A Question Of Agency?

[Lanefan]

To the participants. In this case, that would be @pemerton since we are talking about his preferences.

How about an example? Let's say that the PC is a fighter who is looking for his brother, who rumor has it joined some kind of cult and ran off. The fighter wanders the land trying to find a clue to his brother's whereabouts, so he can ultimately find and save him.

This is central to the character, right?

Is it central to play? That is the question. Is the game about what the player wants the game to be about?

Someone like @Lanefan might say absolutely not. He sees that kind of personal quest as being boring to everyone else at the table, and so it is self indulgent on the part of the player who'd like to see this play out.

If the one PC ends up in effect dragging the others around to do this, then yes.

But it'd be fairly trivial for me as GM, on seeing this, to drop occasional clues and hints about the brother, even if done in off-session emails or whatever, if needed; and eventually work in that some adventure where the party goes up against a cult for other reasons also ties into the lost-brother scenario (maybe the brother's one of the defenders the party are up against).

What I don't want to see is a series of sessions get bogged down by this one PC looking for his brother while everyone else does nothing; and IME that's often how these sort of things end up playing out.

Does this mean that every single thing that happens in play needs to revolve around the missing brother? No, of course not. But for it to be meaningful (and I'd argue, objectively so), it has to matter more than the PC showing up in a new town, asking around about his brother, and being told "nope, never saw this kid around here" and then roleplaying sadness at the lack of news.

It has to matter to the unfolding fiction. A series of clues or sightings or rumors leading the PC on in his search, learning more and more until finally the situation boils to a head, and the brother is found, or the cult he joined is confronted, or what have you.

Agreed. My preference, though, is that this as much as possible happen as a side effect of whatever the party as a whole is doing, if that makes sense.

And if five or six PCs have similarly-personal yet disparate goals, trying to weave them together into something that can be more party-based can be a bear....even more so if any of those goals are in direct conflict with each other.

 

[pemerton]

In my case, it was about something that it seems is usually player's choice (Beliefs) not being. Sort like having a character build changed by the GM.

This I understand: different games put different components of the fiction under the control (or at least prima facie control) of different participants.

So in a lot of D&D play, for instance, generally I get to decide whether or not my PC holds a prejudice against a particular race (think the classic Orc- or Elf- hating Dwarf); but the GM gets to decide whether or not there is a lantern hanging from the cross-beam of the tavern roof.

But I now invite you to take these next steps:

(1) If some of what a typical D&D GM controls is given over to a greater extent to the players (whether via formal mechanics, or via a much greater reliance and perhaps even systematisation of taking suggestions), then (everything else being equal) that will increase the players' agency in respect of the shared fiction;

(2) If under some circumstances what a typical D&D player controls is given over to a greater extent to the GM (eg as in the Force of Will/dark naga example) that may reduce some player agency but perhaps still leave the player with a net overall greater agency.

(3) On balance, think of (1) and (2) combining so as to (a) reduce (not necessarily eliminate) sharp boundaries between who controls which bits of the fiction, with the result that (b) the fiction is shared not only in the sense that we all imagine it together but that the production of it involves a more distributed/sharing/cooperative process, while it still being the case that (c) the player and GM roles are quite distinct.

How is 3(c) true given (3)(a) and (b)? Because the distinction consists less in who controls which bits and more in what are the mechanical process together with broader principles that govern who gets to introduce which bit of content at which point of play.

 

[aramis erak]

You didn’t address how my dungeon of traps fits into that explanation.

Because my initial reaction is summed up by "Put FrogReaver on the never game with list."

Essentially, unless you're foreshadowing the traps heavily, it's a situation that I'm shocked to find someone seriously considering as fun.

Traps as occasional spig for color or a dash for spice? Sure.
As the meat of the module? Idiocy.

Traps are the worst possible kind of thing for player agency - they're almost always roll-to-avoid, and as run by most GM's either noticed or not with semi-blind rolls. It turd the dungeon into a push-your-luck experience. Which is precisely what I didn't like about many D&D modules.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, there's still a point to be had here that's I've brought up; making decisions that effectively walk the character out of the campaign.

As a player, I've done this numerous times just by following what the character would reasonably do next.

The departing character may or may not join up again with the party at some future point; in the meantime I just roll up something new and carry on.

As for what the departing character gets up to in the meantime: that's what off-session emails and pubs are for.

 

[darkbard]

It turd the dungeon into a push-your-luck experience. Which is precisely what I didn't like about many D&D modules.

Most apt typo EVAR!

 

[prabe]

But I now invite you to take these next steps:

(1) If some of what a typical D&D GM controls is given over to a greater extent to the players (whether via formal mechanics, or via a much greater reliance and perhaps even systematisation of taking suggestions), then (everything else being equal) that will increase the players' agency in respect of the shared fiction;

(2) If under some circumstances what a typical D&D player controls is given over to a greater extent to the GM (eg as in the Force of Will/dark naga example) that may reduce some player agency but perhaps still leave the player with a net overall greater agency.

