An examination of player agency

[Bedrockgames]

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

It would very much depend on the campaign as well as other player's expectations. I mostly run wuxia campaigns and I use a system built around kung fu techniques (players can acquire these by finding them in manuals, finding masters who know them, and joining sects that posses them; they can also master techniques through training on their own but this is more involved). Because the kung fu technique system is intentionally unbalanced (it has spikes in power to reflect the genre), if a player was cleary just asking to be the son of a given character because he knew that character had the most powerful technique in the game, that might be an issue (though I have to say it might not be depending on the group). Generally if I have misgivings I will suggest the player try something else, but if the player is adamant, I might ask the other players how they feel (sometimes players don't mind another character starting out pretty awesome; and that is within genre). In terms of busting the setting, for me this is usually more about genre. Like I said I am running wuxia so if a player tries to bring in a character background that really doesn't fit, I might suggest something else. And I mean like it doesn't make sense culturally or it feels super strange and out of place. This sort of thing very rarely arises as an issue though

Another example of a power grab is the classic "I am a the son of the emperor". Now that can very much work in a wuxia campaign, and so I am not going to say 'no' right off the bat. But we are going to have a conversation about it.

 

[Umbran]

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!

Mod Note:
It is almost like you are trying to summon red text!

Folks, if you cannot be respectful, go find another thread in which you might be able to keep your cool.

 

[pemerton]

@chaochou

I've been thinking a bit over the past few weeks about this topic. Here's a set of ideas I've arrived at.

There are two things that need to be distinguished: I'll call them authority and agency/control.

My explanation is this: in bridge, each player (except the dummy) has authority to play the cards in their hand. But a good player, who gets a reasonable deal, is able to use their play to control the game (because there are rules, mostly about following suit and trumps, which allow a good player to exploit length and strength to control what others are obliged or encouraged to play). So the scope of a good (and moderately lucky) player's control (or agency) extends beyond their authority. (In card play, we even call this "controlling the play".)

I think this model is applicable, without change, to RPGing: as a player, I can use my authority to make moves that then control/guide (in virtue of the rules) what the GM has to do in response. And so I can generate effects beyond my area of authority.

In classic dungeon-crawling, this is how I first gain knowledge, by making moves that are low risk for me but oblige the GM to tell me stuff (eg listening at door). I can then use that knowledge to control what scenes the GM frames (by choosing which doors to open, having acquired knowledge about what is behind them). Gygax has an essay about this sort of play (not using my terminology) at the end of his PHB, under the heading Successful Adventures.

To turn to a FRPG that's pretty different from what Gygax had in mind: in Burning Wheel, by exercising my authority over my PC's Beliefs, etc, I control and/or guide what sorts of scenes the GM frames, what consequences the GM narrates, etc. So I have player agency that extends beyond my authority over my PC build and action declarations.

What makes a RPG a railroad, in my view, is that I as a player have little or no capacity to control or even guide play via my exercise of my authority over my moves. This happens when there are no rules that connect what moves I make to controlling or guiding the GM's space for moves.

In terms of your OP, this is a situation where there are insufficient known and inviolable rules connecting my moves as a player to outcomes and changes in the shared fiction. Meaning that there is nothing I can rely on to make moves in pursuit of my goals.

 

[Argyle King]

I've been trying to think of how to respond to the discussion. However, what the OP describes as the usual play experience (especially in the Goals section) is notably different than most of my experiences.

How is it that a player does not know their character's goals?

How does that viewpoint interact with the idea of emergent gameplay?

 

[Pedantic]

To turn to a FRPG that's pretty different from what Gygax had in mind: in Burning Wheel, by exercising my authority over my PC's Beliefs, etc, I control and/or guide what sorts of scenes the GM frames, what consequences the GM narrates, etc. So I have player agency that extends beyond my authority over my PC build and action declarations.

I'm curious about how that actually works. I understand agency in trick taking (setting aside bidding as a whole separate question) in that a player picks a card to play, and playing the correct card at the correct time through the conventions of trump and following and so on, forces the rest of the players to respond. Playing a low trump early might cause a player to lose the lead in such a way they can't recover it, or possibly passing might provide sufficient information a player can realize they'll be able to burn the aces early and win the last few tricks on face cards, and so on. The choice of which card to play at which time aligns to form a strategy in pursuit of a goal.

I realize it's tricky to discuss counterfactuals in the broad space TTRPGs play in, but I struggle to conceive of multiple lines of play driving towards the same goal with varying levels of success in a system like BW. Can you present a strong series of moves by a player, and an alternate line they could have pursued? Ideally both contrasted with an ineffective, weaker series of moves?

 

[pemerton]

I'm curious about how that actually works. I understand agency in trick taking (setting aside bidding as a whole separate question) in that a player picks a card to play, and playing the correct card at the correct time through the conventions of trump and following and so on, forces the rest of the players to respond. Playing a low trump early might cause a player to lose the lead in such a way they can't recover it, or possibly passing might provide sufficient information a player can realize they'll be able to burn the aces early and win the last few tricks on face cards, and so on. The choice of which card to play at which time aligns to form a strategy in pursuit of a goal.

