A Question Of Agency?

[hawkeyefan]

I'd feel more comfortable hearing what cons, if any, people who play more player-facing games, more often than I do, have to say about it.

I think there are maybe three things that come to my mind. A couple @Fenris-77 touched upon.

1) Mystery- it can make it harder for a GM to maintain an air of mystery around something. It does not make it impossible, but removes some of the mystery.

2) Mechanics- such elements could become things that require tracking or calculation on the part of the GM. I would recommend keeping them simple so that this doesn't become a pain point. The idea is that this eases some of the burden of being a GM, not add to it.

3) Binding- it's a commitment, right? It's established and is shouldn't be revised without some compelling reason.

For me, I think the benefit of sharing this kind of thing in an established way outweighs anything that's lost. I mean, the loss of mystery to me is minimal; I have no problem surprising my players in other ways than just how strong an influential a faction may be. For the mechanics, that's pretty easy to avoid by keeping it simple. You don't need multiple charts to cross reference and so on when you can literally just use a ranking system or similar.

The binding aspect may be a sticking point for some, and not for others. I don't think of it as a big deal at all. This is probably also at least a little connected to (1), too. Both a a bit of relinquishing of control on the part of the GM, right? Like, okay that's out there now....I have to honor it. That can run against what many have in mind for the role of the GM.

I suppose what it boils down to is this.....do I think my ability to narrate the situation to the players is equal to the world being able to narrate itself to the characters? If the answer is "no", as I expect it would be for every GM, then can these kinds of things help narrow whatever gap there may be? And if so, have I helped the players be better equipped to understand the world and to make informed, meaningful decisions about it?

 

[Campbell]

I missed the map conversation, but I think it's fairly interesting. When running my character focused games I take a somewhat principled stance away from engaging the gamer brain. That often includes visible maps, hexes, battle maps, concrete distances and the like. As much as possible I want to avoid that 1000 foot view and create an environment where players have to engage from their character's perspective of their environment. I try to be generous with the truth, but everything is framed directly from my best handle on the character's perspective.

My sandbox games are somewhat more emphatically from that 1000 foot view.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I missed the map conversation, but I think it's fairly interesting. When running my character focused games I take a somewhat principled stance away from engaging the gamer brain. That often includes visible maps, hexes, battle maps, concrete distances and the like. As much as possible I want to avoid that 1000 foot view and create an environment where players have to engage from their character's perspective of their environment. I try to be generous with the truth, but everything is framed directly from my best handle on the character's perspective.

My sandbox games are somewhat more emphatically from that 1000 foot view.

This is why I use the hex maps in my games but I generally don’t share them (I have broader world maps I give if they need that sort of thing)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Is this handled in the background by the DM, is it player initiated or DM initiated?

the players tell me they want to travel from Tung-On to Fan, so I ask what route, then ask for a Survival roll through each hex (often sorting out the details of what they do for rest and such in between). I try to get my players to say what they do in the setting then I ask for rolls. This is why I like having individual techniques: the player can ask to use Kick of the Golden elephant technique and that is something the character has in the world

 

[FrogReaver]

the players tell me they want to travel from Tung-On to Fan, so I ask what route, then ask for a Survival roll through each hex (often sorting out the details of what they do for rest and such in between). I try to get my players to say what they do in the setting then I ask for rolls. This is why I like having individual techniques: the player can ask to use Kick of the Golden elephant technique and that is something the character has in the world

Yea, that's what I would refer to as DM initiated. The mechanics are "hidden" to some degree and invoked by the DM, even though the player is aware the mechanic is being invoked and that it was in response to something his character did.

One can view the player having his character do something as invoking the mechanic, but that's not really what I was contrasting here.

 

[prabe]

1) Mystery- it can make it harder for a GM to maintain an air of mystery around something. It does not make it impossible, but removes some of the mystery.

