An examination of player agency

[hawkeyefan]

But why, then, is it not OK for the OP to post what he believes about the topic? Why is that not just a case of "having a discussion"?

Because I can't refute the points he makes, so rather than consider the implications for my play, I'll complain about the tone in which he said it!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Because I can't refute the points he makes, so rather than consider the implications for my play, I'll complain about the tone in which he said it!

Wow, you've managed to sum up EnWorld forums pretty effectively.

 

[Campbell]

Instead of talk about agency. Let's talk about the ideas behind it. How much efficacy do players in your games have and how much should they expect? Is access to means to acquire reliable information they can trust about the setting they can leverage something you account for in scenario and setting design? Is it a point of design when you create NPCs to provide points of leverage or ways they can be influenced? Do characters have connections they can lean on or are they out on an island? Are players afforded multiple viable options for who they can choose to make into allies or enemies? Do you just design a world or a world meant for them to interact with?

 

[innerdude]

Someone has to have worldbuilding powers. If not the GM, then who?

Anyone sitting around the table.

Try it sometime with rational, adult, creatively engaged people, and see how much joy and energy it brings to the room. Seriously.

Oh but wait --- sorry, I forgot, this might detract from the non-GM players' all-precious "immersion," because oh noes, they're not acting and thinking only in character, and we can't possibly have that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Instead of talk about agency. Let's talk about the ideas behind it. How much efficacy do players in your games have and how much should they expect? Is access to means to acquire reliable information they can trust about the setting they can leverage something you account for in scenario and setting design? Is it a point of design when you create NPCs to provide points of leverage or ways they can be influenced? Do characters have connections they can lean on or are they out on an island? Are players afforded multiple viable options for who they can choose to make into allies or enemies? Do you just design a world or a world meant for them to interact with?

I definitely do not go through a list like this. My approach is probably more intuitive, but I will tend to keep in mind questions when I make something like "is this gameable" (to avoid making things just a feature for tourism). So when I make NPCs I try to make them stark and interesting (character who for me pop) but also ask "what do they want generally and specifically". And what drives them. Not saying every single NPC clearly answers this question but it is usually one I try to keep in mind. They tend to crystallize though when I actually play them.

In terms of connections with players, I try to include stuff like family and organizations. And over the course of the campaign they are expected to form connections. There is no mechanical weight to these things, but if players have parents, I try to have them not just be adventure tools. They are resources the players can rely upon (I think if you want players to form those kinds of connections, you can't just have them be annoying or constantly in peril. They should be doing something that makes it a relationship the players keep coming back to

 

[Micah Sweet]

Anyone sitting around the table.

Try it sometime with rational, adult, creatively engaged people, and see how much joy and energy it brings to the room. Seriously.

Oh but wait --- sorry, I forgot, this might detract from the non-GM players' all-precious "immersion," because oh noes, they're not acting and thinking only in character, and we can't possibly have that.

A little intense and sarcastic don't you think?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Instead of talk about agency. Let's talk about the ideas behind it. How much efficacy do players in your games have and how much should they expect? Is access to means to acquire reliable information they can trust about the setting they can leverage something you account for in scenario and setting design? Is it a point of design when you create NPCs to provide points of leverage or ways they can be influenced? Do characters have connections they can lean on or are they out on an island? Are players afforded multiple viable options for who they can choose to make into allies or enemies? Do you just design a world or a world meant for them to interact with?

The last few long campaigns I've run have been in games where the characters are expected to be an existing part of the setting. Like they're not strangers in a strange land... they are people who live and work in the location that play focuses on; Blades in the Dark, Spire, and Stonetop.

Each game handles this differently, but each promotes the players being able to introduce elements of the setting that make sense. So when a PC in Blades in the Dark has the "Labor" background, and we've established that he was a factory worker... sure, when he's in Coalridge, he's gonna know the local area and probably a few people.

In Spire, the game actually mechanizes this at times as class abilities... each of the classes has at least one ability that gives them some influence over the setting in some way, which is specific to and makes sense for the class. But they also have Bonds, which are people you form connections with. Your Bonds will help you... they're friends, contacts, allies... but whenever they help you, there's risk that they will be punished for doing so. So this game very much is about what you will risk to accomplish your goals.

Stonetop is about a small, tight knit community and the PCs are expected to be important members of the community. I've been running this game for a long time, and we've got a very detailed picture of what life in Stonetop is like, and each PC has like a full cast of supporting characters. Many of these can be designated as "Followers" if they accompany the PCs out into the field. When not out in the field, though, they are resources for the PCs to utilize improvements to the town and also as resources for information and so on. There's a "Keep Company" move which we often combine with "Know Things" or "Seek Insight" moves to help build out the world and its history as well as the supporting cast.

They are resources the players can rely upon (I think if you want players to form those kinds of connections, you can't just have them be annoying or constantly in peril. They should be doing something that makes it a relationship the players keep coming back to

I agree with this. As I say above, the NPC family and friends of the PCs are vital to the feel of a game. For the purpose of agency, I'd say that the PCs must benefit from these relationships at least as much as they may struggle with them. These should be people who can and who want to help them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I agree with this. As I say above, the NPC family and friends of the PCs are vital to the feel of a game. For the purpose of agency, I'd say that the PCs must benefit from these relationships at least as much as they may struggle with them. These should be people who can and who want to help them.

