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

[Maxperson]

I don’t believe that there are different types of player agency. There are different ways of promoting it, there are different ways of constraining it. And every game has its limits… there’s always some amount of constraint.

Different games will have differing levels based on how they function and the expected or desired experience of play.

There are two major types. Your type which focuses on the player control over the fiction, and my kind which focuses on the player having meaningful control over what his PC says and does. Those are not the same kind of agency.

 

[SableWyvern]

I chose the example because of its simple and illustrative structure. That's all.

From where I'm sitting, all it's illustrating is that it's easy to craft an example that at least superficially appears to suit any given argument, if the example doesn't need to have any basis in reality.

Your example is an attempt to suggests that if someone compares two things and decides one is more suitable than the other for a particular task, then that person must accept as true and fair any other claim that one thing is better than another for that task.

 

[Lanefan]

Not exactly, no. Where this actually started was when I pointed out that some of the priorities of the Living World/Sandbox folks place a priority on something other than player agency. For instance, if you willfully hide information from the players which then reduces their ability to make meaningful choices, that is reducing their agency. That it's in service to realism or plausibility or verisimilitude or immersion or even player preference is beside the fact.

I think here you're (maybe intentionally?) conflating "the ability to make meaningful choices" with "the ability to make accurate choices". They are not the same...unless you're suggesting in corollary that the players should never be able to make a wrong or inaccurate choice, at which point I pull the "stop" cord so I can get off the bus.

Everyone should be welcome to post their opinions here. Not just the ones that align with the majority opinion.

With this I agree.

However there comes a point (and maybe I've crossed it myself now and then, though I try not to) where posting opinions crosses into what comes across as evangelizing, which will get pushback from me in any milieu.

 

[Lanefan]

The rules of the game tell the player to establish some priorities for their PC. The player did so. One of those was a Belief (a technical component of BW PC build): I will bring Joachim's blood to my master.

The rules of the game tell the GM to frame scenes that present the players with problems based on the priorities they have established for their PCs. I did that: Joachim's blood was spilling onto the floor, in front of the PC.

The rules also say (p 11) that "The players use their characters’ abilities to overcome these obstacles. To do this, dice are rolled and the results are interpreted using the rules presented in this book." And go on to explain intent and task, let it ride and that there is no consensual resolution of conflict in BW - if something is at stake (which it typically will be, given the GM's job) then the dice must be rolled.

OK, let's say I'm playing a character under that same Belief, "I will bring Joachim's blood to my master".

Am I, in BW, allowed to do some in-character prep around this belief, before the opportunity to gather the blood manifests?

If no, why the bleep not?

If yes, I'd make very sure that after acquiring this Belief my character was carrying at all times a belt pouch containing a stoppered empty vial, an absorbent cloth or sponge, and a knife or scalpel, such that if-when the opportunity ever arises to gather some of that blood I'm good and ready to do so.

As player, I would hope that prep would have, in this scenario, eliminated the need for me to roll anything: the blood's right there, all I have to do is pull out the gear I already have (and I don't even need the knife!), sponge some blood up, and squeeze the cloth so some blood drips into the vial.

 

[Lanefan]

There are two major types. Your type which focuses on the player control over the fiction, and my kind which focuses on the player having meaningful control over what his PC says and does. Those are not the same kind of agency.

I'll tweak that a bit, if I may. The two types are more:

a) the player has some control over elements of the setting and fiction unrelated to what the character says and does (or, if you like, a degree of meta-control)
b) the player has some control over elements of the setting and fiction exclusively and only through what the character says and does (i.e. no meta-control)

I think these two are almost unrelated to the degree of agency related to actual control of what the character itself says and does, which IMO should be almost absolute in either of the above cases barring mind-control effects or the like.

 

[Kromanjon]

There are two major types. Your type which focuses on the player control over the fiction, and my kind which focuses on the player having meaningful control over what his PC says and does. Those are not the same kind of agency.

I did a google and it turns out there are six types of agency:

• 1. Digital Marketing Agency
• 2. Growth Marketing Agency
• 3. Advertising Agency
• 4. Social Media Agency
• 5. Branding Agency
• 6. Public Relations (PR) Agency

Jokes aside though I feel that you have created your own categories here and that you're just assuming everyone buys into those categories. This might be a problem when others see agency as meaning just one thing or as meaning different things at different times in relation to what is being discussed. If you don't get buy in to your definitions of a term, and decide to argue as if you still have this buy in, communication is soon to break down.

 

[SableWyvern]

OK, let's say I'm playing a character under that same Belief, "I will bring Joachim's blood to my master".

Am I, in BW, allowed to do some in-character prep around this belief, before the opportunity to gather the blood manifests?

If no, why the bleep not?

If yes, I'd make very sure that after acquiring this Belief my character was carrying at all times a belt pouch containing a stoppered empty vial, an absorbent cloth or sponge, and a knife or scalpel, such that if-when the opportunity ever arises to gather some of that blood I'm good and ready to do so.