Yeah. I can see how it would be difficult to do anything that involved the PCs not knowing things. Even a result like "The GM will tell you three things that are true and useful" seems as though it'd be likely to make it hard to keep secrets from the PCs. It seems as though this is probably the root of the differences in the types of stories that'd emerge from play.

2) Mechanics- such elements could become things that require tracking or calculation on the part of the GM. I would recommend keeping them simple so that this doesn't become a pain point. The idea is that this eases some of the burden of being a GM, not add to it.

I think anything that adds to the GM's mental workload needs to accomplish a lot--there's enough on the GM's plate, I think. Heck, I think a TRPG that insists on the GM taking notes is probably adding to the workload (definitely would be adding to mine).

3) Binding- it's a commitment, right? It's established and is shouldn't be revised without some compelling reason.

This doesn't seem like a change to me. I don't know of any instances I've contradicted anything major that'd been established. Part of the challenge is fitting my ideas into/around/between what's already there. Now, I suppose in a more zero-myth game, I'd find it a little harder, because I feel as though I'm more comfortable if I have prep to fall back on, if I know the world well enough to extrapolate if I have to (both of which seem counter to the principles of the zero-myth game/s).

For me, I think the benefit of sharing this kind of thing in an established way outweighs anything that's lost. I mean, the loss of mystery to me is minimal; I have no problem surprising my players in other ways than just how strong an influential a faction may be. For the mechanics, that's pretty easy to avoid by keeping it simple. You don't need multiple charts to cross reference and so on when you can literally just use a ranking system or similar.

I've never had any trouble surprising my players, in any system, so that's not a surprise. When there are factions at play in a place the PCs arrive to, I generally take a moment or three to decide which ones are waxing or waning or holding steady, but I don't bother ranking them or anything like that. I use those notes to see which ones might need the PCs help, maybe figure out who's beating up on whom. They show me potential interactions.

The binding aspect may be a sticking point for some, and not for others. I don't think of it as a big deal at all. This is probably also at least a little connected to (1), too. Both a a bit of relinquishing of control on the part of the GM, right? Like, okay that's out there now....I have to honor it. That can run against what many have in mind for the role of the GM.

Staying consistent is important to me. I suppose I might come across as a bit of a control freak as a DM, but I really don't think I am. I honestly don't care where a given game-world fact is coming from. I just find it easier to remain consistent with stuff I've worked out and written up than with something a player hands me (literally or metaphorically).

I suppose what it boils down to is this.....do I think my ability to narrate the situation to the players is equal to the world being able to narrate itself to the characters? If the answer is "no", as I expect it would be for every GM, then can these kinds of things help narrow whatever gap there may be? And if so, have I helped the players be better equipped to understand the world and to make informed, meaningful decisions about it?

I guess I've come to the conclusion that for me, the world feels more consistent when there's one good GM running it than when the players are running it, too. I agree the players need to be able to understand the world well enough to be able to make reasonably informed decisions, but I don't think player-facing mechanics are a panacea for this.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah. I can see how it would be difficult to do anything that involved the PCs not knowing things. Even a result like "The GM will tell you three things that are true and useful" seems as though it'd be likely to make it hard to keep secrets from the PCs. It seems as though this is probably the root of the differences in the types of stories that'd emerge from play.

Well, no, not entirely. My players in my Blades game are unaware of plenty of things. Doskvol is a mysterious place by nature, and the way the setting is presented leaves a lot of uncertainties, which are meant to be discovered and defined through play. There is still plenty to discover.

What's not mysterious is that The Crows are a Tier 2 gang, or that the Hive is a Tier 5 gang.

The geography is also generally known by the characters. Sure, they aren't aware of every nook and cranny, but they know their way about, and if they need to find something of a general sort, most of the time they'd simply know it.

To look at the specific example of gang Tier.....if my players run into members of the Crows on a score, they have a good sense of the kind of opposition they may face, based on comparative Tier. If they break into a warehouse to steal some crates of illicit goods, and they find those crates marked with the honeycomb symbol of the Hive, they have a good sense of what kind of fallout they're facing if they decide to steal them.

