A Question Of Agency?

[Crimson Longinus]

The bits that I've bolded reinforce my conjecture upthread, that you are simply unfamiliar with systems that have robust action resolution mechanics. And at least for my part we do not seem to be talking past one another - your posts seem completely consistent with familiarity with "storyteller-GM" style RPGing that I would associate with games like 2nd ed AD&D, White Wolf, CoC, and that seemed to be evident in a story hour your linked to in a thread some months (I think it was) ago.

To go back to the bolded bits: in D&D combat, if a player - through the action resolution process - reduces a monster's hit points to zero by way of a sword attack, the GM does not get to decide how the world reacts to the PC's swing of a sword. The rules mandate that the GM narrate the monster being killed (or KO'ed, depending on the wrinkles of edition) by the PC's sword-blow.

Now just generalise that.

If the players succeed on action resolution, the GM is not free to decide how the world reacts. Rather, s/he is bound to honour the success. (This can't work if there is not an action resolution system that bears upon the matter at hand - see my post upthread about the weakness of onworld exploration in Classic Traveller as an example - but good RPG systems have good action resolution systems that cover at least the bulk of the action one might expect given setting, genre etc.)

Good explanation. Though actually in D&D the GM is fully within rights to overrule the rules if they see it fit. And as a GM I want to have that authority and as a player I want the GM to have that authority. Because that's why there is a human being there to make these calls, I trust them to be able to read the situation, and adjudicate things better than any rule system alone could. And if I don't trust the GM to do that, then no amount of constrains placed on them will help.

 

[Manbearcat]

Good explanation. Though actually in D&D the GM is fully within rights to overrule the rules if they see it fit. And as a GM I want to have that authority and as a player I want the GM to have that authority. Because that's why there is a human being there to make these calls, I trust them to be able to read the situation, and adjudicate things better than any rule system alone could. And if I don't trust the GM to do that, then no amount of constrains placed on them will help.

This it the reply I was looking for as this is where I expected you were coming from (hence the framing of my posts prior).

Two things:

1) This is D&D system-specific. Not all D&D provides GMs that level of authority. Moldvay Basic, RC, and D&D 4e do not and Gygax's 1e DMG calls for a much more neutral brand of refereeing (curating nonsensical outcomes or outcomes that are arbitrary and cheat the process of filtering skilled play from unskilled play...not curating outcomes that don't lead to (a) GM-preferred story or (b) GM-conception of what a will yield a "fun play experience").

Now if you're playing AD&D 2e (which started the curating outcomes and revising rules that don't lead to (a) GM-preferred story or (b) GM-conception of what a will yield a "fun play experience"), 3.x, or 5e (which adopted the AD&D 2e GM role and authority basically whole cloth), then you have that authority.

I'm assuming you're running D&D 5e and you're assuming the lead poster is as well?

2) "Because that's why there is a human being there to make these calls, I trust them to be able to read the situation, and adjudicate things better than any rule system alone could. And if I don't trust the GM to do that, then no amount of constraints placed on them will help."

You were concerned about dogmatism in TTRPGing upthread. Did this not strike you as dogmatism while you were writing it? You can't extend this principle to all of D&D let alone outside of that rubric to other games. Highly functional rules + great GMing advice + system constraints on the GM (through the holistic integration of procedures + system architecture + the game's ethos/agenda) can create games where (a) the premise of play is beautifully and consistently addressed and (b) the GM's authority and cognitive workload are simultaneously reigned in. So its fundamentally not true that constraints and great rules won't "help" <to achieve a consistently coherent and fulfilling play experience>.

Now, in a particular style of play this is true (the type that 2e and 5e promote; heavily GM-driven games where their conception of a fun/fulfilling time and a good story is made mandate through the authority the system grants them and the system architecture that consistently demands their mediation in, overwhelmingly GM-facing, action resolution). But that is only one style of play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This it the reply I was looking for as this is where I expected you were coming from (hence the framing of my posts prior).

Two things:

1) This is D&D system-specific. Not all D&D provides GMs that level of authority. Moldvay Basic, RC, and D&D 4e do not and Gygax's 1e DMG calls for a much more neutral brand of refereeing (curating nonsensical outcomes or outcomes that are arbitrary and cheat the process of filtering skilled play from unskilled play...not curating outcomes that don't lead to (a) GM-preferred story or (b) GM-conception of what a will yield a "fun play experience").

