D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[pemerton]

Given the context of this conversation it feels like you are missing something here, given that a large portion of it has preceded from the question of how play that precedes from what is established (and what is discoverable within the information environment) and how skilled play of the fiction is either rewarded or not rewarded. That for many of us when we are discussing agency it is how reliably we are able to effect the sorts of change in the fictional environment through our characters actions in a predictable way. That's where concerns about the information environment come into play.

Basically the journey from:
My character wants to achieve X
How do I get there through skilled play where my efforts are not frustrated in the same way they are in a railroaded environment?

That's the sort of agency I care about in more conventional play. Where good play is rewarded and bad play is punished.

Always bringing it back to content authority issues is not helpful.

To evaluate whether skilled play is being rewarded fairly, you have to look at what the player can do in the campaign and the context in which those decisions are made. To be clear, I’m using “player” deliberately, not just in the sense of roleplaying as their character, but in terms of everything the player can do as a participant in the campaign.

From there, we can evaluate the kind and degree of agency the player actually has, and whether that agency supports skilled play that is meaningfully and fairly rewarded.

It doesn’t need to be elaborate, it just needs to be enough to give the reader an understanding of what the player is doing at the table to affect their character’s outcomes.

Suppose that I, as a player, describe my PC doing such-and-such. (My PC says something, or strikes something with a club, or opens a door, or whatever.)

And the GM, in reply, describes how some element of the setting or situation changes in response: maybe a NPC acts a certain way, or an object is changed in some way, etc, as the GM determines based on their extrapolation from the fictional situation.

It may be very clear, to the player, how what they have said about their PC has affected the shared fiction. But, from what I've said so far, it does not follow that the player has exercised any agency. Because from what I've said so far, all we can tell is that the player saying something prompted the GM to say something in response. But we have no indication of how what the player said shaped or controlled what the GM said in response, beyond making certain elements of the shared fiction (ie the PC's declared action) salient.

To work out whether, how, and to what degree the player exercised agency, we need to understand how and why the GM made the decision that they did, and what way - if any - the player's goal, in saying what they did, mattered. If the GM is using procedures or heuristics that make no reference to the player's goal, then the tentative conclusion would be that the player didn't exercise much agency.

That tentative conclusion can be rebutted - that's what makes it tentative! But the work or rebuttal has to actually be done. Here's one way: if the player has a grasp of the GM's procedures and heuristics, then the player can infer how the GM will respond to certain prompts. And the player can then describe their PC doing things, with the purpose of engaging those known procedures and heuristics and thus generating a predictable response from the GM.

This is what I take @Campbell to be getting at, with the reference to "information environment". It's what I've been getting at in talking about setting elements, and setting dispositions, being "reasonably knowable".

Here's a simple example:

Common sense tells me that if I tell the GM, "My PC walks through the wall", the GM will reply "No they don't"; but if I tell the GM "I inspect the wall closely for cracks", the GM might tell me what my PC does or doesn't see. This is a simple example of the player exploiting heuristics and procedures to achieve a goal in play, even though the GM's heuristics and procedures don't themselves make reference to the player's goal.

As a player, I can improve my play by using this sort of approach. Eg I tell the GM, "My PC walks down the hallway," expecting the GM to respond "OK," and to tell me what my PC finds at the end of the hallway. But instead the GM says, "Half way down the hallway, you fall into a pit!" The GM's decision-making procedure made reference to an element of the fiction that was hidden from me. So, in the future, I declare actions that will prompt the GM to reveal those hidden elements, such as "I walk down the hallway, prodding in front of me with a sturdy pole."

Gygaxian dungeon-crawling,, as a type of game play, works in this fashion.

When it is spelled out, you can also see its limitations. (And I don't mean its aesthetic limitations; some people will find this sort of game enjoyable, and some won't. I mean it's technical limitations.) For it to work, the GM has to have the salient elements of the fiction detailed in advance. Because if the GM is just making things up - eg making up pits in the hallway as we go along - then the player can no longer skilfully exploit the GM's heuristics and procedures to achieve their goals, and there's no longer any basis to rebut the tentative conclusion set out above.

And working out all the salient elements in advance is a significant task, and obviously becomes practically impossible if the scope of the fiction grows to a whole world as opposed to an artificial dungeon environment.

There are other issues as well - does "I walk down the hallway" mean "I keep going until the end, even if the hallway is 10 miles long?" That can be solved by implementing "turns", which Gygax does. Does "In inspect the wall closely" mean "I get so close that the eye-eating insects that live in the cracks in the wall can jump onto my face?" I can find ENwolrd thread debating this sort of thing 50 years on!

So Gygaxaian dungeon-crawl play has limits, as a method of establishing player agency in the context of "neutral" GM-decision-making heuristics.

