A Question Of Agency?

[hawkeyefan]

You might want to be a bit more specific with this; as what you specifically mean by "contribute to the shared fiction" and what anyone else might mean by it can (and does) vary widely.

For my part, as a player I feel I've "contributed to the shared fiction" the moment my character opens its mouth and says something; or even the moment I describe my character's looks and appearance when it's first introduced to the other PCs. And as this is true in absolutely any RPG out there, it thus follows that I-as-player can contribute to the shared fiction regardless of system in use.

What you mean by the phrase, as I know from experience, is something quite different; and while you'll probably dismiss my above-noted contributions as meaningless by your standards, rest assured they are not by mine.

How about if a player contributes to the shared fiction in another way? Let’s say they have an idea for a goal for their PC and maybe it involves a church of some obscure god and an artifact stolen from the PC’s family.

So the player has added an organization to the fiction and possibly a deity and an artifact and some conflict between that organization and the PC’s family. This is also material that can be explored through play; the GM can pick up these threads and weave them into the unfolding fiction.

Now I know you might start twitching at the mere thought of this, but rest assured plenty of games allow this.

So, knowing that such a game would also allow a PC to open its mouth and speak and for the player to describe the PC and give them personality....knowing that it also allows this most basic form of contribution that you choose to celebrate....would you say that this game allows more contribution to the fiction from the player?

If not, why not?

 

[Ovinomancer]

From the little bit I've read about the ... inspirations for Blades, et al. (and the systems themselves) I don't think it's an unreasonable thought that they were written (or other verbed) in response to bad GMing in other games. I think in some instances they blamed the systems for the bad GMing, which given the GMing advice in some games isn't completely bonkers (though it's probably further than I'd go).

I think it was more a dissatisfaction with the apportionment of agency -- they disliked having the GM as the primary wielder of agency. This is born out by a preference for the design that shares it out even in the presence of a GM that uses that authority well. That this also addresses railroads is more of a bonus than the prime or even secondary design intent. YMMV.

 

[FrogReaver]

I've italicized and emphasized another misunderstanding: those who are advocating for "indie games" that allow for greater player agency are not arguing for universally "better" games! We're arguing for games that have greater agency; the fact that many of us like those games because of their greater player agency (ie may consider them "better," in the sense of meeting our aesthetic preferences) is absolutely besides the point.

No misunderstanding on my part. You certainly claim that more or less agency doesn't matter, but at the end of the day as you noted here, you believe you like games simply because they have greater agency. My counterclaim is that even in regards to yourself that it's not actually because of greater agency, it's because you have an aesthetic preference for certain types of agency. One could imagine a game with even more agency than the ones you like and you could absolutely hate it because it gives you agency over something you aesthetically dislike having agency over.

A rather trivial example of this would be a game granting agency over anything that violates the Crezge principle. That would certainly be a higher agency game, and so if you were correct then one that likes games because they have more agency should like games that violate that principle and yet they don't.

But as to your subsequent point, "all of this talk" is useful in that those who may be frustrated by a given game's inability to deliver upon their (perhaps as yet unanalyzed) preferences may find a path of exploration that helps them suss out what they might enjoy about TTRPGing and its various possibilities.

I would say a talk on types things players can control in different RPG's would do a much better job (and those game's purpose for granting the player control over things things).

 

[darkbard]

No misunderstanding on my part. You certainly claim that more or less agency doesn't matter, but at the end of the day as you noted here, you believe you like games simply because they have greater agency.

This is incoherent. Of course more or less agency matters in analysis of relative amounts of agency! What I stated was that one's preferences regarding such relative amounts is a side issue and should not impede clear analysis (although clearly it can when those who have no experience with such player agency-granting games misunderstand how such games actually function in practice and why that is so!).

My counterclaim is that even in regards to yourself that it's not actually because of greater agency, it's because you have an aesthetic preference for certain types of agency. One could imagine a game with even more agency than the ones you like and you could absolutely hate it because it gives you agency over something you aesthetically dislike having agency over.

A rather trivial example of this would be a game granting agency over anything that violates the Crezge principle. That would certainly be a higher agency game, and so if you were correct then one that likes games because they have more agency should like games that violate that principle and yet they don't.


I would say a talk on types things players can control in different RPG's would do a much better job (and those game's purpose for granting the player control over things things).

Perhaps a more precise framing of my own preference is for one in which players and GM are equal contributors to the shared fiction (no hierarchy distinguishing them) with clear system restraints upon when and how each exercises their agency, that the players don't suffer the illusion of agency gated behind GM approval.

