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

[robertsconley]

Consider a RPG - of which there are several - in which (i) players, as part of the build and play of their PCs, are expected/required to signal what their priorities are for their PCs, and (ii) the GM, in doing their work in relation to setting, situation and consequence, is expected to have regard to those player-determined priorities.

Is that "meta-agency" on the part of the players?

yes. It is not a consequence of acting as their character. But something they are doing as a player in the campaign.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Right. Hawkeyfan has spoken. Heceforth no one should waste their time with that and, if they chose to do so, they must be playing wrong.

For some people, it might not be considered a waste of time. That's their call to make, in their own game, not yours.

Take it easy, sport. People can hide rolls if they want to because of some minor crossing of the character/player barrier that a roll with no obvious result provides.

I was just offering a way to reconcile that with an in-fiction reason.

That is you telling them what they think. A player in a sandbox where POV matters, or really any player who is into being their character, is going to see that as the GM telling them what they think (I am not saying that is bad, but that is definitely going to disrupt some peoples sense of agency)

No, it's not me telling the player what they think. It was me telling @Lanefan what he can call it to reconcile his worry about metagaming.

 

[robertsconley]

So is declaring an action, and have it resolved via "intent and task", meta-agency? Why is that not just "agency"?

It depends on the specifics of how actions are declared. To answer I will need the specific rules in question.

 

[pemerton]

As I explained upthread RPG are not games in a conventional sense.

I think this claim is quite controversial.

If I can analyse parlour games like charades and Pictionary; board games like snakes-and-ladders and backgammon and chess; card games like bridge and canasta; wargames, both mechanically-governed and freeform adjudicated; as games, it seems pretty weird that RPGs are somehow uniquely unanalysable.

Especially because, in this very thread, I've provided some of the analysis! For instance, I've shown how the contrast between authority and control, that is quite clear in a game like bridge or chess, is also applicable to RPG play: that is, it is possible to set up rules and principles in a RPG which enable players to exercise control over (say) scene framing, even though it is the GM who has authority over scene framing.

The application of game theory has limited value because there's an entire layer of agency in TTRPGs that isn’t present in most other games, specifically, what players can do solely as their characters.

This is just talking about the nature of player moves in a conventional RPG that has an asymmetric arrangement of participant roles (ie GM vs player). Namely, the quintessential player move is to describe what a particular character in a situation (ie the character they are responsible for) does.

player agency in tabletop roleplaying games has two components: character agency, or what the players can do as their characters. And meta agency, or what players can do outside of pretending to be their characters. Your definition of agency only considers meta-agency and weighs things like railroading on that basis.

No. I'm talking about the sort of control that a player can exercise over the content of the shared fiction, by saying what their PC does (ie by declaring actions for their PCs). The degree of control that can be exercised in this way depends upon the rules, principles, heuristics etc that govern the determination of outcomes of such action declarations.

Leading your conclusion that if a campaign doesn't offer any type of meta-agency the referee (or designer) of said campaign is railroading (your definition) the players.

Again, I have not said this, and I'd be grateful if you could stop imputing views to me that I don't hold and haven't asserted.

Which incidentally also means that your set of definitions leads one to conclude that Dave Arneson was railroading (your definition) his players in the Blackmoor campaign as his players didn't have any meta-agency from the various actual play reports that were documented only character agency.

This is your erroneous conclusion, because you seem to be ignoring, or perhaps misunderstanding, what I am actually saying.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, and it's good that you were actually willing to answer this.

I already answered this upthread, twice, in direct reply to you.

 

[pemerton]

yes. It is not a consequence of acting as their character. But something they are doing as a player in the campaign.

What do you mean? Isn't deciding what my character cares about, and declaring an action, doing something as my character?

 

[robertsconley]

I think this claim is quite controversial.

If I can analyse parlour games like charades and Pictionary; board games like snakes-and-ladders and backgammon and chess; card games like bridge and canasta; wargames, both mechanically-governed and freeform adjudicated; as games, it seems pretty weird that RPGs are somehow uniquely unanalysable.

Especially because, in this very thread, I've provided some of the analysis! For instance, I've shown how the contrast between authority and control, that is quite clear in a game like bridge or chess, is also applicable to RPG play: that is, it is possible to set up rules and principles in a RPG which enable players to exercise control over (say) scene framing, even though it is the GM who has authority over scene framing.

This is just talking about the nature of player moves in a conventional RPG that has an asymmetric arrangement of participant roles (ie GM vs player). Namely, the quintessential player move is to describe what a particular character in a situation (ie the character they are responsible for) does.