(3) On balance, think of (1) and (2) combining so as to (a) reduce (not necessarily eliminate) sharp boundaries between who controls which bits of the fiction, with the result that (b) the fiction is shared not only in the sense that we all imagine it together but that the production of it involves a more distributed/sharing/cooperative process, while it still being the case that (c) the player and GM roles are quite distinct.

How is 3(c) true given (3)(a) and (b)? Because the distinction consists less in who controls which bits and more in what are the mechanical process together with broader principles that govern who gets to introduce which bit of content at which point of play.

I actually don't disagree (at least not hard) with any of these. I've played (and run) (and read) games that had mechanics for players to control/change the world (normally the GM's realm) and for GMs to control/change characters (normally the players' realm). I do think I'm more willing to consider pure actions/decisions as introducing content than you are, and I know I'm happier as a GM being more responsible for the world than you seem to find ideal at a game table (I find it easier as a GM to keep track of things I've figured out than to keep track of things other people have told me).

 

[aramis erak]

Step one sounds an awful lot like...
DM: "Player it's your time to act, what do you do?"

So while it doesn't use the same words, i'd say it's basically the same thing.

It's not. Usually it's a player to player decision, not the GM's. When the player finally gets to a point that the GM decides needs a roll, or has an idea for an alternate direction, that the GM gives the "Or"... the player does, in BW, always have the option to walk away from both, or to accept the GM's alternate, without rolling.

And, in running BW, there have been a few cases where I gave a fail result that the player found more interesting than their initial declared outcome, and so narrated their failure without bothering to roll for it.

The key of BW is that once a roll process is started, there are several outcomes:
1) player "walks away" from the declared action. The failure result does not apply. Nor does the success.
2) player opts to roll.
2a) Player fails the roll, gets the GM's failure outcome
2b) player passes the roll, gets their stated outcome
3) player opts for failure, gets the GM's stated failure outcome
4) player and GM agree to revise the outcomes and continue.

Every time the player does something the GM thinks needs a roll, the GM is REQUIRED to allow them to walk away from the triggering action.

Example of walk away.
Player: "I pick his pocket while he's sleeping on the bench"
GM: "That's going to require 3 successes"
Player: "Uh, nope. I note something feels odd, and stop before my hand is in his pocket."

Example of negotiation:
P1: "As I'm wandering through the city market, I'm looking for a swordsman for hire."
GM: "that sounds like a circles roll"
P1: "I was thinking assassin-wise because I need to pay my dues. And find a job."
GM: "Oh, okay. so you expect there to be an assassin in your guild. If you fail, your dues are too late, he's got paper on you."
P1: "can we make him from a different guild? I still want to be able to pay my dues."
GM: scans the table, sees some nods. "Sure. But then it really feels more like circles with a bonus die from your Assassin-wise. Say, 3 Successes"
Note: At this point, the player has several choices: the GM's original on a failed assassin-wise a guild collector, or a circles to get the right assassin, or even to back down, and not pay his dues this scene. Or to see if he can tweak it more...
P1: "Can we make the assignment "alive only?"
GM: "Oh, all right..."
P1: Circles 4, +1 Assassin-wise.
P2: "I'm helping by pointing out the guys the guards are keeping an eye on, using my Guard-wise 4" (hands a die to P1.
P3: "I'm helping by making the correct «check-in» sign, assassin-wise 4" hands a die to P1.

Non-negotiated example:
P1: I'm sneaking into the castle, through the postern gate and into the courtyard, trying to get to the princess' room unnoticed.
GM: Makes a mental note of who would be where, and what the best perception roll is en route. "Opposed roll, 6 dice. Failure will be caught in the sneaking."
P1: rolls dice (But could have chickened out if he'd wanted to.)" "5 successes, 2 of them sixes...
GM rolls. "6 Successes."
P1: "spending artha for the 6's" roll of the two comes up 4 and 6, grabs another for the added 6, gets a 1
P1: "As I enter the princess' room..."
(Note: the GM doesn't have to say anything - the stakes were clear from the beginning. Success, he's at the princess' room. Fail, he's caught somwhere inside the castle.)

BW presumes narrative-first play, lots of say-yes, and only when things obviously are going to have fails do you go to the dice. But, once you trigger the process, it's always, "Pursue your idea via dice roll, accept my Idea as GM, or abandon both and do something different"

BW almost doesn't need a GM.

 

[aramis erak]

This I understand: different games put different components of the fiction under the control (or at least prima facie control) of different participants.

