An examination of player agency

[hawkeyefan]

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

I am going to proceed with the expectation that you know what I was saying that it's not totally random, and that even if you didn't, the remainder of the post explained why I was saying that.

There is an unknown element involved... the actual result of the dice roll... but there are many known factors involved. That the process involves one randomizing element doesn't mean it's totally random.

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.

Trauma doesn't happen in "completely random situations". It can't happen unless you as a player put it on the line.

When you pick up the dice to make the resistance roll, you know it's a potential outcome. You can choose to not roll. If you do so, you will never get a trauma. It is not something the GM can choose to inflict on you or make you take. It is entirely up to the player.

If a player chooses to make a resistance roll and that roll results in them taking a trauma, then in my opinion, player agency dictates that they're out of the scene. Setting that aside... allowing the player to bypass the clear consequences of play? That's where play has become about something else... a dramatically appropriate moment" I suppose.

But given your aversion to rules and insistence that play is a storytelling exercise, I don't think this is that surprising.

 

[Manbearcat]

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



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.

Ok. This actually engages with the question I was putting forth. And it looks like you're saying something like "any randomization component of a game precludes functional gameplay or precludes skill?"

Is that the claim you're making?

If that isn't the claim you (and @FrogReaver and likely others) are making...then can you make plain what claim you're making around randomization?

To be clear, if that is the claim that you're making then you're basically saying "there is no such thing as Texas Hold 'Em skill (and skill thresholds from amateur to expert to world class) because cards dealt to players and the shared 5 x community cards on a given hand are all randomized." That is an absolute dead-end of a claim. So you can't be making this claim. So if you're not making this absolute dead-end of a claim, then what claim are you making?

Again, I'm totally on board with you if the GM framing of a situation or a series of obstacles is impotent and opaque and/or leads to a complete nothingburger of a decision-tree > player says the rote thing which leads to the rote roll of dice? Yeah. That right there? Totally "non-play" which is effectively "GM's impotent framing leads to rote randomizer decides." But there is a vast amount of daylight between that and play that features layered, complex, tactical decision-trees + complex strategic management of currencies over a throughline of play + also possibly theme/premise-based stands or advancement decisions or trade-off management ("I'm willing to take this ethical stand now that will harm my odds of overall success"..."I need to mark a test failure to advance this skill"..."I'm going to save currency now because I'm willing to risk this particular bad consequence right now in order to muster that currency later in a higher stakes situation").

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.


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

Plenty! Look at all the threads here about interpreting X part of that game, or how to handle Y part of this game. It's a common occurence.

And it's not about a jerk GM. It's about gray areas in the rules leaving players unsure of what to expect. If I select an ability for my character that says in certain circumstances, I can do X... and then in those circumstances, I say I do X, but the GM decides that there are other factors that matter and decides to temper the ability with a percentage roll... then the ability isn't working how I expect it to. The GM isn't necessarily being a jerk... they just have a different idea than I do.

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?

Plenty of games offer rules or guidelines about this kind of thing. Obviously, your example is absurd, but genre expectations can vary a bit. This is an area where having a clear rule in place can help.

 

[soviet]

This is not a rules problem this is a social problem. Changing the rules isn't going to fix a jerk GM.

Player: I open up a rift in space and time

Do you really not see the double standard you are applying here?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Do you really not see the double standard you are applying here?

I think it's indicative of an overall perceived imbalance between the GM and the player. Not that they have different roles in play, but that one is beneath the other. It's so ingrained that people aren't even seeing that player agency has as much to do with the GM as it does what the players do. Or that players are as responsible for play as the GM... or anything of this sort. They see the game as inherently the GM's game, with the players as participants, rather than everyone being participants, just with different roles.

That's one of the major obstacles that is making any progress in the discussion very difficult.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ok. This actually engages with the question I was putting forth. And it looks like you're saying something like "any randomization component of a game precludes functional gameplay or precludes skill?"

Is that the claim you're making?

Obviously not. You can randomise a lot of things and for certain sort of gameplay you must.