As player, I would hope that prep would have, in this scenario, eliminated the need for me to roll anything: the blood's right there, all I have to do is pull out the gear I already have (and I don't even need the knife!), sponge some blood up, and squeeze the cloth so some blood drips into the vial.

I have no experience with BW, but this just sounds like a roundabout way of saying, "I don't want to play Burning Wheel, but if I did play anyway, I'd do it without buying into the premise and actively trying to subvert it."

If the game is about creating a character with beliefs that will cause problems, trying to design a character who doesn't experience problems is akin to making a bloodthirsty, angry, rude, blunt, psychopath who only solves problems with brute force, when the GM pitches a game about careful plotting and subtle political intrigue.

If you don't like the premise, don't play. Much as I've been saying to people who don't want to give authority over the world to the GM in a game where the GM will have authority over the world. It's OK to just say, "That's not for me, but you have fun with it."

 

[AnotherGuy]

So you can see that, in this game, I am using a mixture of setting, and the way those elements are brought into situations; and consequences for failed tests. The way I do things in 4e D&D and Burning Wheel are broadly similar.

Thanks for that.
I'm assuming the campaign still has unanswered questions for Fee-bella, so plenty of story to still work with.
The unanswered questions being What was the Nightmare that awoke Fea-bella? Who sent it? And is it related to (i) these dark times, in which Elves will need her help, and (ii) the stubbornness and greed of the Dwarves.
Additional content - assuming Lareth is still alive, perhaps build a relationship with his brother and/or adopt his brother's ambitions or work against them...

With Golin he still has his mentor and enemy story to deal with, but you have built on this backstory of his parents death and how Vaxen (his friend from town, two different spellings of the name) appears to have kept details of the explosion incident from his Golin.

In that prior session which developed his town friend you write

They'd never been seen in the town again, but now Vaccin has another Dwarven friend! (In play, had rolled the Dismal News tavern rumour, about a bad fate befalling the PC's parents. Golin is an orphan, though, and so I asked Golin's player how he had been orphaned. The player didn't know. So I made something up. Golin's player suggested he might be losing his friend; I suggested that maybe this is why Vaccin is his friend.)

When the player wrote that Golin might be losing his friend - was that a suggestion or the desire by the player? Is that something you worked towards?

 

[robertsconley]

There are two major types. Your type which focuses on the player control over the fiction, and my kind which focuses on the player having meaningful control over what his PC says and does. Those are not the same kind of agency.

I'll tweak that a bit, if I may. The two types are more:

a) the player has some control over elements of the setting and fiction unrelated to what the character says and does (or, if you like, a degree of meta-control)
b) the player has some control over elements of the setting and fiction exclusively and only through what the character says and does (i.e. no meta-control)

I think these two are almost unrelated to the degree of agency related to actual control of what the character itself says and does, which IMO should be almost absolute in either of the above cases barring mind-control effects or the like.

For me, when I speak of agency, I distinguish between what a player can do as their character and what they can do as a participant in the campaign. The dividing line for me is this: could a character within the setting plausibly take this action?

If yes, it’s in-character (e.g., fight a guard, persuade a merchant). If no, it’s metagaming (e.g., declare that a shop exists, dictate the guard’s mood).

 

[AnotherGuy]

COMPONENTS	RAILROAD	LINEAR	SANDBOX	PbtA
Driving Force	GM	GM	GM (via Setting) / Players	Players
Mechanics	GM Facing	GM Facing	GM Facing	Player Facing
Character Concepts	Not Applicable	Colour	GM Dependent	Critical
Setting Importance	Primary	Primary	Primary	Secondary
Realism Input	GM	GM/Mechanics	GM/Mechanics	Mechanics
Primary Goals	Story Goals only	Story Goals	Exploration / Story Goals	Character Goals
Player Agency	None	Little-Some	Some-Greater	Greater

This is how I see it in the very general sense, having not played any PbtA myself and only being exposed to this forum and the little I have read online. So I'm happy to be corrected. Each one of us may likely play things and judge things a little differently to the above, according to how we run things at our respective tables. And it varies from game to game and system to system.

There are probably many more components that should be added, maybe some that should be excluded or corrected - I'm certainly (given my lack of RPG experience) poor at defining our hobby which is best suited for the likes of @Manbearcat.

Now I do not think it's necessary to quibble about player agency given that many of the concerns shared amongst persons who run sandbox games is that player facing mechanics and players having some authorial agency spoils/lessens the immersive experience they wish to create and that is a fair argument. The GM is testing the player against the 'living' setting (GMPC) and there will be unknowns (and that is fine).
So does a PbtA have more player agency? I say of course, given that the player is more aware of the engine at play and by the limitations placed on the GM by the system.

On the other hand, PbtA GMs argue their experience is more immersive, despite the above (player knowledge), because of the necessary tensions created and questions being answered through the fiction which are the primary goals of the system and thus elevate the story being fleshed out and that too is a fair argument.
I feel the GM is also testing the player, but in a much different way to sandbox.
Will the character change going through the crucible and how?

Anyways, this is my two cents on this mammoth of a thread.