A Question Of Agency?

[zarionofarabel]

Eh... maybe. I mean, if you've only ever run D&D then there might be some blind spots where you're running a railroad, but it looks so familiar you can't tell. I mean, not a hard railroad, but still. APs are this, but usually not called out as such -- when they are, there's a contingent that decries the appellation.

Not D&D per say, but definitely the "traditional" setup where the GM is in control of the narrative unless they voluntarily allow the players to add things to the narrative. I do love Burning Wheel, but try convincing people to play it. I would love to play more Mouse Guard too, but I believe that MG is a railroad, at least during the GM turn. During the Players turn it's the exact opposite.

 

[Manbearcat]

Well as a total improv GM, every time I add a component to the narrative I am applying Force, right? Simply because there is nothing written in stone before it hits the table. That means every single time I add a component to the narrative I am subtly nudging the narrative in the direction I want it to go. That means the longer the narrative progresses the more and more it becomes what I want it to be and less what the players want unless there is a mechanical way for them to also apply force, right? So if I am using a "traditional" system like D&D I'm a full on railroading machine by, say, session five. So with my particular style I would have to stick with systems that allow the players to Force the narrative in their favor, right?!?!?

Ahhhhh!!! I love/hate this thread!!! It's messing with my head!!!

Force is not just adding content into the fiction. If that was Force then literally every instance of play would be Force.

Go back and look at the definition.

Are you subverting a player's (or players') input into the trajectory of play (a decision-point, a declared action, the outcome of action resolution) or the system's authentic procedure results (tracking turns and the mechanics that interface with turns, where the system says you should roll on a table and take the result, where the system says you should roll and there are results x, y, and z... the dice come up z, but you instead choose y, etc) and in their stead are you FORCING your will onto play...remapping it with that new trajectory.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Force is not just adding content into the fiction. If that was Force then literally every instance of play would be Force.

Go back and look at the definition.

Are you subverting a player's (or players') input into the trajectory of play (a decision-point, a declared action, the outcome of action resolution) or the system's authentic procedure results (tracking turns and the mechanics that interface with turns, where the system says you should roll on a table and take the result, where the system says you should roll and there are results x, y, and z... the dice come up z, but you instead choose y, etc) and in their stead are you FORCING your will onto play...remapping it with that new trajectory.

Oh. No. I stick with what the dice say, no fudging for this GM. I also go with BW's Let It Ride rule in all games I GM.

 

[Manbearcat]

Oh. No. I stick with what the dice say, no fudging for this GM. I also go with BW's Let It Ride rule in all games I GM.

If your choices aren't illusory in order to funnel play down a prescripted path, you don't subvert player input to your own will, and you don't subvert the system's input to your own will, then there is no Force or Illusionism. If that is what you're going for...good news for you! You're good!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Are you subverting a player's (or players') input into the trajectory of play (a decision-point, a declared action, the outcome of action resolution) or the system's authentic procedure results (tracking turns and the mechanics that interface with turns, where the system says you should roll on a table and take the result, where the system says you should roll and there are results x, y, and z... the dice come up z, but you instead choose y, etc) and in their stead are you FORCING your will onto play...remapping it with that new trajectory.

I don't think this is that simple. Sure, fudging is a clear use of force, but in a lot of situations things are way more nebulous. Like in improvisational style the players are often making decisions on things which do not have answers other than the ones GM is making up on the spot, and the players' answer is not something that can fully (or even meaningfully) inform the GM's decisions. I think that's the sort of situation @zarionofarabel is worried about.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For those who do not prefer formal systems for psychosocial stuff what would your response be to another player or GM if they wanted to discuss how you have been playing your character or a given NPC? Would you hear them out?

Don't people discuss this sort of thing all the time anyway? Or do you mean some sort of 'reprimands?'

 

[Aldarc]

If I'm more concerned about being able to put what I want in the game, though, no amount of benevolence from the dictator is going to satisfy that -- it's going to rub wrong, at best. This is, as best as I can tell, where @pemerton, @Campbell, @Aldarc sit -- they don't care to find out how nice the autocrat is going to be, they want to have a say that's impossible in such systems without GM approval. I'm less adamant, probably because I'm usually the autocrat in this situation.