Now if you're playing AD&D 2e (which started the curating outcomes and revising rules that don't lead to (a) GM-preferred story or (b) GM-conception of what a will yield a "fun play experience"), 3.x, or 5e (which adopted the AD&D 2e GM role and authority basically whole cloth), then you have that authority.

Perhaps you're right, I really don't recall specifics of past editions. Not that we played 4e any differently. Did it really not have the usual 'GM makes the final call' clause? I'd be somewhat surprised if that was the case...

I'm assuming you're running D&D 5e and you're assuming the lead poster is as well?

I did not assume any specific game, but yes, I assumed a traditional GM-has-the-final-authority stance. I've played and run a shitton of different RPGs and also written some (for personal uses) and that has pretty much always been the assumption. But you're right that this is not always the case, albeit I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case with the OP considering how they described their playstyle.

2) "Because that's why there is a human being there to make these calls, I trust them to be able to read the situation, and adjudicate things better than any rule system alone could. And if I don't trust the GM to do that, then no amount of constraints placed on them will help."

You were concerned about dogmatism in TTRPGing upthread. Did this not strike you as dogmatism while you were writing it?

I can see how it could be read that way.

You can't extend this principle to all of D&D let alone outside of that rubric to other games. Highly functional rules + great GMing advice + system constraints on the GM (through the holistic integration of procedures + system architecture + the game's ethos/agenda) can create games where (a) the premise of play is beautifully and consistently addressed and (b) the GM's authority and cognitive workload are simultaneously reigned in. So its fundamentally not true that constraints and great rules won't "help" <to achieve a consistently coherent and fulfilling play experience>.

Fair, they may 'help', perhaps I worded that poorly. But ultimately my point was that a good GM is far more important than a good system, nor I have desire to restrain the GM's ability to use their judgement. This doesn't mean that the GM should routinely overrule the system, after all if they have to, then that perhaps is not an ideal system for that GM. But no system can take account every possible situation. The GM always has to make some judgement calls and even the best systems occasionally produce undesirable results.

Now, in a particular style of play this is true (the type that 2e and 5e promote; heavily GM-driven games where their conception of a fun/fulfilling time and a good story is made mandate through the authority the system grants them and the system architecture that consistently demands their mediation in, overwhelmingly GM-facing, action resolution). But that is only one style of play.

Ultimately I feel that attitudes of the people on the table affect how much the game is player driven or GM driven more than the system, though of course certain systems might encourage certain approaches. But ultimately even in a game where the GM has the nominal final authority the players can be proactive, their characters can come up with plans and start to execute them and the GM can go along with it. That the GM can direct the game in direction they want doesn't mean that they have to.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Crimson Longinus

That's a good post. I don't agree with particular parts of it, but very good post. I think we have a measure of clarity, so lets leave it there.

 

[zarionofarabel]

As several people are reasonably pointed out (and which I originally kinda overlooked,) different systems handle agency differently and have differently codified roles for the GM and the players. I was working under assumption that you were playing more traditional GM-driven game. If you want the discussion to be more relevant to your game, then it might be helpful if you told what system you're using. Furthermore, I'd really like to know what actually prompted this thread. I mean what made you worried about the player agency? Are the players expressed some dissatisfaction about this either directly or indirectly?

Yeah. I employ more traditional systems like Mythras, Ubiquity, and Far Trek.

I started this thread after an argument on a different forum made me wonder if I was robbing my players of their agency because I just make up everything right before I add it to the narrative.

I fell down a rabbit hole...

 

[Bedrockgames]

Now if you're playing AD&D 2e (which started the curating outcomes and revising rules that don't lead to (a) GM-preferred story or (b) GM-conception of what a will yield a "fun play experience"), 3.x, or 5e (which adopted the AD&D 2e GM role and authority basically whole cloth), then you have that authority.