That doesn't show that there aren't ways of rebutting the tentative conclusion. But, as I said, the work of rebuttal has to actually be done.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I realise that the points I've made in this post are probably not relevant for most people GMing or playing B2 (although they may have been relevant to @mamba; and mamba's experiences are just as real as anyone else's). I also realise that for a novice GM, who is not familiar with RPGs at all, or who has no familiarity with narrating NPC behaviour beyond one or two "if, then"-type statements found in a railroad-y module or AP, the instruction to "think of the Orc leader as a real person" can be a helpful starting point.

For me this is still the most important lesson. Ultimately running an NPC is a learned skill. But I always go back to think of them like real people. The reason I mention it isn't because it is a lesson just for novice GMs. I've met experienced GMs who can use the lesson. But I am not trying to train or educate. People asked what our guiding principles were, and this is pretty foundational in a sandbox. I also think a lot of people aren't really grasping what we mean by it (and that is fair because it is a general statement) because I keep seeing people go back to describing the GM's narrating things as if they are event based, but our campaigns are driven by NPC motivations, not things like set pieces or adventure arcs. And for me that all flows from the living NPC concept. You can think it is remedial and that is fine. For me it is not different from telling an experienced guitar player to put feel into their playing. It is something that is always useful (at least for me).

But no one posting in this thread is a novice GM. No one here is looking for help in how to move beyond canned "if, then" statements for how to adjudicate their NPCs. In the context of this thread, talking about realism in the context of a module like B2 just doesn't get much traction.

No people aren't. But clearly we have different styles. And we have to talk about these aspects to explain what we are doing. Those explanations may fall short for you, but it is pretty clear posters like myself and Rob understand each other perfectly well when we use this kind of language.

And trying to tell me that my play of Lareth the Beautiful in Torchbearer 2e must be less "realistic" than how he would be handled in D&D, because of the resolution system being used, borders on the condescending.

And I think people shouldn't be doing this. I don't think your campaigns are less realistic. Just because someone else is focusing on realism, or a particular kind of realism, I don't see why that would need to take realism away from your game. And when it comes to how these are handled in terms of system and approaches to GMing: roleplaying is a very subjective experience, what is realistic and immersive to one person won't be for the next, so I would imagine some people would find me and Rob's approach better for realism, but some people would also find your approach better for realism. And I realize in another thread I was reserving objective and real for a particular kind of mystery but that was for the point of explaining a concept and it was an edge case. I wasn't making a universal claim about realism in RPGs in that thread.

 

[pemerton]

Likely because RPG campaigns, regardless of system, involve small groups, and research on small-group communication shows that social norms often override formal turn-taking, resulting in groups developing their own equilibrium of who talks when.

Dealing with a Spotlight Hog from StackExchange

As a player, how do I deal with a spotlight hog?

I’m usually the GM but I’m not this time, and my usual methods of managing spotlight, and hogs thereof, aren’t available to me. I’m at a bit of a loss. We have a player who is very enthusiastic and

rpg.stackexchange.com

Nice to see a round robin approach offered as a solution. I use a version of that.

Huh?

 

[SteveC]

If you cannot agree on the definition of a term, you cannot discuss anything about that term. All you can do is argue about what the term means.

It's been my experience that this is the core issue behind most of our heated discussions, on EnWorld and really in general. Unless you can define terms you're arguing past each other. People can realistically disagree and everyone involved can be correct, depending on how terms are defined. And as a discussion shifts, the definitions and the goal posts tend to shift as well. It's having a bunch of parallel monologues rather than a discussion or debate.

 

[pemerton]

I don't really have time now, but I have been very accommodating to other points of view here, and I haven't been hostile in my opinion. I think a lot of posters have gone well beyond just expressing their point of view and veered into bullying and ridicule. Maybe that isn't intention. But that is how a lot of it is coming across

See, I tend to agree with the bolded sentence. I probably have some different posters in mind from the ones you do!

 

[AlViking]

Suppose that I, as a player, describe my PC doing such-and-such. (My PC says something, or strikes something with a club, or opens a door, or whatever.)

And the GM, in reply, describes how some element of the setting or situation changes in response: maybe a NPC acts a certain way, or an object is changed in some way, etc, as the GM determines based on their extrapolation from the fictional situation.

It may be very clear, to the player, how what they have said about their PC has affected the shared fiction. But, from what I've said so far, it does not follow that the player has exercised any agency. Because from what I've said so far, all we can tell is that the player saying something prompted the GM to say something in response. But we have no indication of how what the player said shaped or controlled what the GM said in response, beyond making certain elements of the shared fiction (ie the PC's declared action) salient.

To work out whether, how, and to what degree the player exercised agency, we need to understand how and why the GM made the decision that they did, and what way - if any - the player's goal, in saying what they did, mattered. If the GM is using procedures or heuristics that make no reference to the player's goal, then the tentative conclusion would be that the player didn't exercise much agency.

That tentative conclusion can be rebutted - that's what makes it tentative! But the work or rebuttal has to actually be done. Here's one way: if the player has a grasp of the GM's procedures and heuristics, then the player can infer how the GM will respond to certain prompts. And the player can then describe their PC doing things, with the purpose of engaging those known procedures and heuristics and thus generating a predictable response from the GM.

