flames). Both sets of expectations are reasonable and both can sometimes be covered by rules but a lot of rules systems will be open enough in that area for it to come down to the GM making a call in some way. I think knowing what to expect from those kinds of actions is helpful when players want to make decision. I don't think that process needs to be formalized. And I think it can be spoken, unspoken, or even raised in the moment (i.e. "Say if I fire an arrow are we in a campaign where that is automatically going to light the boat on fire or should I lower my expectations?"). Also I always think it is a fair thing for a player to ask about their chances of success before they take an action (especially a time pressed, resource pressed, or risky one).

But I also think it is important to keep in mind not everyone is as systematic about this stuff. Some people can think systematically about these kinds of considerations at the table, but some people are going to go more by feel (and I think it is unfair to expect people who just don't think in that systematic way to be so systematic about the whole process).

All that said, I think this is a totally separate topic from agency itself

So, when we're talking about gameable space we're talking fictional space that can be approached fundamentally from a we're playing a game perspective. We're not addressing all of RPG play or more exploratory play. Game as game.

Not talking about individual mechanics here. I'm talking about principles. Stuff like no paper after seeing rock (no changing what was prepped based on stuff seen in play) or like don't add fights because Mike is bored that disrupt the challenge that has already been set. No rug pools for plot stuff. This seems like the most basic stuff in the world to me.

That changing your orientation to this stuff is something you should be explicit about. Or at least players should be aware if you are possibly going to do stuff that is possibly game integrity compromising (and that doing so says something about how gameable the space is).

 

[hawkeyefan]

What's even the point of having a GM who is as bound to the rules as a player? One of the essential functions of a GM is to adjudicate actions, and there are always going to be cases where the rules do not cover whatever situation your players find themselves in. If player and GM are bound by the same rules to the letter, it seems to me that any actions that fall outside the scope of the rules is simply forbidden. You could have some arbitrary rule, like flipping a coin, to see what happens, but that strikes me as unsatisfactory and inelegant.

Ultimately this seems like a social problem rather than one with the rules. If you have a bad GM who makes the game unenjoyable it's not going to make a difference whether you're playing a game with agency (as defined by the OP) or some other game. You're not going to enjoy it either way.

Well the point, per the OP, is that inviolable rules are essential to player agency. That if the GM can just override any rule when they like, or alter the rules on a whim, then the game is not one that is all that concerned with player agency.

Clear rules that can be understood are key to players being able to make meaningful choices.

Any instance of something not being covered by the rules could be resolved through some kind of Ability check, no? No need to go with a coin flip.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It is not totally random. You roll the number of dice you have in the related attribute. The stress you spend is equal to 6 minus the highest die. So you can take 0 to 5 stress when resisting. But depending on how many dice you have in the Attribute (from 0 to 4, and with possible playbook or crew abilities that can add another) you have an idea of the odds.

That, in fact, is still random. That you can gauge the odds doesn't mean it is not random.

So it’s an informed decision. If you’re 5 or less stress away from a Trauma, you know you’re risking that possibility, and that will factor into your decision making. So will the number of dice you’ll be rolling, as well as the severity of the consequence that you’re resisting.

So yeah… I think choosing to resist something that you don’t consider to be important which then puts you in a position where another resistance roll could knock you out of the score, before a satisfactory conclusion… yeah, that’s the choice you make.

Taking away the consequence of that choice… that doesn’t seem to be about player agency, it seems more about making sure the player gets the dramatic payoff they’re looking for.

This nevertheless results trauma happening in completely random situations, unless you just stop resisting anything once you have spent just four of your nine stress. And I think they realised that this is an issue, as they made stress from resistance less random in Deep Cuts, though it just lessens the occurrence of the timing issue rather than actually fixing it.

And of course "important to resist" and "dramatically appropriate time to take trauma" are completely different things.

 

[MGibster]

Well the point, per the OP, is that inviolable rules are essential to player agency. That if the GM can just override any rule when they like, or alter the rules on a whim, then the game is not one that is all that concerned with player agency.

Practically speaking, how often is a GM overriding any rule based on their whims really a problem? This is not a rules problem this is a social problem. Changing the rules isn't going to fix a jerk GM.

Clear rules that can be understood are key to players being able to make meaningful choices.

How many games don't have clear rules understood by the players?

Any instance of something not being covered by the rules could be resolved through some kind of Ability check, no? No need to go with a coin flip.

Then you just end up in a game with some really silly and stupid results that don't make sense within the context of the campaign.

Player: I open up a rift in space and time, exposing Capone's men to the face melting presence of the Nuclear Chaos, Azathoth!
GM: Uh, we're not playing Call of Cthulhu.
Player: So what? I get an Ability roll for things not specifically covered in the rules. Are you denying my agency?