A Question Of Agency?

[Imaro]

The freedom to craft a personality and to express it is present in every RPG, and so is not a meaningful measure of player agency.

Doesn't whether the PC's personality and expression change the game state really determine that? In a game where charming someone vs intimidating someone vs appealing to their intellect are differentiated in how they affect NPC's ones personality and expression could have very meaningful effects on agency and choice.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

With D&D it often is not that people are pushing it, but that it is useful to use as an example as most people have at least some passing familiarity with it.

Sure, but then what I often encounter is dismissal of anything that isn't part of the D&D game process/whatever as "not popular enough to matter", "not normal", "niche", etc. I often base examples on D&D too, but I don't think it is fair to criticize other poster's logic or adherence to topic on the basis that they are talking about 'their pet games'. That knife will cut everyone at the table with equal ease, snicker snack!

 

[Aldarc]

I agree we've discussed this. I think it's arguable that the presentation of some of these games is less-than-ideal if the rules (including play examples) don't convey how play works.

IMHO, most TTRPGs are poorly written and do not necessarily present themselves well. It took me awhile, for example, to "get" Fate. I read it. I was confused about what it was asking me to do, especially since my prior experience was almost entirely D&D and its related family of games. I blamed my misunderstanding on the funny fudge dice, and I walked away from the book for about 4-6 months. Then I came back and looked at it with fresh eyes and read through some people talking about it (e.g., the "Book of Hanz"), the online SRD, and particularly Fate Accelerated. Then it just "clicked" or at least the basic paradigm shift required from my prior experience. It doesn't mean that I had to like it once it "clicked." Part of that, IMO, involved how the rules were written or were presented in the book itself. I think part of the problem is that the book writers are game designers who know how to design better than they know how to cogently communicate their game in writing without being there in person to teach the game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because in such situation the every nuance of how you do it can matter, instead of being just binary do you want to rol or not. Social situation are another common example of situations where this matters.

Your evaluating both at different points and treating them as the same. You're evaluating all of the ways you can try to convince the GM to rule for or against you and then comparing that to the fact that the dice will show for or against you. The outcome is the same set -- it's either for you or against you. If we look at the process -- who decides -- then we see that the process of you convince Bob is entirely up to the GM's choice -- nothing you do can bind the GM, it's entirely up to them and is binding on the character. The mechanic, on the other hand, if it's not another D&Dism where it's a decision tool for the GM, does bind the GM at the same time it binds the character.

The other thing you're doing is imagining a complex social interaction between the player and GM that results in a complex result. You then compare this to a single die roll to resolve the same thing. This is utterly ignoring that you can use mechanics in a layered way and end up with a complex result as well. Skill challenges are an excellent example of this, as it, really, an entire session of Blades in the Dark.

 

[prabe]

IMHO, most TTRPGs are poorly written and do not necessarily present themselves well. It took me awhile, for example, to "get" Fate. I read it. I was confused about what it was asking me to do, especially since my prior experience was almost entirely D&D and its related family of games.

I ran a Fate campaign for ... something like a year. I liked the system tons, until I didn't. I think I understand the system passing-well; I just don't like it. I'll admit my understanding is ... non-standard, and strongly shaped by my preferences and tastes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You're assuming the only thing that matters is the ending as opposed to the path that leads you there. In other words even if the campaign's ending is set, the road to it isn't necessarily set in stone and can be changed by something as simple as characterization.

This hasn't been ignored -- it's been pointed out. That you can act out a scene of a play in different ways doesn't meaningfully change the fact that the scene events happen the same way. This can absolutely matter to how much you enjoy a play (my wife tells a horror story about a Shakespeare scene performed by a high school drama club from an area with a particularly distinct Southern accent, and done poorly on top), but it doesn't touch the agency of the actors involved.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm assuming the GM is following the rules and advice in the DMG...which I noted below what you quoted. I don't think I'm arguing against the DM deciding success, auto-failure or uncertainty. Of course I don't find that decision point any different then say a game like BitD where you only ask a player to roll if something is at stake otherwise it is an automatic success or failure.

Once the check is made in a D&D game, and we are assuming a non-disingenuous GM, the result of said would determine success or failure which in itself would restrict the GM's narration.

It also states what is common and expected (thus advice not law)... so I disagree that a DM is following the advice given if she disregards or goes against what is suggested... even if it is within her rights to do so.

Again, I beg to disagree. As evidence, I'll point to the published adventures, which call for naked perception checks to detect traps in areas.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To me story telling games imply agency over outcome. However, @pemerton's and others gaming philosophy does have a certain principle keeping the players from having agency over outcome - the Czege principle and it's why framing that principle as an absolute whereby one cannot even have a game without it is so important to their conversation. It's the one thing holding back their framework from being collective storytelling.

I don't really see how this follows. There's no element of that principle which talks about players vs GMs. All that is required here for collective storytelling is a split of responsibility between whomever poses a challenge and whomever it is aimed at/resolves it. Those could both be players. PvP for example is perfectly feasible in accordance with Czege.

I think there are other issues with GM-less games. They can be, and have been, resolved in various ways I guess. I've not really explored this type of play myself, but I'm guessing that what @aramis erak is saying gives us some pointers. We could potentially distribute parts of the BW GM role amongst players, but then that would kind of imply a certain divergence of their aims would be needed! @pemerton also addressed the 'supervenient role' of 'big picture' that would need to be addressed as well. My guess is that GM-less games are mostly restricted to less open-ended types of scenarios where the logic of the situation largely drives overall play and pacing. I could imagine a GM-less Cthulhu game, for example. We already know that in the end the PCs are going mad/getting eaten by shoggoths/becoming haunted by Hounds of Tindalos/etc. I think it would be pretty easy to generate scenarios that could be played through without a GM, and most of the game would revolve around A) which of the mythos tropes you encounter and the fun of describing them, and B) which of the above fates actually catches up with any given character.

 

[Imaro]

This hasn't been ignored -- it's been pointed out. That you can act out a scene of a play in different ways doesn't meaningfully change the fact that the scene events happen the same way. This can absolutely matter to how much you enjoy a play (my wife tells a horror story about a Shakespeare scene performed by a high school drama club from an area with a particularly distinct Southern accent, and done poorly on top), but it doesn't touch the agency of the actors involved.

Again the assumption is that the scene events happen the same way... that's the incorrect assumption.

If I play my character as an extremely pious follower of the Moon goddess when interacting with the chieftain of the Moon Tribe Drow and the adventure has it noted that a character who shows reverence for the Moon goddess may be able to convince the chieftain to help him by providing allied warriors while an arrogant one will gain his ire and he will try to hinder him by locking him up... those are two different ways the scene events can take place depending on characterization.

 

[Aldarc]

I ran a Fate campaign for ... something like a year. I liked the system tons, until I didn't. I think I understand the system passing-well; I just don't like it. I'll admit my understanding is ... non-standard, and strongly shaped by my preferences and tastes.

The thrust of my post is not convincing you to like Fate. It's about TTRPG writing.