I'm mainly the GM in games nowadays, or at least before the 2020 lockdowns. I have wanted to play games like Dungeon World, Fate, and Blades in the Dark in the position of a player, but as I was the one who had the most solid grasp of the rules, I often became the person who ran them instead. My experiences as a GM running these games, however, threw me for a loop. Not out of any frustration with players exercising more agency, but, rather, because I found GMing these games quite fun. It was fun watching player input and player-driven play. I found myself more surprised by the game. Even as a GM, player-driven "play to find out what happens" play feels different from GM-curated "play to find out what happens" play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So I read Blades in the Dark SRD. Seems like a solid game and the rules support the themes they're going for. The claims of it offering great player agency seem a tad overblown though. When deciding the position, effect, consequence and harm etc the GM has to make similar judgement calls than in most other games. Sure, there are guidelines, but so does every game. Now the GM is more restricted in certain ways, but less so in others. For example detailed combat mechanics of many other games do not rely so much on the GM's judgement than similar situation would in the Blades. And of the GM still frames the scenes which has major impact on the direction of the game. It also seems that information gathering works rather traditionally; the GM provides the information gained. With all the judgement calls the GM has to make in Blades, I have no doubt that a tyrannical GM could railroad the play whilst still following the rules. Now I don't believe that in practice this would usually happen; the GM who respect the spirit of the game and makes sensible calls based on the fiction results this game running just fine. I just feel that GMs who run more traditional games are not judged with similar charitability here.

 

[Manbearcat]

So I read Blades in the Dark SRD. Seems like a solid game and the rules support the themes they're going for. The claims of it offering great player agency seem a tad overblown though. When deciding the position, effect, consequence and harm etc the GM has to make similar judgement class than in most other games. Sure, there are guidelines, but so does every game. Now the GM is more restricted in certain ways, but less so in others. For example detailed combat mechanics of many other games do not rely so much on the GM's judgement than similar situation would in the Blades. And of the GM still frames the scenes which has major impact on the direction of the game. It also seems that information gathering works rather traditionally; the GM provides the information gained. With all the judgement calls the GM has to make in Blades, I have no doubt that a tyrannical GM could railroad the play whilst still following the rules. Now I doubt that in practice this would usually happen; the GM who respect the spirit of the game and makes sensible calls based on the fiction results this game running just fine. I just feel that GMs who run more traditional games are not judged with similar charitability here.

Thank you for looking into Blades.

I mentioned upthread that, on the Venn Diagram of GMing, the Information Gathering/Free Play phase of play has some significant amount of overlap with traditional GMing and exploratory play (and that the game’s structure harkens to Moldvay Basic, just like Torchbearer). However, in the key ways that it diverges, it does so emphatically.

I’ve also said that Blades is as “GM Force-proof” as it gets. I can’t even imagine asserting a non detectable moment of GM Force in the game (and I certainly can’t understand why you would because (a) the game doesn’t require Force to work and (b) it will fight you so profoundly if you attempt it because of how transparent and player-facing the game’s processes are). I said that before running it and, being on my 5th game with two separate groups, I’m only more confident of that position now.

So, given that I’m struggling to imagine how a singular instance of Force might manifest, I’m curious what you’re envisioning would happen during play? If you would, for a singular play loop of the 3 phases (Information Gathering/FP, Engagement Roll/Score > Downtime), give me an instance of (i) what arc a GM is trying to ensure manifests and (ii) what a singular instance of Force (GM subverts the input of system/procedure or player and forces their own vision upon play in its stead) in each of the 3 phases would look like to perpetuate that?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Manbearcat could you perhaps elaborate what you think makes it so force-proof? I am not talking about forcing some specific outcome on any specific test, I'm talking about the overall trajectory of the game, and to me it seems rather obvious that the person who provides information, frames the scenes, sets the odds and decides the consequences has considerable power over it. And sure, if the GM pushes too hard, it becomes noticeable, here probably easier than in some other games. But heavy railroading is always noticeable.*

Oh, and speaking about framing, in that original haunted painting example, if I as a GM would have wanted a player to go investigate whether the painting is magical, I would have described the room in the same way. When you describe things it is pretty easy to get people focus their attention to what you want and even draw the conclusions you want. it is not 100% guaranteed, but especially if you know your players you can do it rather reliably.

*( And if some crazy mentalist genius could do it in manner that it is not noticeable at all, and I as player would feel that I have awesome agency,
I wouldn't care.)