A Question Of Agency?

[Ovinomancer]

I gather you don't believe true sandboxes are a thing? Or are we back to "if you don't have an ability to directly influence setting elements on a player level you can have no true agency"?

Depends on what you mean by sandbox. The term, as I understand it, is a prepared play area, usually well detailed, that generally has a predetermined state of being and a default set of events that will unfurl until and unless the players reach the right places for them to be detailed to the players and then the players decide to engage it. This usually means that the GM has some plots running in the background to create a "living world." I often hear statements regarding sandboxes that they "don't revolve around the players." All of this tells me that there's lots of plots being run by the GM that don't even require the attention of the players.

That or things are static until the players get close enough for the render distance to kick in an animate them.

Which do you mean?

 

[FrogReaver]

I think this description fits D&D best when playing something like an Adventure Path (which might be what you're reacting to). It's possible to play a D&D game where the DM doesn't know where the PCs will go or what they will do. I know, because I'm running two.

Yes. That's how most of the games I'm a part of seem to go. I'm not particularly big on published adventure paths. Though they can be good to pick apart for potential inspiration.

 

[FrogReaver]

Alright, to attempt to assuage you of your sense of arbitrariness.

Gamestates are sequences of play characterized by the following features:

1) They address the objective/premise of the game.

2) Each sequential gamestate is fundamentally changed (the existing orientation or nature of objects in play are changed in some relevant way - see (1) above) from the prior gamestate.

3) The gamestate marches inexorably toward the endgame or "game over", terminating when the objective/premise of the game has been resolved.

* Of note, depending upon the TTRPGs, there will be a macro gamestate (Dogs in the Vineyard - mete out justice and uphold the Faith as one of God's Watchdogs) and one or more micro gamestates (take my Dog's coat into Suzanna for mending as an excuse to attempt to romance her so I may marry her and retire) persisting simultaneously. However, some TTRPGs have an extremely small play loop such that there is only one gamestate that exists (One-shots and games like My Life With Master).

My next post is going to address specifically the meting out justice, Faith-upholding, coat-mending, Suzanna-wooing, retiring (or not). But does what I wrote above make sense?

This is my problem with most of your definitions: Gamestates as you define them above almost sound like they were explicitly defined to keep out much of traditional RPG play. This also applies to numerous other terms you've defined.

It seems to me that you are trying to analyze all RPG play under a set of terms that have created to differentiate non-traditional RPG's from traditional ones and advocate for non-traditional RPG's at least to some degree. It's no wonder such analysis always fails to capture traditional RPG play adequately.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yup. But I firmly hold that if you can't suss out what is gamestate relevant at the moment of the decision-point then something has gone wrong in play. This can either be a system problem, lack of deftness of GMing, or lack of engagement on the players (which is a whole other question of why that is happening).

I'm a bit suspect of any RPG analysis concept that is only guaranteed to be useful after a campaign has completely ended.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is my problem with most of your definitions: Gamestates as you define them above almost sound like they were explicitly defined to keep out much of traditional RPG play. This also applies to numerous other terms you've defined.

It seems to me that you are trying to analyze all RPG play under a set of terms that have created to differentiate non-traditional RPG's from traditional ones and advocate for non-traditional RPG's at least to some degree. It's no wonder such analysis always fails to capture traditional RPG play adequately.

How do you figure that the description provided doesn’t fit traditional play?

1) They address the objective/premise of the game.

The objective of the game is to slay the vampire Strahd and escape the haunted land of Barovia.

2) Each sequential gamestate is fundamentally changed (the existing orientation or nature of objects in play are changed in some relevant way - see (1) above) from the prior gamestate.

We became lost in the mists. We arrived in Barovia. We could not leave; the Mists seem to be magical in nature, and they seem to keep us in Barovia. We then encountered the Burgomaster of Barovia’s children. This prompts us to head to Castle Ravenloft to confront Strahd.

Everything is building off of what has come before.

3) The gamestate marches inexorably toward the endgame or "game over", terminating when the objective/premise of the game has been resolved.

The game ends when we confront Strahd in his castle, and either succeed in destroying him and saving Ireena and the other Barovians, or we die trying.

How do you see these factors as not applying to traditional play?

 

[FrogReaver]

How do you figure that the description provided doesn’t fit traditional play?