What's the advantage of leaving that unknown? "You see a mysterious symbol. You think it may belong to a group called The Hive. You don't know anything about them. What do you do?" Why not share this info? What does maintaining the mystery do?

I'm not saying there's never a reason to keep things mysterious, just that there's a time and place, and I think we have to examine when and where it makes sense to do so based on how it impacts play and the players. For example, the members of the Hive are unknown. They're very much a secretive organization, so finding out who they are is going to be challenging in and of itself. But knowing they're dangerous? Why hold that back?

I also read some really good advice about RPGs recently, and I sadly can't recall who to credit, but it was something like "A secret kept is never as interesting as a secret learned." I think that's fantastic advice. We GMs can very often get caught up in all the unknowns that we've hoarded, and I think that's something that needs to be challenged.

I think anything that adds to the GM's mental workload needs to accomplish a lot--there's enough on the GM's plate, I think. Heck, I think a TRPG that insists on the GM taking notes is probably adding to the workload (definitely would be adding to mine).

Sure, I agree 100%. I know a lot of people love charts to help determine things randomly.....weather, encounters, and so on. And I think that they absolutely can be useful. I tend to struggle with that kind of stuff simply because it's a lot of referencing and cross referencing, and that can be a pain at the table.

However, there are games where I think that method absolutely makes sense. I'm planning no running Mothership soon, and tables like that are pretty much a requirement.

But, what I'm suggesting is pretty simple by comparison.

This doesn't seem like a change to me. I don't know of any instances I've contradicted anything major that'd been established. Part of the challenge is fitting my ideas into/around/between what's already there. Now, I suppose in a more zero-myth game, I'd find it a little harder, because I feel as though I'm more comfortable if I have prep to fall back on, if I know the world well enough to extrapolate if I have to (both of which seem counter to the principles of the zero-myth game/s).

I'm not worried about contradictions so much as a little gray area that may exist. Like, something's been hinted at, the players respond accordingly, and then when it's actually revealed....surprise, it's slightly different than you thought!

I think this is very easy for GMs to do in systems that don't actively guard against it. Some GMs may not....your reaction implies this is not something you'd consider, but plenty would. And, perhaps a bit more uncertain.....would those GMs who would actively try to not do this somehow do it unintentionally?

I've never had any trouble surprising my players, in any system, so that's not a surprise. When there are factions at play in a place the PCs arrive to, I generally take a moment or three to decide which ones are waxing or waning or holding steady, but I don't bother ranking them or anything like that. I use those notes to see which ones might need the PCs help, maybe figure out who's beating up on whom. They show me potential interactions.

I get that. My question would be why not let the players know about potential interactions?

And don't get me wrong.....I'm not necessarily saying you have to just infodump all this on them. Let them explore a bit and find it out. Share it in bits as it makes sense to, so that their understanding expands with their actions. I'm not trying to imply that you don't do this....I'm sure there's at least some of that going on.

But generally speaking, what would be an advantage of keeping information from the players in that kind of faction-status-and-situation kind of scenario?

Staying consistent is important to me. I suppose I might come across as a bit of a control freak as a DM, but I really don't think I am. I honestly don't care where a given game-world fact is coming from. I just find it easier to remain consistent with stuff I've worked out and written up than with something a player hands me (literally or metaphorically).

Right, and I absolutely understand that. I don't think that anyone would advocate for the players to be able to adopt as much of the setting building through play as it seems many worry about in this and similar discussions.

Consistency with what's been established is a goal of pretty much every game I know. As someone who used to be a very prep-heavy DM, I've found that the more I let be established through play, the more consistent things tend to be.

I guess I've come to the conclusion that for me, the world feels more consistent when there's one good GM running it than when the players are running it, too. I agree the players need to be able to understand the world well enough to be able to make reasonably informed decisions, but I don't think player-facing mechanics are a panacea for this.