I don't have any hard and fast rule about it (like there is no mechanical weight to taking family). But we usually go through players family (I use different methods but my favorite is to roll for number of siblings on a d10, randomize sex, roll for whether parents are both alive, etc). And I hash out the background details with the player (as long as a player isn't requesting something that feels like it is a power grab, or that would disrupt the setting, usually family creation is pretty open). But what I try to do is treat them like a real family. They might have certain expectations of the players, but they don't exist to the annoy the PC (in rare cases where it is established there is some kind of tension perhaps, I've had players who are in conflict with a parent or sibling at the outset----but they generally requested it). So if your father is black smith, it is to be expected the players can benefit from that. The parents might also be the people they can trust if they have to go into hiding or they need need someone to get urgent word out. The parents can also have backstories. One option I give my players is they can be the child of an existing character in the setting. It isn't assigned, it is more like they get to pick, but usually there is a question and answer exchange to establish whether the parent is a good fit (just as an example if the character wants to be a master swordsman, and eve the son of a master swordsman, I need to make sure that NPC has techniques already that would line up with that). One thing I often do as a GM when this is established is create a 20 year backstory, that may or may not be relevant (stuff that happened when their parents were younger they might not know about)

 

[zakael19]

I agree with this. As I say above, the NPC family and friends of the PCs are vital to the feel of a game. For the purpose of agency, I'd say that the PCs must benefit from these relationships at least as much as they may struggle with them. These should be people who can and who want to help them.

One of the most important things that @niklinna did for the overall tone of our Stonetop game was define that his character had a boyfriend (the son of the town smith) during creation. The tension between "ranger going on adventures and boyfriend worrying at home" has constantly driven home stakes, the "realism" of the town and NPCs as people with their own emotions, and the growth and change of Tober the ranger time and time again.

I dont think I've played another heroic style game so far that felt more real and fraught with emotional and relationship content because of this innate set of questions asked during the start of play: do your parents live, do you have siblings/close family members, and do you have a lover/children. Ok, now mark them on the map and lets see them during play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't have any hard and fast rule about it (like there is no mechanical weight to taking family). But we usually go through players family (I use different methods but my favorite is to roll for number of siblings on a d10, randomize sex, roll for whether parents are both alive, etc). And I hash out the background details with the player (as long as a player isn't requesting something that feels like it is a power grab, or that would disrupt the setting, usually family creation is pretty open). But what I try to do is treat them like a real family. They might have certain expectations of the players, but they don't exist to the annoy the PC (in rare cases where it is established there is some kind of tension perhaps, I've had players who are in conflict with a parent or sibling at the outset----but they generally requested it). So if your father is black smith, it is to be expected the players can benefit from that. The parents might also be the people they can trust if they have to go into hiding or they need need someone to get urgent word out. The parents can also have backstories. One option I give my players is they can be the child of an existing character in the setting. It isn't assigned, it is more like they get to pick, but usually there is a question and answer exchange to establish whether the parent is a good fit (just as an example if the character wants to be a master swordsman, and eve the son of a master swordsman, I need to make sure that NPC has techniques already that would line up with that). One thing I often do as a GM when this is established is create a 20 year backstory, that may or may not be relevant (stuff that happened when their parents were younger they might not know about)

I find that some mechanics related to this stuff can be helpful, depending on what the game’s trying to do. But it’s certainly not necessary. For instance, in Spire, the only real mechanic about the relationship between a PC and a Bond is how much Stress the Bond has. The higher the Stress, the greater the risk of Fallout to that Bond (meaning consequences related to them helping you). And the higher the Stress when the Fallout happens, the worse the consequences. I had a Knight character lose his Squire to Fallout in a gunfight… it was a brutal event and a pivotal moment in the campaign. And likely not something I’d have done without mechanics… I’d likely have softballed it.

Out of curiosity… what would you consider a power-grab or something that would disrupt the setting?

One of the most important things that @niklinna did for the overall tone of our Stonetop game was define that his character had a boyfriend (the son of the town smith) during creation. The tension between "ranger going on adventures and boyfriend worrying at home" has constantly driven home stakes, the "realism" of the town and NPCs as people with their own emotions, and the growth and change of Tober the ranger time and time again.

I dont think I've played another heroic style game so far that felt more real and fraught with emotional and relationship content because of this innate set of questions asked during the start of play: do your parents live, do you have siblings/close family members, and do you have a lover/children. Ok, now mark them on the map and lets see them during play.

Yeah, formalizing the process is great, I think. By the time play actually begins, you have a solid base of material to work with. The players likely already have some goals, and there are some threats looming.

During character creation, our ranger chose a threat in the forest… some mysterious creature that he had a near-death encounter with. Interestingly, because one of the choices for the ranger was “2 or 3 dogs”, we decided that he had three dogs, but one was killed in that encounter.

Nothing like a dead pet to motivate a character!