Because that description is being used to tell me that details I find important in traditional play are not important. You've defined gamestates as "plot only" and much of traditional play is not "plot only"

The objective of the game is to slay the vampire Strahd and escape the haunted land of Barovia.

That is one objective of the game. Particularly the plot objective.

We became lost in the mists. We arrived in Barovia. We could not leave; the Mists seem to be magical in nature, and they seem to keep us in Barovia. We then encountered the Burgomaster of Barovia’s children. This prompts us to head to Castle Ravenloft to confront Strahd.

Everything is building off of what has come before.

Gamestates don't just revolve around the plot.

The game ends when we confront Strahd in his castle, and either succeed in destroying him and saving Ireena and the other Barovians, or we die trying.

How do you see these factors as not applying to traditional play?

They do. The quote you are attacking said that "Gamestates are explicitly defined to keep out much of traditional RPG play." You've only shown that they can be applied to the traditional RPG's plot - which still leaves much of traditional RPG play as being part of no gamestate...

 

[Manbearcat]

This is my problem with most of your definitions: Gamestates as you define them above almost sound like they were explicitly defined to keep out much of traditional RPG play. This also applies to numerous other terms you've defined.

It seems to me that you are trying to analyze all RPG play under a set of terms that have created to differentiate non-traditional RPG's from traditional ones. It's no wonder such analysis always fails to capture traditional RPG play adequately.

I'm not sure why you think that. When I was composing that above I was (a) drawing upon multiple philosophical sources as it relates to the technical concept of gamestate and (b) thinking of two disparate games (in terms of premise/objective, play procedures, ethos, and genre) that would both be captured to ensure that each constituent part held up; Moldvay Basic D&D (B/X, RC) and Dogs in the Vineyard. I also wanted it to (c) capture CRPGs, athletic competitions, and board games. I feel very confident that it works for all of those games.

If Moldvay Basic D&D doesn't qualify as "traditional RPG play"...I'm not sure what qualifies? I can do a perfect breakdown of a Moldvay Basic session using the above concepts.

Again, what I think is happening here is that you're folding in certain aspects (in this case Free Play whereby the gamestate isn't sensitive to whatever happens) of your play that you value precisely because you value them. Please understand that games like Blades, games like Dogs, even Pawn Stance played Moldvay have "gamestate neutral" Free Play. It may just be GM talking to the players about play during a session. It may be players talking to other players (not expressed through their characters) during a session. Hell, it may be the actual Information Gathering phase of Blades in the Dark where the players are mouthing off at each other in their lair, trying to figure out their next Score, then the go out and seek intel or call in favors or lobby NPCs for jobs. Sometimes "that dog won't hunt" and they'll pass over one opportunity (or maybe even two in a row) for another Score that interests them (due to higher stakes or particular returns). There will absolutely be aspects of that Free Play that fundamentally do NOT change the orientation or nature of objects in play as it relates to the premise/objective of the game. Those constituent parts of the Information Gathering phase of play would be "gamestate-irrelevant." But any aspect of that phase which does fundamentally change the orientation or nature of objects in play (for instance, the choice in Score - this one vs that, or you start a Long Term Project that you'll take up during Downtime, PC vs PC dispute settlement, you get in trouble during your Prowling/Studying/Surveying and that will result in some form of Complication that endures that you'll need to handle downstream before it manifests - like a Racing Clock that you have to work against during Downtime phase or it will materialize in the fiction) is 100 % gamestate-relevant.

All of that stuff during the Information Gathering phase of Blades in the Dark that doesn't fundamentally change the orientation or nature of objects in play? They're fun! They have value! But that doesn't change the fact that the gamestate isn't sensitive to them! Moldvay Basic (which is structured like Blades, as is Torchbearer) is going to have Free Play in the city where the PCs do exactly what Blades PCs do. Some of that won't be gamestate-relevant. Same thing. Its not that it isn't fun or has no value...but the qualities of "fun" and "value" don't make it gamestate-relevant.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I gather you don't believe true sandboxes are a thing? Or are we back to "if you don't have an ability to directly influence setting elements on a player level you can have no true agency"?