Something worth keeping in mind is 2E evolved a lot, had tons of products, and not all of those products were consistent. I think overall, the 90s were saturated with an idea of the GM using power to ensure story unfolded. With 2E, my impression and memory, are this increased the more popular games like vampire got (I could be wrong as I haven't sat down and compared texts from the time, but that is my memory). However I did run a number of 2E campaigns not so long ago. I did so using the Ravenloft line, which was pretty much what I ran all through the 90s. This meant revisiting a lot of old books I hadn't read in years. If you begin with a module like Feast of Goblyns, it actually has a lot more interest in player agency than later Ravenloft modules (it is still a product of the time, but it emphasizes running the adventure as a 'living adventure' where the NPCs react to the players. There is an assumed course of events, in a way, but it is a very easy module to run in more of a sandbox mode. However, toward the mid-90s you really see story start to become more important (to the point that 'scenes' and 'acts' are sometimes used as headers). But all that said, take a look at the Van Richten books. Those are all about monster hunts and the party chasing after individual variations of lycanthrope, vampire, golem, etc. Those books were foundational to my running of Ravenloft back in the day and it is really hard to use the tools in them without allowing for tremendous player agency (because they are all about having a threat, who is essentially a mystery to solve----i..e. you need to learn about this particular vampire or golem in order to discover how to kill them). And that doesn't work as well if you are organizing the adventure around story beats. It works much better if you just drop the players into a situation where that monster is on the lose and they freely roam about figuring out how to contend with it. I think one of the bad things about 2E was the DMG. It was only partial really. You needed the blue book campaign guide to truly round out the GM advice (and many people I knew still used the 1E DMG while running 2E). I guess my point is there was a trajectory with 2E where story got emphasized more over time, but I think that was really more a product of what was becoming fashionable (and much of it had the appearance of D&D playing catch up with some of its hipper competition----the 90s is when I started to see advice like 'only kill player characters if they do something really stupid' become ubiquitous).

 

[hawkeyefan]

Believe me, this is not a player to whom one can say something like this and have it stick.

Why not? I mean, I get not wanting to have arguments over what is or is not canon during a game, but why does this guy cling so strongly to a video game?

Which is fine in the fiction, but to replicate that at the table I-as-player need a map so I can plan my approach and getaway routes, determine distances and-or expected travel times as best as possible, know where obvious fixed-site threats (e.g. the cop shop) are located in order to avoid them, stuff like that.

And I wouldn't want to just handwave this by the GM saying "your character knows all this", as for me it'd be far more fun digging in and having us work it out for ourselves...literally role-playing the gang sitting in a basement around a map plotting out these details for the score.

And if we really wanted to get creative, we could even try to locate our scores to form some sort of pattern on the map.

There is a map of the city, but it only details some major areas. There are maps you can find online that have much more specific detail (down to naming each street and canal and many of the buildings), but the game intentionally leaves these kinds of details up to the group.

So when the need arises for a specific location, the GM can pick a spot for it, and there it is. There’s no reason they can’t also label the map so that that location is set.

This is what I’m talking about when it comes to prep. There’s no need, nor really any benefit other than preference, to determining all these locations so specifically ahead of time. Not when you can absolutely do that in play if that level of detail is needed.

Which would most likely mean retconning that whole encounter and at the very least would invalidate all play that came after. As a player I'd be furious; as a GM I'd be embarrassed as all hell (and I speak from experience on both sides here).

It’s hard to engage this half-sketched example. Why would you allow an error on the GM’s part to stand in such a way? Just amend the detail in play and don’t have the PC die because of the mistake. Why go through it all and then retcon it afterward? Just pause, acknowledge the situation, and say something like “Okay, so you had decided to make a run for it expecting the wall to be much shorter because that’s how I described it. My bad. We’ll go with the shorter distance, and you make it around the corner before the arrows hit. Sorry about that.”

Seriously, I feel like you’re inventing concerns that simply aren’t much of an issue, nor are they any more prevalent than they would be in prepped play.

As a counter point, I’ll bring up running Tomb of Annihilation in my 5E campaign again. Running prepped material was far more prone to errors....room sizes and positioning and all that kind of stuff matter much more in a traditional dungeoncrawl. I made a lot of minor descriptive errors, either because the room descriptions were tricky or (more often) taking what was in the book and translating it to players just allowed for minor errors or omissions.

