A Question Of Agency?

[Ovinomancer]

So, what factors would make it illusionism? What factors would make it so the players retain their agency?

Illusionism is simple -- the GM offers a choice that appears to have weight, but the outcome is already decided. Usually, the knowledge the outcome is fixed is hidden from the players. In the toy example presented, the post hoc decision to force an outcome invalidates the choice offered (ie, how the PCs interacted with the NPC). This is hidden from the PCs until the GM pulls the trigger on the betrayal, and so fits into Illusionism. That the GM Forced the outcome will likely be apparent when that happens is a good indication you probably shouldn't do this.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

So, I do preps for my game by describing locations (a room, a building, a town, a county, a nation, and a world might get equal treatment or differing treatment depending on how inspiration strikes me) and peoples (again, Steve, the DeVillio Family, the Dwarfs of Illigrad, and the Mantid Species all get varying levels of detail depending on how much comes to me when the mood hits) and phenomena (bad weather, kidnappings, a bumper crop of air willow, a prophesied birth, etc.). Some of these preps have no relation to what my players are currently involved in and will never see the light of day. Some get called back to in later sessions or are callbacks from earlier sessions. Some are directly related to things that I know the players are interested in.

I like to have enough preps to offer players three new enumerated choices for any given lull in the action. Once the player characters have ensured that Steve has been dealt with, fir instance, I might feed them rumors about local lumber workers going missing in the silver forest, a number of troll sightings in the dank marsh, and a wizard's convention in the burg to the north. Players are free then to explore one of those new things, go back and revisit things that they learned about previously, pursue some personal agenda, or do some other thing that I hadn't considered.

Much of the time, I end up adding substance to those preps that I have already done, rather than making things up whole-cloth, and rarely I will find myself either presenting a fully-formed thing to the players, or coming up with something entirely new.

My thoughts are that if I am making a good faith attempt to make the players' choices meaningful, and if the players feel like their choices are meaningful, then I'm doing a pretty good job.

 

[prabe]

Illusionism is simple -- the GM offers a choice that appears to have weight, but the outcome is already decided. Usually, the knowledge the outcome is fixed is hidden from the players. In the toy example presented, the post hoc decision to force an outcome invalidates the choice offered (ie, how the PCs interacted with the NPC). This is hidden from the PCs until the GM pulls the trigger on the betrayal, and so fits into Illusionism. That the GM Forced the outcome will likely be apparent when that happens is a good indication you probably shouldn't do this.

It seems (and I hope @Ovinomancer will correct me if I misunderstand) that the question--whether deciding later in the course of the campaign that an NPC has misled the PCs is Illusionism--comes down to whether it invalidates the decisions the PCs have made. Springing it on them--pulling the trigger on the betrayal, as it's roughly phrased in the quote above--is going to feel more like Illusionism and/or Force than a more gradual revelation, as is prepping it so the NPC was wrong or misinformed, instead of as a betrayal.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

None of those three strictly needs to be illusionism, but the only one that seems likely to lead down that dark path (and forever dominate the GM's destiny) is your A. It's plausible--though you're leaving the GM's motivations out of it--that something arose in prep and something needed to change; in that case, I'd say the GM is as much a victim of the illusionism as the players ...

You seem to be saying that if the GM has a good reason to change it, it is not illusionism, which seems like a weird definition to me. Of course the GM will think they have a good reason for the change, they certainly wouldn't change it otherwise!

Furthermore, I must protest the assumption that anything has even been changed. My mindset is that if the PCs did not learn whether the NPC was speaking truth or was lying, then there is nothing to be changed. The NPC's liar/honest state is undetermined and establishing it later in one way or another is no more of a change than adding any other fact or setting detail that was previously undetermined.

 

[prabe]

You seem to be saying that if the GM has a good reason to change it, it is not illusionism, which seems like a weird definition to me. Of course the GM will think they have a good reason for the change, they certainly wouldn't change it otherwise!

Furthermore, I must protest the assumption that anything has even been changed. My mindset is that if the PCs did not learn whether the NPC was speaking truth or was lying, then there is nothing to be changed. The NPC's liar/honest state is undetermined and establishing it later in one way or another is no more of a change than adding any other fact or setting detail that was previously undetermined.

What I'm saying is that the GM can change facts on the ground without it being Illusionism. Just because what you were told isn't true doesn't mean you didn't make a choice that mattered. I agree with @Ovinomancer above that "you probably shouldn't do this," but you'll note that's not an absolute.

