A Question Of Agency?

[Manbearcat]

Whether you created it or simply chose to use someone elses definition that they created is a bit beside the point IMO.

Its very relevant because you've made it central in prior posts. If you're going to accuse me of bad faith in this conversation (accusing someone of construction of a paradigm with willful intent to exclude thing x is a pretty substantial attack on someone's integrity), I'm going to (gently I might add) point out the reality that this concept is independent of me.

Most of the definition you provided includes a bunch of ultimately subjective qualities. You speak of "fundamentally changed states" as if that's some kind of objective measure. You speak of premise/objectives but only count certain premises/objectives. You speak of marching toward the endgame as if the goal of every game is to have an ultimate winning condition.

Games have an objective (gather sufficient courage and will to rise up and defeat your master, avenge your brother's death, mete out justice and uphold the Faith, fight for your beliefs, make bargains with dark powers to discover if your ambition or humanity will win out, test your skill in extracting treasure from the dungeon, find and defeat Strahd, save the kingdom from the Red Dragon, boldly attack the city's ladder of power with your gang and see how far you can rise before your daring-do catches up with you, etc).

On your way to the game's objective, scenes have an objective ("adjure the spirit", "escape the collapsing mine", "seduce the art gallery curator so you can gain intel on the show" etc).

I've never experienced a game (any game) that is so rudderless that the macro objective cannot be sussed out and that digestible chunks (scenes) on the way to that macro objective aren't possessed of their own objective-based inertia.

There's tons of exclusions there.

Could you list some of the exclusions you're envisioning here?

A distinction without a difference?

How does "the model excludes incorporation of the gamestate-neutral aspects of your play but it includes the gamestate-relevant aspects of your play" arrive at "a distinction without a difference?"

If every aspect of your play isn't incorporated into a an analysis framework then the entirety of your play is effectively excluded? Is that your position (keeping in mind that this is the case for many games, including games I advocate for)?

Wait - are you posturing that bad referee calls are irrelevant to the game state?

Again, you misread or misunderstood or perhaps both.

I was (a) citing pick-up basketball (there are no referees...there is a "call your own foul" social contract that invariably turns into shenanigans) and (b) citing the gamestate irrelevant shenanigans (arguing > yelling > possibly people taking their ball and going home or fighting or being passive-aggressive...otherwise just making the entire experience bad) that are exactly an emergent quality of lack of independent referees.

Only parts of TTRPG's do. Unless it's a TTRPG with mechanics that allows a player to introduce plot elements, in which case - in which case virtually every bit of that game gets included in the definition.... It's almost like that definition was made for that particular style of game.

No. It just means you have to introduce the concept of meaningful gamestates.

With respect, outside of the double attack on my integrity again (see the top of this post), I have no idea what the hell you're talking about here. Why in the world are you even saying the above. (a) Its a claim about internal consistency of the analysis framework that doesn't remotely stand up to scrutiny (Moldvay Basic doesn't "allow a player to introduce plot elements", in all my times playing basketball and grappling with someone on the mat...I've never introduced plot elements - at least in the way you're thinking of it) and (b) its completely out of nowhere because it doesn't have to do with our conversation.

You and I have been down this road before where you've gone to a really hostile and aggressive place with no cause from me. My integrity and vigilance against any personal biases I may have means a lot to me. I'm a respectful person who tries hard to keep things civil and extend the benefit of the doubt with the people I converse with (especially those I disagree with). This isn't real life, so push back on here just means getting more animated and needlessly expending words (which I won't do). I will, however, tune you out (not ignore you...but I'll just tune you out). So If you want to keep talking to me about these things, then throttle it back.

In the original Final Fantasy 7 there was a part of a game where you could go on a date with another character. Quite entertaining but totally trivial in relation to anything "important" in the game. If certain choices were made you would get different reactions from those characters later on. In computer game design those choices would definitely be referred to as gamestates even though the overall thrust was trivial to the larger issues in the game.

I don't know the game. I don't know the game's objective. I know nothing about FF games (never played any of them).

I don't have the design notes or any information from the designers of the game as it pertains to its design and referencing gamestates. I'd love to see their gamestate map or something like that if one exists. Do you have something like this? A reference? A citation?

I'd be very curious as to their reasoning if there was one and, from first principles, I would disagree with them. But I'd love to know the reason for the inclusion of (as you put it) a "triviality" as a cog in their gamestate map.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah, the discussion here has merely strengthened my opinion and 'gamestates' and thus agency based on them are arbitrary value judgements. Games rarely have clearly defined objectives and even when they do, judging which thing is or isn't related to the objective is pretty damn muddy. Some things might be more related, some might be tangentially related, some may appear not to be related at all but will lead to things that become related. And often objective of game might be something pretty vague like "have an action adventure with an interesting cast of characters."

And the agency discussion has gotten even grazier. Some people are seriously arguing that having the mechanics make decisions for characters is a higher agency state that the player being able to make those decisions.

