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

[Campbell]

Keep in mind we are talking a normal understanding of agency. That doesn’t mean rules that disrupt agency are non-normative. Vampire is a classic example as you point out (I am more familiar with masquerade than requiem but still had those kinds of things going on). CoC, Ravenloft, even stuff in standard D&D like dragonlance awe, disrupt agency but aren’t unusual

I wasn't agency. I was addressing @Faolyn 's this would not fly commentary (which seems very normative) when what flies differs from game to game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's new in 5.24. It wasn't a thing in any previous edition (possible exception being 4e, since I don't own that book to look it up, but I doubt it).

Such things have been sprinkled throughout D&D since days of yore, trust me. Dragon fear aura, various undead, other things here and there. It was, admittedly, not some central mechanic of the game, but it has always existed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Such things have been sprinkled throughout D&D since days of yore, trust me. Dragon fear aura, various undead, other things here and there. It was, admittedly, not some central mechanic of the game, but it has always existed.

Dragons and undead both generate supernatural effects. That's what we were talking about.

 

[robertsconley]

Read the first few sections of the 1e DMG! He talks a lot about the GM's responsibilities to the players in terms of providing them with enjoyable play. No, he never approached the game from a perspective of characters developed to the level of really having significant goals or personality beyond being 'pogs'. But that does mean he was pretty clear in what he envisaged as good GMing. I think if you extrapolate that to modern Narrativist play, you get principled play. Not that Gary would especially be interested in that style, but he'd at least recognize it.

That's because that advice was Player Handbook.
From Page 2.

Although it argued that it is Mike Carr's approach, however.

Playing a PC as a Pog was a thing, but roleplaying as in acting was just as prevalent back then as it is now. Most of the time players were themselves with a couple of distinct quirks but also not treating character as pogs either. Speaking as someone who played since the late 70s. And when playing did the "funny voices" from the get go.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So if you had described vessels, no roll would be needed to see one, right? You'd pick some other roll for them to make--you've said as much before.

Which means that, in BW, players are limited by what the GM remembers to or chooses to describe.

How is that unique to BW, or Narrativist play in general? In PbtA the game will spell out its aims and describe how the GM decides what to frame into a scene. This is important!

 

[Lanefan]

They're not the same thing in different words.

Here's an illustration that shows why: I have an idea of Santa Claus, and that leads me to leave presents for my children by their bed on Christmas Eve.

That doesn't mean that Santa Claus exercised any causal power! That means that I, a real person, made a decision, driven by (among other things) an idea in my head.

In the minds and imaginations of your children, however, Santa Claus is who caused those presents to appear; he and his elves made them at the north pole and then brought them to your house on a reindeer-drawn sleigh, squeezing down the chimney to leave the presents under the tree (or by their beds, in your case).

The children are immersed in the fiction and can there see cause-and-effect. You, here analagous to the GM who set up the fiction, know it's all fiction but you still maintain that fiction for your children's benefit and thus still have to track that causality sequence in your head in order to keep it consistent when telling it to the kids.

 

[Faolyn]

The Steel rules are not in Hub and Spokes.

But p 72 is there. There is no social agreement for the resolution of conflict in this game. Yet that is what you repeatedly advocate - that the player asks for their to be a cup, so that they can pursue their Belief, and you think the GM should just say "yes".

As for Steel, I've already told you that cold-blooded murder is a trigger for a Steel test. Here's a post that says a bit more about it:
Of course you don't have to believe me.

And of course you ignore the bulk of my post.

OK, sure. players and GMs are not allowed to simply decide something exists. The player must always roll for it, except when the GM says yes, which they can't do except when they can.

This may be the rule in BW, but again, I find this to be a bad rule.

So let's turn to page 72.

Or this leads to a game feeling boring, antagonistic, pointless, and random, and as a result, unfun.

I have never felt heroic or grandiose for passing a regular check. What makes my character feel heroic or grandiose when it involves dice is if the events that caused my roll are heroic or grandiose. If a "spot the thing" check needs to feel heroic to me, then it needs to be something like this:

(Do you see the kitty? And by kitty, I mean jaguar. Photo was taken by 16-year old Bella Lack)

and not like this medieval woodcut of a sick room.

(look! vessels!)

Over on r/rpghorror stories, I sometimes seeing stories of games where the player will say something like "I'm checking the room for traps" and then get caught in a trap anyway--not because they didn't roll well enough but because the GM said something like "you said you were checking the room; you didn't say you were checking the ceiling." That's the vibe I'm getting from this game.

 

[Lanefan]

Just to be clear - are you saying that imaginary things (like the Elven Lady Galadriel, or the Easter Bunny, or the Millenium Falcon) have real causal effects in the world?

In their respective worlds Lady Galadhriel and the Millenium Falcon can be and are elements in cause-and-effect sequences.

One of our jobs as GMs is to make those causal sequences seem real to the (ideally, immersed in the fiction) players; and the first step towards doing so is to treat them in our own imagination as if they were real - in other words, immerse ourselves in the setting we're trying to create and-or portray.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yea, and people choosing to follow those beliefs shows agency. The imaginary figure is not exerting any agency.

Even more central, fictional characters are not links in causal relationships. Slenderman didn't do anything, and the idea of Slenderman didn't do anything. Exposure to some sort of media or other sources of information, coupled with social interaction to lead to a murder. I would further posit that lack of exposure to the idea might have changed the character of the event in some ways, but the key factors were probably other things.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I recognize it too, even if I'm not interested in it. But if he "framed scenes" in the setting with the highest priority being specific character goals and drives, he was engaging in what I would call meta player-agency.

Well, I have made no comment on this terminology. I understand what it intends to convey. But referring back to Gygax, he certainly understood that players are distinct from and have interests and agendas that go beyond playing in character. I suspect that the sorts of immersion you advocate for would not be things he'd have cared much about.