As to whether anything has changed ... There's a good argument that the stakes of the PCs' decision/s have changed, which might at least seem to be denying them agency. Certainly they didn't make the decision they thought they were making, which is part of why I'm not a huge fan of the sudden-but-inevitable betrayal as a plot point: I strongly prefer for an NPC to be wrong, as opposed to lying; it seems less complicated to me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

L

You seem to be saying that if the GM has a good reason to change it, it is not illusionism, which seems like a weird definition to me. Of course the GM will think they have a good reason for the change, they certainly wouldn't change it otherwise!

Furthermore, I must protest the assumption that anything has even been changed. My mindset is that if the PCs did not learn whether the NPC was speaking truth or was lying, then there is nothing to be changed. The NPC's liar/honest state is undetermined and establishing it later in one way or another is no more of a change than adding any other fact or setting detail that was previously undetermined.

I think this is a valid point. But I think the question becomes how was this framed at the time. What checks if any were allowed and were they successful? Depending on all of this, it very well may be that something is changed.

 

[aramis erak]

Where it could be illusionism is if the GM has an encounter with some ogres planned and it happens in the Forest or the Chasm. Likewise, if the GM is crafting details on the fly and uses the same enemy stats, but simply labels the enemies by a different name. So his 2HD humanoids that have a +2 to hit are Orcs in the Forest or Sandpeople in the Chasm....that’s illusionism as well, I’d say.

Note that, in several published games, monsters literally have only one mechanical impact.

The best known of these is Tunnels and Trolls, where most monsters are defined by a description and one mechanical rating: Monster Rating. (Combat power of MR being 1d per 10 points, plus a number of pips equal to half the MR.) So, in T&T, the only difference is how the GM describes the Monster.
Literally, the only difference between a MR 20 Ork and a MR20 skeleton is the description. (except, perhaps, in 7th, where the critters might have spite triggered abilities.)

So it may or may not be illusionism...

 

[hawkeyefan]

Note that, in several published games, monsters literally have only one mechanical impact.

The best known of these is Tunnels and Trolls, where most monsters are defined by a description and one mechanical rating: Monster Rating. (Combat power of MR being 1d per 10 points, plus a number of pips equal to half the MR.) So, in T&T, the only difference is how the GM describes the Monster.
Literally, the only difference between a MR 20 Ork and a MR20 skeleton is the description. (except, perhaps, in 7th, where the critters might have spite triggered abilities.)

So it may or may not be illusionism...

Sure, there will always be exceptions. If that’s the way the game is set up then I don’t think anyone’s expectations would be otherwise. If I was running such a game, then I’d likely not rely on monster stats as a factor of meaningful choice. There are many other things that you can bring to bear in this way.

But if the game doesn't work that way, then I think physical environment may be a big factor in player choice, especially if supported by what’s already been established in the fiction. The types of hazards they face depends greatly on environment.

Again, this is all assuming some amount of knowledge of the choices offered.

 

[pemerton]

If I do not plan ahead and plot out various choices for the players to make, this surely means they lack agency.

So my question is whether or not a no prep GM such as myself is actually able to offer my players meaningful choices? Or am I actually only offering them the illusion of choice and thus robbing them of any agency they might have in a campaign that has choices plotted in advance?

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, just your OP.

But I don't see the issue.

If you plot stuff in advance, then the focus of play becomes the players learning what is in your notes. My shorthand description of this is RPG-as-puzzle.

Personally I don't like this much either as player or GM, except perhaps in small doses used to support some other focus of play.

Playing in the improv style you describe - no myth as it is sometimes called - is very apt to provide the players with agency provided that they system (i) allows them to make meaningful action declarations, and (ii) the outcomes of action resolution are honoured in subsequent play.

This how games otherwise as different as Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World and Wuthering Heights work. It's also how I approach 4e D&D, Classic Traveller, and Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+.

 

[pemerton]

I would say that in an 'improv' method such as yours (which I have used in the past), is going to be a shallow pond. Working off the cuff, improvising as you go, you can certainly come up with memorable gaming; it can even allow for some player agency.

But for real, dynamic player agency, I believe that you need more detail and depth of plot than a GM can come up with 'on the fly'.

This is an empirical claim. I've never seen any evidence to suggest that it is true.

Here's a link to an actual play report of a Wuthering Heights one-off. As you can read, nothing was planned (beyond what is implicit in playing a game set in Victorian-era Britain): the players rolled up their PCs, including their "problems"; on the basis of that we established an initial situation that made sense (the mute monk PC had turned up at the bookshop where the politically radical and occult-obsessed PC worked); I (as GM) elaborated on that scene; and then we followed the logic of play.