No, it's certainly not a panacea. It's one tool that can help support/maintain/promote the A word. It's not the only tool, and it's not suited for every job, but it's an example of one.

 

[prabe]

The geography is also generally known by the characters. Sure, they aren't aware of every nook and cranny, but they know their way about, and if they need to find something of a general sort, most of the time they'd simply know it.

Yeah. I give out neighborhood-level maps of every city the PCs enter. I almost never make it difficult for them to find what they need/want (or at least, where what they need/want would be).

To look at the specific example of gang Tier.....if my players run into members of the Crows on a score, they have a good sense of the kind of opposition they may face, based on comparative Tier. If they break into a warehouse to steal some crates of illicit goods, and they find those crates marked with the honeycomb symbol of the Hive, they have a good sense of what kind of fallout they're facing if they decide to steal them.

What's the advantage of leaving that unknown? "You see a mysterious symbol. You think it may belong to a group called The Hive. You don't know anything about them. What do you do?" Why not share this info? What does maintaining the mystery do?

In a game where the Hive is a known entity, not much. OTOH, if the Hive (or the PCs) were a moving into new territory, this could a form of foreshadowing (to the extent that's a thing in Blades).

I'm not saying there's never a reason to keep things mysterious, just that there's a time and place, and I think we have to examine when and where it makes sense to do so based on how it impacts play and the players. For example, the members of the Hive are unknown. They're very much a secretive organization, so finding out who they are is going to be challenging in and of itself. But knowing they're dangerous? Why hold that back?

I guess I'd rather reveal they're dangerous, unless there's a way to measure the reputation of NPC groups. Have them lay waste to something/someone, leave that symbol around.

I also read some really good advice about RPGs recently, and I sadly can't recall who to credit, but it was something like "A secret kept is never as interesting as a secret learned." I think that's fantastic advice. We GMs can very often get caught up in all the unknowns that we've hoarded, and I think that's something that needs to be challenged.

That's true, to an extent. It's also true that once you reveal a secret, you have to honor it. If the PCs never come across a secret, it might not ever be a factor for them; if it's never a factor or otherwise revealed, that space is (possibly) available for something else, should it need to be, without needing to worry about remaining consistent with every detail of the prior secret. Or, the secret could evolve into a different secret, I suppose. I'm not in favor of information-hoarding, but I'm not opposed to knowledge being ... hard (if not impossible) to obtain, on occasion.

I'm not worried about contradictions so much as a little gray area that may exist. Like, something's been hinted at, the players respond accordingly, and then when it's actually revealed....surprise, it's slightly different than you thought!

I think this is very easy for GMs to do in systems that don't actively guard against it. Some GMs may not....your reaction implies this is not something you'd consider, but plenty would. And, perhaps a bit more uncertain.....would those GMs who would actively try to not do this somehow do it unintentionally?

Huh. So ... if the PCs are trying to figure out who's been impersonating people in the dwarven stronghold, and they guess doppelgangers, and it turns out to be oni ... That doesn't sound quite like what you're talking about.

So ... if they find out that an NPC wizard they've trusted (and always taken to be human, as she presented herself) is an ancient silver dragon with wizard levels ... maybe that's closer? (I think I figure it out around session 36, and I revealed it in session 62, which is about a year, real-world.)

I get that. My question would be why not let the players know about potential interactions?

Um. Because the PCs aren't local, so they wouldn't know all the details. Also, I'm probably going to improvise the details of the interactions; the PCs will learn about them roughly the same time I do.

And don't get me wrong.....I'm not necessarily saying you have to just infodump all this on them. Let them explore a bit and find it out. Share it in bits as it makes sense to, so that their understanding expands with their actions. I'm not trying to imply that you don't do this....I'm sure there's at least some of that going on.

Pretty much exactly as it goes.