So in a lot of D&D play, for instance, generally I get to decide whether or not my PC holds a prejudice against a particular race (think the classic Orc- or Elf- hating Dwarf); but the GM gets to decide whether or not there is a lantern hanging from the cross-beam of the tavern roof.

But I now invite you to take these next steps:

(1) If some of what a typical D&D GM controls is given over to a greater extent to the players (whether via formal mechanics, or via a much greater reliance and perhaps even systematisation of taking suggestions), then (everything else being equal) that will increase the players' agency in respect of the shared fiction;

(2) If under some circumstances what a typical D&D player controls is given over to a greater extent to the GM (eg as in the Force of Will/dark naga example) that may reduce some player agency but perhaps still leave the player with a net overall greater agency.

(3) On balance, think of (1) and (2) combining so as to (a) reduce (not necessarily eliminate) sharp boundaries between who controls which bits of the fiction, with the result that (b) the fiction is shared not only in the sense that we all imagine it together but that the production of it involves a more distributed/sharing/cooperative process, while it still being the case that (c) the player and GM roles are quite distinct.

How is 3(c) true given (3)(a) and (b)? Because the distinction consists less in who controls which bits and more in what are the mechanical process together with broader principles that govern who gets to introduce which bit of content at which point of play.

Which reminds me: Houses of the Blooded, the action resolution is a roll for who gets to decide the outcome, and then, all participants who rolled high enough get to (in descending roll order) spend some of their wagers for «Yes, and» or «yes, but» tack-ons. The catch is that everyone with a stake in the action (either in scene, or has underlings in scene, or directly affected by the action) builds a pool... need to roll high to get narrative control, but dice you opt not to roll are your "wagers." Roll needed is 10+, all dice are 6's, typical pools run 4-12 dice... if you get the high roll, you pick the outcome of the triggering effect. If you rolled 10+ and the highest roll, your wagers are 1 statement each; if you rolled 10+ and weren't the highest, 2 wagers are needed per statement. 9-? all wagers lost.

That's about the maximal spread of player agency I can think of.

 

[hawkeyefan]

For me it sure would. If I'm playing Lanefan the high-volume kick-in-the-door gonzo guy my experience then and memories later of that module are going to be quite different than if I'm playing Astacoe the quiet practical think-it-all-through-first guy. (both of these are very long-career Fighters of mine who are still active now)

I expect the kind of difference you’re talking about wouldn’t meaningfully change the outcome of the game. I’m not saying that playing these characters differently can’t be fun or memorable or have a deep meaning for you personally.

I’m saying that they don’t significantly alter the flow and outcome of the game. It’s still going to play out largely the same because the story is what it is, and the characters are along for the ride. You go on to confirm exactly that.

Doesn't matter that in either case we'd be more or less doing the same things (though very likely not in the same manner!) - the characterization differences would make it different enough. Throw in that each other player at the table might be making a similar choice, and you never know what you're gonna get.

Yes, you do. A dead or defeated hill giant chief. And then a trip to the glacial rift for a showdown with the frost giant jarl.

And again, this is not a bad thing. My point is that these shifts in characterization aren’t that big a deal to the game state even if the matter quite a bit to the participants. Sure Lanefan may rush in carelessly and Astacoe may try and gather as much intel as possible, and maybe even attempt a parley of some sort.

But ultimately, such portrayals will most likely have minimal impact on the direction the game takes. The reason is because you aren’t playing Lanefan’s or Astacoe’s story...you’re playing The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief.

The part I bolded in your post? It absolutely matters for some RPGs and players.

Red herring. If the characters are deciding where they go and what they engage with (one assumes this is being done via a vaguely consistent in-character decision process) the play is already revolving around them.

Not what I mean. I mean that the events of play can only happen to them. That they can’t be exchanged for an entirely separate and distinct group of characters and have the game proceed largely unchanged.

Think of how “Hamlet” is inherently about Hamlet. You can’t just take Hamlet out and put another dude in there and expect the same story.

It's the party's collective story. Characters within said party often come and go as time passes, but the party continues.

Claiming as a player that my character's story is more important than that of the party is pure selfishness.

More important? Who said that? There isn't some main character with a bunch of sidekicks. You rotate things a bit, you work as a group to weave the different stories together. Think about stories that are about groups of people. Think about how those characters had things of their own going on, even if the main focus was about the group as a whole.

There doesn’t need to be anything selfish about it.

 

[prabe]

More important? Who said that? There isn't some main character with a bunch of sidekicks. You rotate things a bit, you work as a group to weave the different stories together. Think about stories that are about groups of people. Think about how those characters had things of their own going on, even if the main focus was about the group as a whole.

There doesn’t need to be anything selfish about it.

This pretty much describes every campaign I've ever run, and many of the campaigns I've played in.