A Question Of Agency?

[Bedrockgames]

I find this to be a highly theoretical objection, at best. I say this because I have not witnessed a situation like this in an actual game. I mean, yes, 2 players agendas could simply be mutually exclusive, but it is actually pretty HARD to arrange that, unless each player is very specific in what they declare as an agenda/goal, and then they would almost have to arrange for this to be a problem (IE if I claimed my PC must destroy the Book of Eibon and you claimed your PC must own the Book of Eibon). You almost have to contrive something like that. Plus I'm not super convinced this would create an actual problem in play, because the conflict would surely drive a lot of story!

Both of those goals are perfectly possible for players to declare in a traditional game too. So I don't think that example illuminates the issue (I can decide my character must destroy the book fo Eibon).

 

[FrogReaver]

This. I don't know of any RP games where the player isn't assumed to have primary agency over action declarations of their character.

What if I told you some games offer other players a greater deal of agency over your character than others?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Absolutely. I think I've said it before in these types of discussions, it seems that "perfectly plausible" ideas are discarded in favor of the GM's idea of what's "most plausible". Which is just not the way things work in the real world.

No one is saying it is perfect simulation of reality. Nor is anyone saying bad calls don't happen. They are saying they believe giving this to a human referee to rule on, is a good system for producing something that feels fairly stable, predictable in terms of whether an idea is plausible or how people will react to things etc. Now some people fundamentally distrust giving a GM that kind of power, have had bad experiences with it, or just have a different temperament. Personally this has never bothered me. I don't expect every GM to rule the way I would. I expect them to rule the way they rule, and is what gives their world, their NPCs, etc a sense of consistency and physics. Again, if this doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. For me this is the most enjoyable and engaging (and yes, agency enhancing) way to play RPGs. Doesn't mean I won't play other ways. Like I said I enjoyed Hillfolk, and I enjoyed Gumshoe. One of these days I may run some of the games you have mentioned. And I play other games that occasionally get into that territory. But my bread and butter is more traditional for the reasons I've stated. And when it comes to GMs, I am pretty at ease with them managing that sort of thing. If I think something is plausible and suggest it, but they reject it, that is fine by me (in fact that is an essential part of creating a world that feels external and real).

 

[Campbell]

Here's what bothers me about this definitional arguments - we know what each other means. It seems primarily focused on changing the topic of conversation. Like I want to talk about what I mean when I am talking about agency. If I accept the definition provided by @FrogReaver I still want to talk about what I meant earlier. I have find some other language now. I'm not suddenly going to be interested in agency as defined by @FrogReaver. We understand what is meant. I do not understand why we can't just engage with meaning. What are we looking to get out of this conversation?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Here's what bothers me about this definitional arguments - we know what each other means. It seems primarily focused on changing the topic of conversation. Like I want to talk about what I mean when I am talking about agency. If I accept the definition provided by @FrogReaver I still want to talk about what I meant earlier. I have find some other language now. I'm not suddenly going to be interested in agency as defined by @FrogReaver. We understand what is meant. I do not understand why we can't just engage with meaning. What are we looking to get out of this conversation?

This is all basically just a side discussion from the OP, which was about whether he was giving his players agency, and that led to a debate about the meaning of the word. I think anytime a discussion gets bogged down in debates over word definitions, that conversation really isn't going anywhere.

 

[Campbell]

Can we please stop bringing up lack of trust as the reason why people might prefer reflecting social dynamics through game mechanics? Almost everyone in this conversation is a GM. This is not about trust. It's about a subjective aesthetic preference for rules that help players feel the impact of their character's social situation.

 

[TwoSix]

It is more about GM style and adventure structures in traditional RPGs. There were no rules against agency in D&D in the 90s, but there sure was a lot of GM advice that led many players to feel they were along for the ride of a story the GM was telling. I think both groups in this debate had a strong reaction to that (which wasn't just something in D&D but pretty prevalent in the hobby in general at the time), probably a strong reaction to some of the things that were present in the early 2000s as well; we just have very different answers to that problem.

I think the real stylistic divide is whether it's assumed the players are there to explore the DM's setting, or is the DM there to facilitate the generation of the story being told by the PCs.

Basically, most traditional RPGs are sort of like open-world CRPGs (think like Skyrim), except the DM acts to allow the action to be more open-ended because we, as human beings, can generate new content on the fly. The DM states the environment and surroundings to the PCs, the PCs take actions in response to that environment, and the DM crafts a response based on the environment and any related rolls based on the PC's actions. That's the obvious path of a dungeon crawl, a story path game (like a module) is essentially an geographically unbounded dungeon crawl, and a sandbox is a story path game with procedurally generated environment changes.

The other, "indie-game" approach is to assume the setting is simply a tool to provide scenery for conflict, and to help the player and DM create appropriate scenes. There's no real exploration to be done, the players state a set of goals and the DM creates conflicts based around those goals. The gameplay loop is "state your goal", the DM creates a conflict or hazard, and the subsequent roll decides the next step in the progression.

 

[FrogReaver]

Here's what bothers me about this definitional arguments - we know what each other means. It seems primarily focused on changing the topic of conversation. Like I want to talk about what I mean when I am talking about agency. If I accept the definition provided by @FrogReaver I still want to talk about what I meant earlier. I have find some other language now. I'm not suddenly going to be interested in agency as defined by @FrogReaver. We understand what is meant. I do not understand why we can't just engage with meaning. What are we looking to get out of this conversation?

Here's what bothers me about this definitional arguments - we know what each other means. It seems primarily focused on changing the topic of conversation. Like I want to talk about what I mean when I am talking about agency. If I accept the definition provided by @FrogReaver I still want to talk about what I meant earlier. I have find some other language now. I'm not suddenly going to be interested in agency as defined by @FrogReaver. We understand what is meant. I do not understand why we can't just engage with meaning. What are we looking to get out of this conversation?

This was touched on earlier but agency isn’t a neutral term. When you describe my playstyle as having less agency that’s a derogatory assessment of my playstyle.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Can we please stop bringing up lack of trust as the reason why people might prefer reflecting social dynamics through game mechanics? Almost everyone in this conversation is a GM. This is not about trust. It's about a subjective aesthetic preference for rules that help players feel the impact of their character's social situation.

I didn't say it wasn't but that was a direct response to a poster expressing what seemed like a distrust of GMs consistency ruling on these things. Trust in the GM seems like a big factor in many of these discussions

 

[TwoSix]

Here's what bothers me about this definitional arguments - we know what each other means. It seems primarily focused on changing the topic of conversation. Like I want to talk about what I mean when I am talking about agency. If I accept the definition provided by @FrogReaver I still want to talk about what I meant earlier. I have find some other language now. I'm not suddenly going to be interested in agency as defined by @FrogReaver. We understand what is meant. I do not understand why we can't just engage with meaning. What are we looking to get out of this conversation?

Yea, I think examples work much better than trying to argue semantics. I liked the "hills" example precisely because some people immediately were "No, that doesn't work in my games" and other people were "Sure, that's how my games run." Then you have a contrast where you can tease out what drives people to that opinion.