But generally speaking, what would be an advantage of keeping information from the players in that kind of faction-status-and-situation kind of scenario?

Generally speaking, it's more about flexibility for me in the moment. That, and giving them a bunch of information about the factions (if they don't go looking for it) seems as though I'm somewhere between encouraging them to join a faction and forcing them to--and neither is my intention (in fact, I think I'd kinda prefer they not ...).

Consistency with what's been established is a goal of pretty much every game I know. As someone who used to be a very prep-heavy DM, I've found that the more I let be established through play, the more consistent things tend to be.

These days I mostly prep large-scale things, and let the details come out in play. I use my wife's notes to stay consistent. I prep big things when I need to, and otherwise just prep small things.

No, it's certainly not a panacea. It's one tool that can help support/maintain/promote the A word. It's not the only tool, and it's not suited for every job, but it's an example of one.

It's a tool. I think some of the principles from that kind of play can go a long way toward improving the experience at the table in games that otherwise aren't built for it, but I haven't really found a need to do much else in this direction.

 

[pemerton]

I would do 1-2 because 1-2 can still result in the player discovering there are not bullies (because it was a success though I would probably offer more information on why, or provide information on otters possibilities that are potentially attractive to the player based on what they said. For the bullies, because virtually every place has them, I would probably say yes though, so there wouldn't be a discernible difference between 1-3. But if the thing they were looking for was different, like they were looking for house of paper shadow agents, then it is much more likely successful Survival checks would not result in them finding any agents (though again I would provide them whatever information might be available locally).

It has become that for me. Technically I would also allow knowledge skills to be used actively (and by the book, those are more what you are supposed to use). But because Survival is used to move through territory and avoid encounters, I started using it the opposite way, so players can find encounters.

If using method 3, and the encounter or place that the player is interested in is less likely than bullies, then the DC can be set appropriately.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is why I've been trying to hone in on this in relation to the play examples I posted upthread.

I give an example where the players, responding to my narration, posited that some NPCs were Celtic. I then ran with and built on that in what unfolded.

I'm interested in views on the extent to which that conforms to, or departs from, sandbox GMing norms.

Given that @estar responded to my post by talking about the challenge, I think the sort of broad Gygaxian assumptions you refer to are in play. Perhaps not self-consciously - I don't know.

I consider 'traditional'/'old school' play as being almost entirely dominated by 'the long shadow of E. Gary Gygax.' Although I would not characterize a lot of it as 'how D&D was played in 1973' perhaps, it all very clearly descends from that period and the way people are thinking about things, the terms they use, and what they consider to be the nature and standard processes of an RPG are entirely reflective of that. Again and again we hear statements and analysis that amount to "an RPG (or roleplay) can only be a GM describing scenes to players which (s)he has authored and to which their sole response is limited to those available in-character'. The goal ALWAYS encompasses some flavor of "adjudicate and present situations such that they never deviate from some (how determined?) measure of 'things which could happen without respect to PCs'."

I don't really have good terminology for a lot of these 'Gygaxian assumptions' as you put it, or the process attached to them, because I feel that the analysis served up with them is really pretty weak. The process, as presented by its practitioners, simply doesn't seem to 'hold water' to me. I can use their words sometimes, but I think the connotations they are attempting to convey don't apply at all to the way I think about it.

As you suggest, I don't think any of this is intended. I think the whole structure came about without any real analysis. It was simply a result of tinkering with different possibilities, welding various pieces from different aspects of wargaming together with 'free play', and something popped out the other side. Later some people went back and started to really think seriously about 'what and why' but as a hobby activity there isn't a lot of reason for most people to do that, they play games, they don't usually design them or feel a need to come up with much terminology or theory. OTOH, if you are deeply invested in your practice, you may feel that the analysis has a negative caste to it, when it doesn't really. I mean, I don't care that a Dungeon Crawl or Sandbox has no character of plausibility or logic to it at all. Its a game!