You are correct that the kind of shared storytelling game (not really an RPG in the precise sense of the term) that you imagine would probably not meet my criteria for an enjoyable game (where is the drama in setting one's own challenge and its outcome?), but that imagined game is nothing like the kinds of games I play and enjoy.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is incoherent. Of course more or less agency matters in analysis of relative amounts of agency! What I stated was that one's preferences regarding such relative amounts is a side issue and should not impede clear analysis (although clearly it can when those who have no experience with such player agency-granting games misunderstand how such games actually function in practice and why that is so!).




Perhaps a more precise framing of my own preference is for one in which players and GM are equal contributors to the shared fiction (no hierarchy distinguishing them) with clear system restraints upon when and how each exercises their agency, that the players don't suffer the illusion of agency gated behind GM approval.

You are correct that the kind of shared storytelling game (not really an RPG in the precise sense of the term) that you imagine would probably not meet my criteria for an enjoyable game (where is the drama in setting one's own challenge and its outcome?), but that imagined game is nothing like the kinds of games I play and enjoy.

Having met with little success in skewing the analysis to support his conclusion, I believe the current attack is to just try to discredit analysis altogether.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This shows you don't know the game. Do you understand how Mouldbreaker artha is earned?

Yes. It further supports the idea the beliefs are supposed to affect roleplay.

 

[prabe]

If something like the whole Bonds-Flaws-Ideals set-up (or equivalent) ends up directing or forcing how one role-plays one's character, isn't it then just the same boxing-in principle as the RAW 1e alignment system only with more bells, louder whistles, and prettier boxes?

If yes, given how many D&D GMs either ditched or watered down* alignment over the years it's rather surprising this would fly.

* - as, incrementally, did D&D itself as each new edition followed the last.

I agree that D&D has gradually reduced the importance of alignment, in the forms of penalties for players who disagreed with their DMs over what those two words on the character sheet meant. As you might guess from that construction, I don't have a problem with that.

As to Bonds, etc.: I think the intent was to reward players who, e.g., actually played to their Flaw. The biggest problem is that the reward is Advantage, which is ... pretty easy to get (and doesn't stack (and is the primary mechanic for altering difficulty)) so the incentive isn't all that great; the second-biggest problem is that there isn't any mechanical effect for not, e.g., playing to your character's Flaw; the third-biggest problem is that remembering these five things (Bond, Flaw, Ideal, 2x Trait) per character and engaging them adds to the DM's mental overhead more than I found to be worth it (this is a problem I see with Aspects in Fate or Beliefs in BW, at least as far as the need for the GM to remember them--I'm willing to believe that GMs in those systems find they reward the overhead in ways 5E doesn't, and I'm not endeavoring to pick a fight over this).

I think it was more a dissatisfaction with the apportionment of agency -- they disliked having the GM as the primary wielder of agency. This is born out by a preference for the design that shares it out even in the presence of a GM that uses that authority well. That this also addresses railroads is more of a bonus than the prime or even secondary design intent. YMMV.

That seems reasonable. As I said, I've only read a little about it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As for personality mechanics in general, obviously ones which incentivise the character to behave in certain way with some buff/debuff are better and less jarring than ones that outright dictate how the character behaves.

Though I really don't see much point even in such less drastic mechanics. My assumption is that the player has though about the personality of their character and that they know better than any mechanic how to portray it, and they presumably do it because that is fun for them. They don't need any carrots, sticks or training wheels to do it.

 

[Aldarc]

As for personality mechanics on general, obviously ones which incentivise the character to behave in certain way with some buff/debuff are better and less jarring than ones that outright dictate how the character behaves.

Though I really don't see much point even such less drastic mechanics. My assumption is that the player has though about the personality of their character and that they know better than any mechanic how to portray it, and they presumably do it because that is fun for them. They don't need any carrots, sticks or training wheels to do it.

I think that although these mechanics are often in the hands of players, it's less about the players needing them to roleplay and more about having such things reinforced by the system and GM. In the case of Fate, for example, I've heard people ask/gripe why the character needs Troubles or Fate point mechanics for the player simply roleplaying the character. But when a character has these Aspects and Troubles, the GM is encouraged (if not required for the sake of the Fate point economy) to engage the traits and troubles that the PC wants their character to experience.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes. It further supports the idea the beliefs are supposed to affect roleplay.

Again, if the goalposts have shifted to things that are supposed to merely affect roleplay, we need to revisit the T-intersection example with Bob and Fynn and look at how the GM's description affected Fynn's player's roleplaying. I mean, it was a concrete thing that engaged roleplaying in a way that had an effect, yes?