We had fisticuffs, a political meeting that degenerated into a fracas, hearts smitten and broken, a body dumped in the Thames, a prison riot and escape, a middle-aged policeman brought to the side of radical politics, ghostly possession, and in the end the bookshop burned down by the PC who worked there, with himself inside it.

I wouldn't pretend it's great literature, but equally I wouldn't describe it as a particularly "shallow pond" compared to a comparable prepared scenario (say a Cthulhu by Gaslight one-shot). If the players have genuine agency - that is, are able to make action declarations where the consequences of resolution actually stick and are followed through - then (i) the GM doesn't need to "come up with" a plot either in advance or on the fly, as the play of the game will do that, and (ii) there will be plenty of detail and depth.

How the content comes about it not the important bit. Meaningful choice and agency happen when player choices make a difference in what happens.

So, let's say the PCs are traveling long distance cross-country, and you imagined beforehand that a tribe of orcs was in the way. If the PCs negotiate with giant eagles to fly them over much of the intervening territory, but they then have to fight the orcs as soon as they land anyway, then you have rendered the choice to negotiate with the birds meaningless, and thus removed some of the player's agency.

If the players can make their own lives better (or worse) through their choices, they have agency.

I don't think that "better" or "worse" is the right metric here. When playing Cthulhu Dark, for instance, we know in advance that the PCs' lives will probably get worse (they will have horrible experiences and lose their grip on sanity). But that doesn't stop the players exercising agency in Cthulhu Dark play.

What is key is do the actions the players declare, and the resolution of those actions, actually matter? Because what matters is highly context-sensitive, so is player agency.

For instance, in your example, what is at stake in the players' successful recruitment (via their PCs) of the eagles as a player-side resource? If the goal is to avoid encounters, then the GM who allows the players to believe that they have succeeded, and then springs the orc encounter on them anyway, is negating or disregarding player agency. If the goal is to avoid the exhaustion of travel, then the GM who springs the orc encounter is probably not negating agency: the players get the benefit (be that mechanical, or fictional positioning, depending on system) of confronting the orcs unexhausted.

This illustrates why a useful tool for helping to preserve or enhance player agency is to understand what the players hope they will achieve on a successful check. Eg if it is clear to everyone at the table that the goal of the eagle gambit is to avoid encounters, and the players succeed on the relevant check(s), then it will be crystal-clear what the GM is doing when s/he nevertheless springs the orc encounter. (I think this relates to @Ovinomancer's comments upthread about techniques that avoid illusionism.)

If you want to ensure that players are seeing the story-direction when it comes to mechanical points, you can make it very clear by use of the "If you fail, you get..."
While this can mitigate some of the surprise, it can also increase the tension of a die-roll.

This is the canonical procedure in Burning Wheel (as you, aramis erak, already know). Luke Crane admits in his commentary (in the Adventure Burner/Codex) that he doesn't always follow it. I'm the same when I GM BW.

But I think the idea of clear stakes - be they express or implicit in the situation - is pretty important. Umbran's eagles example, and the various ways of cashing that out, shows why.

If the players don't know what is at stake (eg choosing a T-intersection with no knowledge of what is one way or another), then - in my own view - it doesn't increase their agency because the GM is narrating consequences based on pre-planning (eg a dungeon map and key) rather than making stuff up on the spot.

There are additional (sometimes unstated) GM-side conventions, beyond just preparing a map and key and sticking to it, that govern the design and adjudication of traditional dungeons that allow these temporary moments of low-agency to be the prelude to moments of high-agency (see eg Gygax's discussion of Successful Adventures in the closing pre-Appendix pages of his PHB). Roughly speaking, the more the game involves a "living, breathing, realistic" world the less those conventions will be observed, and hence the less agency the players can generate out of initial low-agency situations where they simply discover what the GM has prepared.

Hence, for player agency-oriented RPGing which wants to deal with rich, verisimilitudinous characters and settings, the appeal of non-map-and-key based approaches like PbtA, Burning Wheel, BitD, etc. That's not to say that these games are, or have to be, prep free; but the role of prep is pretty different from what it is in traditional D&D. Most importantly, prep rarely provides a basis for declaring - by reference to fiction known only to the GM - that an action declaration fails. That's key to how these approaches maintain player agency by not obscuring the stakes in action resolution.