I realize it's tricky to discuss counterfactuals in the broad space TTRPGs play in, but I struggle to conceive of multiple lines of play driving towards the same goal with varying levels of success in a system like BW. Can you present a strong series of moves by a player, and an alternate line they could have pursued? Ideally both contrasted with an ineffective, weaker series of moves?

The goal of play in D&D BW is not to win. For the participant who is in the GM role, the goal is to present scenes that force the players into intense, engaging, thematically laden action with their PCs. For the players, the goal is to play one's character in accordance with their beliefs, instincts, traits etc. For all participants, there is a further goal that emerges from the intersection of their role-specific goals: finding out what happens to these characters when they are put through the wringer.

Eero Tuovinen describes this sort of play, in general terms (he's not talking specifically about Burning Wheel, but about games that fall under what he regards as the "standard narratavistic model" (remembering that this is pre-Apocalypse World):

I find that the riddle of roleplaying is answered thusly: it is more fun to play a roleplaying game than write a novel because the game by the virtue of its system allows you to take on a variety of roles that are inherently more entertaining than that of pure authorship. . . .​

​

all but the most experimental narrativistic games run on a very simple and rewarding role distribution that relies heavily on both absolute backstory authority and character advocacy. . . .​

​

One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments (defined in narrativistic theory as moments of in-character action that carry weight as commentary on the game’s premise) by introducing complications. . . .​

​

The rest of the players each have their own characters to play. They play their characters according to the advocacy role: the important part is that they naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background. Then they let the other players know in certain terms what the character thinks and wants. . . .​

​

The actual procedure of play is very simple: once the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character (or wherever the premise comes from, depends on the game). The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end. . . .​

​

These games are tremendously fun, and they form a very discrete family of games wherein many techniques are interchangeable between the games. . . . The fun in these games from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character; this is the holy grail of rpg design, this is exactly the thing that was promised to me in 1992 in the MERP rulebook. And it works . . .​

EDIT: This post said "D&D" when it should have said "BW (Burning Wheel)".

 

[Micah Sweet]

The goal of play in D&D is not to win. For the participant who is in the GM role, the goal is to present scenes that force the players into intense, engaging, thematically laden action with their PCs. For the players, the goal is to play one's character in accordance with their beliefs, instincts, traits etc. For all participants, there is a further goal that emerges from the intersection of their role-specific goals: finding out what happens to these characters when they are put through the wringer.

Eero Tuovinen describes this sort of play, in general terms (he's not talking specifically about Burning Wheel, but about games that fall under what he regards as the "standard narratavistic model" (remembering that this is pre-Apocalypse World):

I find that the riddle of roleplaying is answered thusly: it is more fun to play a roleplaying game than write a novel because the game by the virtue of its system allows you to take on a variety of roles that are inherently more entertaining than that of pure authorship. . . .​

​

all but the most experimental narrativistic games run on a very simple and rewarding role distribution that relies heavily on both absolute backstory authority and character advocacy. . . .​

​

One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments (defined in narrativistic theory as moments of in-character action that carry weight as commentary on the game’s premise) by introducing complications. . . .​

​

The rest of the players each have their own characters to play. They play their characters according to the advocacy role: the important part is that they naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background. Then they let the other players know in certain terms what the character thinks and wants. . . .​

​

The actual procedure of play is very simple: once the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character (or wherever the premise comes from, depends on the game). The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end. . . .​

​

These games are tremendously fun, and they form a very discrete family of games wherein many techniques are interchangeable between the games. . . . The fun in these games from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character; this is the holy grail of rpg design, this is exactly the thing that was promised to me in 1992 in the MERP rulebook. And it works . . .​

I don't know if I agree on what you consider to be the goals of D&D play, particular the GM's goal. Creating action scenes is one way to go, but not the only way as you suggest. There are plenty of scenes that don't involve action, or aren't really scenes at all but narrative exposition and/or setting description. Inter-PC conversation is definitely a thing. Also rules adjudication, which you completely elude. And on the player side, beliefs, instincts, and traits in the way I believe you mean them are not at all necessary for play.

Did you not mean to say "D&D" in your post?

 

[Pedantic]

I'm not sure that's relevant to my question, given we're talking about player agency. I can accept a different goal, but I'd still expect the comparison about agency to yield to multiple, and variably effective, lines of play to get to the result, if we're taking the same structure from other kinds of games.

If the goal is to generate a conflict-laden scene, then what is the line of play that best does this? Is there a line of play that does not create such a scene, is there some way to evaluate a preferable scene and so on? If there is no legitimate move that does not produce this result, and no move that would produce it more or less effectively, then I don't see how the player's action can be said to have agency in the same sense of your bridge example.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The goal of play in D&D is not to win. For the participant who is in the GM role, the goal is to present scenes that force the players into intense, engaging, thematically laden action with their PCs. For the players, the goal is to play one's character in accordance with their beliefs, instincts, traits etc. For all participants, there is a further goal that emerges from the intersection of their role-specific goals: finding out what happens to these characters when they are put through the wringer.

I assume for purposes of this discussion you're ignoring token play?

 

[Campbell]

NT