But this does not mean that randomising everything, produces the best gameplay, does it? Like I don't think it is particularly weird to think, that randomising timing of dramatic beats and then following that slavish does not necessarily produce most satisfactory fiction. (I think issue with Blades in particular, is that it links two rather separate things into each other. Like sure you may call your meta resource "stress" and try to give it some diegetic existence and then say it makes sense that once you're really stressed you get traumatised, but I don't think it in practice quite functions in dramatically appropriate way. I think allowing some leeway with the timing of the trauma alleviates the issue greatly.)

And yes, I think too much randomisation absolutely can erode agency. You may say like @hawkeyefan that the agency is about participating in this gambling, and it certainly is one form of agency, but it at the same time erodes agency over dramatic beats, character's internality and other such things I consider important. And similar issue can manifest in other ways too. Like thinking about pure problem solving, whilst some amount of randomness is usually welcome a game's skill system being too swingy can make any sort of coherent planning that relies on skills too unreliable.

 

[soviet]

Obviously not. You can randomise a lot of things and for certain sort of gameplay you must.

But this does not mean that randomising everything, produces the best gameplay, does it? Like I don't think it is particularly weird to think, that randomising timing of dramatic beats and then following that slavish does not necessarily produce most satisfactory fiction. (I think issue with Blades in particular, is that it links two rather separate things into each other. Like sure you may call your meta resource "stress" and try to give it some diegetic existence and then say it makes sense that once you're really stressed you get traumatised, but I don't think it in practice quite functions in dramatically appropriate way. I think allowing some leeway with the timing of the trauma alleviates the issue greatly.)

And yes, I think too much randomisation absolutely can erode agency. You may say like @hawkeyefan that the agency is about participating in this gambling, and it certainly is one form of agency, but it at the same time erodes agency over dramatic beats, character's internality and other such things I consider important. And similar issue can manifest in other ways too. Like thinking about pure problem solving, whilst some amount of randomness is usually welcome a game's skill system being too swingy can make any sort of coherent planning that relies on skills too unreliable.

I'm not super familiar with Blades, but please tell me if this comparison position is accurate:

'Yes I know I just took enough hit point damage to KO my character, and I know part of that is because I chose to take a bunch of additional damage last round, but it's not dramatically satisfying for my character to miss the rest of the fight'.

Is this a different proposition to your Blades example? Would you expect a D&D GM to undo some of the damage?

 

[MGibster]

Do you really not see the double standard you are applying here?

I don't. What double standard do you see here?

 

[Umbran]

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

It can be.
At a given table, agency ought to be about the forms of agency those players care about.

Well the point, per the OP, is that inviolable rules are essential to player agency.

Yeah, well, I haven't agreed with the OP myself. Assertion in an OP does not equate to truth.
Inviolable rules may be an excellent way to achieve agency for many people.

I, personally, have never seen a rule in a game book that is "inviolable". Tabletop games in general have no modes of enforcement. Humans can always step outside of game rules, if they want.

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.

Hold on a second.
Just a sentence before, you were saying "essential".
Now, it is that a game is "not one that is all that concerned".

Which leaves the idea that whether or not the game is concerned with it, agency may exist regardless...

Are we trying to determine if a game is "concerned with" agency, or whether agency is actually present in play? Because those are two very different questions! The latter question will include not just the game rules, but also player and GM behaviors that enhance, or suppress, agency.

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

Meaningful, informed choices are one form of agency, but, to use your own idea from earlier - they are not the only form of agency.

As an example - if the GM, at the end of a session, asks the players on the content of B-plots they'd like to see, and includes such elements in the adventure next time around, that's a behavior that supports player agency, even if there is no inviolable rule in the book that the GM must ask for such input.

 

[soviet]

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.

Here you are saying that GMs can have the authority to override the rules because they will not abuse it, they will only use it when absolutely necessary and just.

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?

Here (in the same post) you are saying that players cannot even have the authority to declare actions that lead to the rules being engaged, because they will wildly abuse it.

What happens when the GM from the start of your post becomes a player, or the player from the end of your post becomes a GM? Do they suddenly gain/lose trustworthiness?