This is just so far removed from both common understanding of language, how most RPGs are actually played and the things most players care about that it is just nigh completely useless. People have desperately trying to construct objective frameworks to describe subjective things and are so caught in that process that they have lost track of the thing their model is was supposed to represent in the first place.

 

[Aldarc]

Actuallly, techniques for soliciting feedback from players, including asking them pointed questions mid-play, is discussed in 4E's DMG2, pp. 16-19.

Heh, whenever I dig back into 4e material it surprises me exactly how much 'narrative game' 'stuff' is in there, though always falling just short of mechanical expression.

The 4e DMG should almost be required reading for game masters.

Once more we find that I'm advocating for the same kinds of play you are, but there's violent disagreement because I note how the game is working and you want what you prefer to be what the discussion is about.

There is likely also a desire to maintain the illusion that there is no meta-text or meta-game for roleplaying games. But acknowledging that the player is the principal agent and not the player character risks shattering that illusion. It's Toto pulling back the curtain of the Wizard to reveal a man pulling levers. It's okay (if not expected) to acknowledge this from the GM side of things, but a certain aesthetic requires this sort of illusionism on the part of the player. What I personally find odd, and I suspect you may share a similar sentiment, is that I feel greater liberation in playing these games with this sort of play when I am aware of the processes involved.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, the discussion here has merely strengthened my opinion and 'gamestates' and thus agency based on them are arbitrary value judgements. Games rarely have clearly defined objectives and even when they do, judging which thing is or isn't related to the objective is pretty damn muddy. Some things might be more related, some might be tangentially related, some may appear not to be related at all but will lead to things that become related. And often objective of game might be something pretty vague like "have an action adventure with an interesting cast of characters."

Here's the thing, you've misunderstood the framework pretty badly. It's expandable and scalable. It works at the combat round level, and at the campaign level, but if there's no objective at a given level, it's not used. This should be obvious, but seems to be the primary point of contention -- if there's no campaign goal (yet), then you can't measure gamestate changes towards that goal. What you can do is measure gamestate changes in the current fiction. These build on each other (in fact, they're required to) to create the larger structure. It's actually a measure of Force if a player (usually the GM) is enforcing a gamestate change to serve an objective rather than seeing how that objective is affect through play.

It needs to be understood that this framework applies to all of the games being discussed here -- it's not a tool to describe your games, but a tool to look at all games. There aren't arbitrary judgements -- each is well considered and can be clearly explained. You disagreeing doesn't make them arbitrary, it just means you disagree.

And the agency discussion has gotten even grazier. Some people are seriously arguing that having the mechanics make decisions for characters is a higher agency state that the player being able to make those decisions.

You mean like a saving throw to resist a Suggestion or Charm spell? Or an Insight check to see if a character thinks someone is lying (shudder)? Or a knowledge check to see what the character knows? At least be consistent.

This is just so far removed from both common understanding of language, how most RPGs are actually played and the things most players care about that it is just nigh completely useless. People have desperately trying to construct objective frameworks to describe subjective things and are so caught in that process that they have lost track of the thing their model is was supposed to represent in the first place.

It's absolutely not, you've just internalized the parts of your own play that do this so they're blind spots. I did, too. A few years ago I was making the same arguments you are -- that this is crazy, of course play-acting is an exercise of player agency, etc. It's like only understanding living in a valley for your whole life -- you can't imagine an ocean because of course everyone has mountains around.

 

[Campbell]

A couple things.

We are talking about games here. Of course we are going to be talking about subjective aesthetic preferences. That does not mean that discussion as useless or analysis unfruitful. It just means we should realize that people come from different places and are going to use language that matches their values.

I care about games as games. As things we can get mastery over and become better at. Skilled play is fundamental to my experience of games. It's why I like games so much. Roleplaying games, video games, board games, card games. You name it. Each game offers a chance to learn a completely new set of skills, new social dynamics, and most importantly new challenges to test my mettle against.

In the tabletop roleplaying game space we do not really have neutral language. The language and trappings of mainstream games priveleges a very specific type of gameplay. It does a poor job of describing and depicting what is going on in most games in the OSR space and various indie spaces. It also tends not to approach games as like games. See how terms like gamist, rules lawyer, and meta gaming get thrown around as slurs in this community.

Other communities have language and trappings that was developed to do what they wanted to do better. The Big Model was mostly built to identify Story Now play so games could be designed that do it well. The Primer to Old School play was designed to show people a way to play old school games that embraces them as tests of skill.

I get that a fair number of people play games without regard to their objectives. This is also a big thing in video games where a big swath of people talk about fun and playing skillfully separately. I think that when games are well designed playing them well is fun. I get that is not what everyone is looking for. I cannot speak for them. I can only speak for myself.

I would like to have a fruitful conversation, but I am not going to adopt language and framing that assumes games should not be discussed as games. If you have no interest in discussing games as something that should have purposeful designs, meaningful instructions, and room for skilled play we probably do not have anything meaningful to discuss.