No. I'm talking about the sort of control that a player can exercise over the content of the shared fiction, by saying what their PC does (ie by declaring actions for their PCs). The degree of control that can be exercised in this way depends upon the rules, principles, heuristics etc that govern the determination of outcomes of such action declarations.

Again, I have not said this, and I'd be grateful if you could stop imputing views to me that I don't hold and haven't asserted.

This is your erroneous conclusion, because you seem to be ignoring, or perhaps misunderstanding, what I am actually saying.

Pemerton, you’ve repeatedly accused me of mischaracterizing your views. I disagree. What I’ve done is analyze your arguments using a framework I developed to clarify the distinctions you often blur or treat as interchangeable. You may not agree with how I categorize things, but that is not mischaracterization. It is a disagreement over definitions and scope.

You consistently frame player agency in terms of how much control players have over the fiction, particularly through procedures that constrain the GM. That is a valid perspective within a certain design tradition. But what I’ve been pointing out, and what you continue to sidestep, is that this perspective does not account for how other styles of play grant meaningful player agency through character action within a consistent world, even if there is minimal formal input at the meta level.

To make this distinction clear, I’ve defined two types of agency:

• Character agency: What the player can do through their character, such as making decisions, taking actions, exploring, and dealing with consequences based on world logic.
• Meta-agency: What the player can do as a participant outside the character, such as framing scenes, determining stakes, or influencing tone or theme.

Your posts consistently emphasize meta-agency or procedural control as the core metric of agency. That is fine, but it is not a neutral or universal standard. If your definition of “railroading” hinges on whether players lack that kind of procedural control, then by your own logic campaigns like Blackmoor or any traditional Living World sandbox would fall under that label. You have said that is not your conclusion, but based on how you define things, it follows. Pointing that out is not misrepresentation. It is analysis.

The framework I’ve proposed is not intended to redefine your argument but to put it in a broader context that accounts for multiple traditions of play. It allows us to compare different campaign structures on their own terms without defaulting to a narrativist or proceduralist lens. Under my model, a Living World sandbox has strong character agency and low meta-agency. That is not a flaw. It is a feature of the design that supports a different kind of player-driven experience.

Your usage of “railroading” remains idiosyncratic and inconsistent. You object to applying it to early play like Blackmoor, but then define it in a way that would include such play. That is not on me. If your criteria lead to those conclusions, then the issue is with your framing, not with my reading of it.

In short, I am not mischaracterizing your position. I am challenging its assumptions using a framework that highlights what your definitions omit. If you want to avoid talking past each other, then engage with the distinctions I am making rather than reasserting your terms as if they are the only ones that count.

 

[pemerton]

It depends on the specifics of how actions are declared. To answer I will need the specific rules in question.

For instance, the player declares "I look around, hoping to see a vessel to catch the spurting blood in."

Or the players collectively declare "We skedaddle, so the pirates don't find and catch us."

 

[robertsconley]

For instance, the player declares "I look around, hoping to see a vessel to catch the spurting blood in."

Or the players collectively declare "We skedaddle, so the pirates don't find and catch us."

Character Agency

 

[pemerton]

You consistently frame player agency in terms of how much control players have over the fiction, particularly through procedures that constrain the GM. That is a valid perspective within a certain design tradition. But what I’ve been pointing out, and what you continue to sidestep, is that this perspective does not account for how other styles of play grant meaningful player agency through character action within a consistent world, even if there is minimal formal input at the meta level.

I am not talking about "input from the meta level". I am talking about rules that govern the GM's decision-making. Just as you are, when you refer to "a consistent world", which is (as best I can tell) a heuristic you advocate GM's use to make decisions about what happens next in the fiction.

To make this distinction clear, I’ve defined two types of agency:

• Character agency: What the player can do through their character, such as making decisions, taking actions, exploring, and dealing with consequences based on world logic.
• Meta-agency: What the player can do as a participant outside the character, such as framing scenes, determining stakes, or influencing tone or theme.

I am only talking about the first of these.

I am talking about RPGs like Burning Wheel, Torchbearer and 4e D&D where the GM has authority to frame scenes.

As far as determining what is at stake and influencing tone and theme - if you are saying that, in a living world sandbox, only the GM can do this, then to me that only drives home how great is the GM control that you are advocating for. Given that stakes, tone and theme all follow from GM decisions about their PCs, what they care about, and what they do, as far as I can tell these all sit within "character agency".

Your usage of “railroading” remains idiosyncratic and inconsistent. You object to applying it to early play like Blackmoor, but then define it in a way that would include such play.

No it wouldn't. As best I understand it, Arneson was not running Blackmoor in a manner that made it hard for players to understand what the consequences of their action declarations would be.