No, I think sandboxes exist, to a degree. I think there's a bit of 'sandbox mythology' out there, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Still, IME most games that profess to be 'sandboxes' still follow a heavy set of conventions that guide where and when different elements of the setting are going to be explored. So, I would still say that in fact you will get a game that is a lot more about characters and less about setting when the game itself provides a process that puts character goals and such front and center. Sandboxes, even assuming the highest grade of "every bit of this was built ahead of time without the slightest consideration of who would play it and how" has some kind of independent backstory and meta-plot that is (definitionally in this case) not at all related to whatever the players are aiming for.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not sure why you think that. When I was composing that above I was (a) drawing upon multiple philosophical sources as it relates to the technical concept of gamestate and (b) thinking of two disparate games (in terms of premise/objective, play procedures, ethos, and genre) that would both be captured to ensure that each constituent part held up; Moldvay Basic D&D (B/X, RC) and Dogs in the Vineyard. I also wanted it to (c) capture CRPGs, athletic competitions, and board games. I feel very confident that it works for all of those games.

If Moldvay Basic D&D doesn't qualify as "traditional RPG play"...I'm not sure what qualifies? I can do a perfect breakdown of a Moldvay Basic session using the above concepts.

Again, what I think is happening here is that you're folding in certain aspects (in this case Free Play whereby the gamestate isn't sensitive to whatever happens) of your play that you value precisely because you value them. Please understand that games like Blades, games like Dogs, even Pawn Stance played Moldvay have "gamestate neutral" Free Play. It may just be GM talking to the players about play during a session. It may be players talking to other players (not expressed through their characters) during a session. Hell, it may be the actual Information Gathering phase of Blades in the Dark where the players are mouthing off at each other in their lair, trying to figure out their next Score, then the go out and seek intel or call in favors or lobby NPCs for jobs. Sometimes "that dog won't hunt" and they'll pass over one opportunity (or maybe even two in a row) for another Score that interests them (due to higher stakes or particular returns). There will absolutely be aspects of that Free Play that fundamentally do NOT change the orientation or nature of objects in play as it relates to the premise/objective of the game. Those constituent parts of the Information Gathering phase of play would be "gamestate-irrelevant." But any aspect of that phase which does fundamentally change the orientation or nature of objects in play (for instance, the choice in Score - this one vs that, or you start a Long Term Project that you'll take up during Downtime, PC vs PC dispute settlement, you get in trouble during your Prowling/Studying/Surveying and that will result in some form of Complication that endures that you'll need to handle downstream before it manifests - like a Racing Clock that you have to work against during Downtime phase or it will materialize in the fiction) is 100 % gamestate-relevant.

All of that stuff during the Information Gathering phase of Blades in the Dark that doesn't fundamentally change the orientation or nature of objects in play? They're fun! They have value! But that doesn't change the fact that the gamestate isn't sensitive to them! Moldvay Basic (which is structured like Blades, as is Torchbearer) is going to have Free Play in the city where the PCs do exactly what Blades PCs do. Some of that won't be gamestate-relevant. Same thing. Its not that it isn't fun or has no value...but the qualities of "fun" and "value" don't make it gamestate-relevant.

For RPG's you've defined gamestates as essentially "plot only" because the only objectives and premises you recognize are plot related.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm a bit suspect of any RPG analysis concept that is only guaranteed to be useful after a campaign has completely ended.

You misinterpreted what I wrote.

"suss out what is gamestate relevant at the moment of the decision-point"

What I said (effectively) if you can't do that (the above), then there is a problem with the play (go back to that post for reference; system, GM, players). An easy example is branching corridors in a dungeon where one path leads to danger and the other to sanctuary/objective. This is a decision-point that is supposed to be a meaningful expression of player agency. The gamestate transition hinges upon it. If the players don't feel like they are sufficiently equipped to make that decision (eg it seems arbitrary) then there is a fairly high likelihood that the GM has done a poor job telegraphing clues with subtlety and expressing the gamestate-relevant information to them. Or there is a possibility that the players have just collectively not absorbed it (though significantly less likely). Or, there may be a system problem.

Now that doesn't mean that a session post-mortem isn't useful. Reflection is always useful when it comes to a gaming session. But, if a decision-point isn't meant to be arbitrary, then the conversation at the table should entail (and when it comes to dungeon crawling, the skill in GM framing is giving sufficient information...not too much and not too little...so that the players can play skillfully) the relevant constituent parts required to make an informed decision.