I play and run a lot of mainstream games myself. I'm running Scion Second Edition and will probably run Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition soon. I'm not advocating for any particular playstyle. I do not to convince anyone of anything. I would like to have a discussion, but I understand and interface with games in particular ways. I can try to understand where you are coming from, but if you expect me to adopt your framing when I do not agree with it I do not see us having a meaningful conversation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I don't believe these terms, and the associated analytical structure, are biased. I think they reveal some things about different methods of designing and playing an RPG that some people aren't comfortable with.

I started playing D&D in 1975. The people I played D&D with were pretty traditional players. During that time I was part of a game club that had 100's of members and where D&D was played in a VERY traditional manner (pure Gygaxian troupe play, traverse the dungeons with player skill, build a stronghold when you're powerful enough, raise an army, beat the other players in Chainmail battles with miniature armies you painted yourself). I have every respect for, and a thorough understanding of that type of play.

I also played on through the 80's and into the late 90's in games that were mostly much more "2e style GM is a story teller telling his story" style. They varied, some were closer to a sandbox, some were closer to an AP, some were just basically going where the GM wanted to go (I think I've mentioned that GM before). Mostly I enjoyed a lot of these games, ran quite a few of them, wrestled with the problems (which are very much like the discussions we are having here) and have a pretty thorough understanding of how this all works.

And then, after, not playing much of any RPG for a few years, I bought a copy of 4e when it came out and GMed several 4e campaigns, during which I learned that there were actually solutions to the issues that existed in the previous set of games. Yes, those solutions kind of preclude classic Gygaxian play (maybe not, I hear Torchbearer kind of fuses the two). Yes, they require that the GM give up his high seat as Grand Pubah of the pretend universe. They aren't everyone's cup of tea. However, even if you play other ways, it cannot hurt to at least provisionally adopt the terminology and understand it, and then use it to analyze your play. It really won't hurt, because no analysis is going to automatically ruin your taste for what you like. The greatest risk you run is to find out you can add some technique to your games that makes them better. You really cannot lose, can you?

I think its a non-productive road to go down to cry bias whenever someone's analysis doesn't jibe with your own. You are welcome to introduce your own ways of defining things, and maybe everyone else will get some insight from that too.

 

[Campbell]

Another thing.

This is a conversation between the people here on this board. The way most people play is irrelevant when it comes to a conversation between us. Bringing it in as a way to dismiss people and their preferences as irrelevant feels like some bull to me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

How about looking at it this way, lots of things are part of 'the fiction', which I would call fairly synonymous with, at least the non-mechanical part, of the game state (IE facts about the characters and setting that are not established in some rule). Some of those things will never become 'game relevant', some will. The fiction that becomes game relevant does so by impacting some other thing that has mechanics attached to it. If that never happens, then it remains 'covert'. Maybe it will have indirect influence on something else that will be relevant, who knows? You can call it part of the 'state of the game' if you wish, it is just 'weakly coupled' to the rest. Since it hasn't done meaningful work, it could even be retconned, nobody would even know.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ultimately I feel that any analysis of roleplaying games that treats roleplaying as optional aftertought is pretty pointless.

 

[FrogReaver]

A couple things.

We are talking about games here. Of course we are going to be talking about subjective aesthetic preferences. That does not mean that discussion as useless or analysis unfruitful. It just means we should realize that people come from different places and are going to use language that matches their values.

I care about games as games. As things we can get mastery over and become better at. Skilled play is fundamental to my experience of games. It's why I like games so much. Roleplaying games, video games, board games, card games. You name it. Each game offers a chance to learn a completely new set of skills, new social dynamics, and most importantly new challenges to test my mettle against.

In the tabletop roleplaying game space we do not really have neutral language. The language and trappings of mainstream games priveleges a very specific type of gameplay. It does a poor job of describing and depicting what is going on in most games in the OSR space and various indie spaces. It also tends not to approach games as like games. See how terms like gamist, rules lawyer, and meta gaming get thrown around as slurs in this community.

Other communities have language and trappings that was developed to do what they wanted to do better. The Big Model was mostly built to identify Story Now play so games could be designed that do it well. The Primer to Old School play was designed to show people a way to play old school games that embraces them as tests of skill.

I get that a fair number of people play games without regard to their objectives. This is also a big thing in video games where a big swath of people talk about fun and playing skillfully separately. I think that when games are well designed playing them well is fun. I get that is not what everyone is looking for. I cannot speak for them. I can only speak for myself.

I would like to have a fruitful conversation, but I am not going to adopt language and framing that assumes games should not be discussed as games. If you have no interest in discussing games as something that should have purposeful designs, meaningful instructions, and room for skilled play we probably do not have anything meaningful to discuss.

I play and run a lot of mainstream games myself. I'm running Scion Second Edition and will probably run Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition soon. I'm not advocating for any particular playstyle. I do not to convince anyone of anything. I would like to have a discussion, but I understand and interface with games in particular ways. I can try to understand where you are coming from, but if you expect me to adopt your framing when I do not agree with it I do not see us having a meaningful conversation.

I don’t think this was your intention but that expands on my current objections almost perfectly - even though I believe you are coming from a nearly opposite viewpoint.