In this sense, I can see how you feel that details of this kind are a requirement...it’s all potentially relevant when the trap goes off and so on.

But it’s not necessary if you’re not playing in a manner that requires it. If the system or the playstyle isn't really worried about the exact location of each PC when the trap goes off....if there’s another way to handle it than D&D style grid maps and area of effects....then you don’t need that stuff.

There were far less errors once I realized the issues we were having with Tomb of Annihilation, and I adjusted. Once I wasn’t as concerned with adhering to the prepped material, our play became much more smooth and enjoyable. It was likely more cinematic and less simulationist than what you’re proposing, but there were far fewer errors of the kind you’re concerned about.

I mean, look at the example of the 800 or 600 foot wall. The conflict comes from you having one written down and then saying the other to the players. If you don't have one written down ahead of time, there’s no conflict....the “truth” is simply what you’ve told the players.

 

[darkbard]

I fell down a rabbit hole...

I reckon that depends on how you mean the metaphor. If you mean that you experienced a paradigm shift that offered a prism through which to view the familiar differently, I see why you might employ this metaphor. If you mean that you opened up a Pandora's box (excuse my mixing of metaphors here) by which unwelcome ideas are thrust upon you beyond your control, then I think the metaphor unfit. But I'm pretty sure you meant this in the former framing.

In any event, really just chiming in to say recent months of what I feel to be lackluster conversation has kept me from posting. But this thread has changed that, if, perhaps, only temporarily.

Also, so very good to see the band back together!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah. I employ more traditional systems like Mythras, Ubiquity, and Far Trek.

I started this thread after an argument on a different forum made me wonder if I was robbing my players of their agency because I just make up everything right before I add it to the narrative.

I fell down a rabbit hole...

Pretty much what I assumed.

Whilst discussion of GMing techniques are of course helpful, ultimately you're the one who knows your own table the best. And sometimes tones get a tad prescriptive; "you should do this" instead of "you could try this." (Not that there has been terribly much that here.) I stand by my assessment that if you players feel that they have enough agency, then they do have enough agency. There is no need to aim for some theoretical level of agency-purity if everyone at the table is already fine with how the things are done.

 

[Manbearcat]

Something worth keeping in mind is 2E evolved a lot, had tons of products, and not all of those products were consistent. I think overall, the 90s were saturated with an idea of the GM using power to ensure story unfolded. With 2E, my impression and memory, are this increased the more popular games like vampire got (I could be wrong as I haven't sat down and compared texts from the time, but that is my memory). However I did run a number of 2E campaigns not so long ago. I did so using the Ravenloft line, which was pretty much what I ran all through the 90s. This meant revisiting a lot of old books I hadn't read in years. If you begin with a module like Feast of Goblyns, it actually has a lot more interest in player agency than later Ravenloft modules (it is still a product of the time, but it emphasizes running the adventure as a 'living adventure' where the NPCs react to the players. There is an assumed course of events, in a way, but it is a very easy module to run in more of a sandbox mode. However, toward the mid-90s you really see story start to become more important (to the point that 'scenes' and 'acts' are sometimes used as headers). But all that said, take a look at the Van Richten books. Those are all about monster hunts and the party chasing after individual variations of lycanthrope, vampire, golem, etc. Those books were foundational to my running of Ravenloft back in the day and it is really hard to use the tools in them without allowing for tremendous player agency (because they are all about having a threat, who is essentially a mystery to solve----i..e. you need to learn about this particular vampire or golem in order to discover how to kill them). And that doesn't work as well if you are organizing the adventure around story beats. It works much better if you just drop the players into a situation where that monster is on the lose and they freely roam about figuring out how to contend with it. I think one of the bad things about 2E was the DMG. It was only partial really. You needed the blue book campaign guide to truly round out the GM advice (and many people I knew still used the 1E DMG while running 2E). I guess my point is there was a trajectory with 2E where story got emphasized more over time, but I think that was really more a product of what was becoming fashionable (and much of it had the appearance of D&D playing catch up with some of its hipper competition----the 90s is when I started to see advice like 'only kill player characters if they do something really stupid' become ubiquitous).

Great post. That is exactly how my memory banks have ordered the period of late 80s through the 90s as well.