This is what I take @Campbell to be getting at, with the reference to "information environment". It's what I've been getting at in talking about setting elements, and setting dispositions, being "reasonably knowable".

Here's a simple example:

Common sense tells me that if I tell the GM, "My PC walks through the wall", the GM will reply "No they don't"; but if I tell the GM "I inspect the wall closely for cracks", the GM might tell me what my PC does or doesn't see. This is a simple example of the player exploiting heuristics and procedures to achieve a goal in play, even though the GM's heuristics and procedures don't themselves make reference to the player's goal.

As a player, I can improve my play by using this sort of approach. Eg I tell the GM, "My PC walks down the hallway," expecting the GM to respond "OK," and to tell me what my PC finds at the end of the hallway. But instead the GM says, "Half way down the hallway, you fall into a pit!" The GM's decision-making procedure made reference to an element of the fiction that was hidden from me. So, in the future, I declare actions that will prompt the GM to reveal those hidden elements, such as "I walk down the hallway, prodding in front of me with a sturdy pole."

Gygaxian dungeon-crawling,, as a type of game play, works in this fashion.

When it is spelled out, you can also see its limitations. (And I don't mean its aesthetic limitations; some people will find this sort of game enjoyable, and some won't. I mean it's technical limitations.) For it to work, the GM has to have the salient elements of the fiction detailed in advance. Because if the GM is just making things up - eg making up pits in the hallway as we go along - then the player can no longer skilfully exploit the GM's heuristics and procedures to achieve their goals, and there's no longer any basis to rebut the tentative conclusion set out above.

And working out all the salient elements in advance is a significant task, and obviously becomes practically impossible if the scope of the fiction grows to a whole world as opposed to an artificial dungeon environment.

There are other issues as well - does "I walk down the hallway" mean "I keep going until the end, even if the hallway is 10 miles long?" That can be solved by implementing "turns", which Gygax does. Does "In inspect the wall closely" mean "I get so close that the eye-eating insects that live in the cracks in the wall can jump onto my face?" I can find ENwolrd thread debating this sort of thing 50 years on!

So Gygaxaian dungeon-crawl play has limits, as a method of establishing player agency in the context of "neutral" GM-decision-making heuristics.

That doesn't show that there aren't ways of rebutting the tentative conclusion. But, as I said, the work of rebuttal has to actually be done.

I would say that if a player has attempted something their character can do, the character has agency. Full stop. It doesn't matter if they are successful at achieving a goal, it doesn't matter how the result was adjudicated as long as it was adjudicated for reasons other than the GM choosing the result based on the direction they want for their preconceived notion to be achieved.

The GM may have decided that for story reasons the character will automatically fail or that they will automatically succeed. If the GM is doing it for reasons of plot and story, the character lacks agency. If it does or does not work because of a GM's judgement call based on the scene as presented success or failure is not relevant. Something being hidden from the player does not negate agency, being surprised by something unexpected has nothing to do with agency. Being able to respond to that surprise as your character desires without concern about the overall narrative of the game is what grants agency to the character.

But this post sounds an awful lot like your oft-repeated preference for a style of play and that if you don't do it the way you want it done there is no agency. Note that I'm talking about character agency, not player agency which I think is a good distinction mentioned above.

 

[pemerton]

I think realism is something you have to drill down on. But that doesn't mean it is special pleading or that it has no meaning. It is pointing towards things people will agree are believable and many GMs are trying to emphasize their idea of realism.

If realism is all relative and contextual, why does it keep getting applied as a criticism of others' RPGing (including mine)?

 

[Bedrockgames]

If realism is all relative and contextual, why does it keep getting applied as a criticism of others' RPGing (including mine)?

I don't know because I am not criticizing your RPG. Are people saying your games aren't realistic period? Or are they saying you system would disrupt their own sense of realism?

 

[AlViking]

I don't know because I am not criticizing your RPG. Are people saying your games aren't realistic period? Or are they saying you system would disrupt their own sense of realism?

I don't remember seeing anyone attack @pemerton's RPG, people are just talking about their preferences. I disagree on their approach to the discussion but that's a different issue. I don't care what anyone else plays.

 

[pemerton]

I am not trying to train or educate. People asked what our guiding principles were, and this is pretty foundational in a sandbox. I also think a lot of people aren't really grasping what we mean by it (and that is fair because it is a general statement) because I keep seeing people go back to describing the GM's narrating things as if they are event based, but our campaigns are driven by NPC motivations, not things like set pieces or adventure arcs.

<snip>

we have to talk about these aspects to explain what we are doing. Those explanations may fall short for you, but it is pretty clear posters like myself and Rob understand each other perfectly well when we use this kind of language.

I think I'm grasping what you mean by "realism". Upthread I posted that it's a piece of jargon; here you seem to say the same thing - it's a short-hand term used by you, and others who use the same methods as you, to talk about your play.