A Question Of Agency?

[Crimson Longinus]

Is it? Or is it a meaningful difference that you’re not grasping even if you mentioned it?

Do you think that Authorship being by player fiat as mentioned by @Manbearcat really is no different than Authorship as any success as mentioned by @FrogReaver ?

If so, how do you propose that the difference is semantic?

Difference between 'proposing' or 'conditionally authoring' is indeed semantics. @FrogReaver and @Manbearcat can handle their argument themselves, I kinda lost the track of that. But my main point was that if the mechanics allow you to state things about the fictional reality and roll to see whether it sticks, then that becomes the main way of solving problems. Instead of finding clues to figure out who was the murderer, you invent clues and roll the dice to see if your invention applies. Both are perfectly fine ways to play and produce a differnt experience, but I cannot accept that the latter is somehow clearly higher agency method than the former.

 

[Campbell]

I think RNG is fairly neutral in terms of agency. I think currency based systems do provide more agency, but are less exciting in play. Most of the benefit is in transparent systems so players can assess the risks they are taking.

I think agency does need to be balanced with concerns of keeping things exciting and requiring a level of skill to achieve that agency. I'm also a bit of a dirty gamist.

 

[Manbearcat]

Quibble. The bolded is not a Czege Principle violation, it's a demonstration of GM Force. The GM didn't create the obstacle, the player did with their character build and choices of actions. The GM just Forces the action to fail for <reasons>.

Now this could be an interesting side-conversation!

I absolutely agree that its covert Force. However, I think from first principles its also an interesting formulation of the Czege Principle for the following reasons (you tell me where you disagree):

1) In the Skilled Play priority of D&D (such that it persists and in whatever incarnation it persists in any given game), the GM, while being the referee, is still a player.

2) The game the GM is playing is "martial your resources to fairly provide obstacles to the players such that their decision-points are continuously meaningful in that they provide agency to distill Skilled Play from Unskilled Play."

HOWEVER...when that same GM suddenly smuggles in their own Storytelling Priority (be it an AP they've invested in or their own metaplot), suddenly, you have a different arrangement (that becomes EXTREMELY at tension with the Skilled Play Priority above). Now you have:

3) The protagonist/antagonist relationship suddenly becomes inverted. The dramatic impetus for play suddenly becomes the realization of the metaplot or AP's arc.

4) Who might be an obstacle to that? Why the Spellcaster of course (the GM would have gotten away with it if it weren't for that pesky high level Caster!)!

5) The Skill (or fun) part of this would be somehow (a) having the metaplot manifest (3) while (b) maintaining the integrity of (2) above!

So, put it all together and the GM has an obstacle (the PC spellcaster) to their goals (the metaplot's realization while maintaining the integrity of the crucible of Skilled Play). Instead of deftly handling the situation (if that can even be a thing given the ridiculous power of Spellcasters) in such a way that both the metaplot's realization and the integrity of the Skilled Play crucible are intact (eg let the intermediary of the game's resolution mechanics/procedures dictate the outcome and honor that)...they short-shrift the Skilled Play Priority while ensuring the Metaplot Realization Priority by unilateral fiat (initiating a block via their priveleged access to unestablished backstory/offscreen).

 

[Campbell]

So I do think that framing can be Force if you frame situations with obvious answers that compel players to a particular sort of action. Framing should present players with a dilemma. Not goals.

 

[Manbearcat]

Like @hawkeyefan I'm inclined to agree, with the caveat that I never played 4E (and I'm not intentionally critiquing 4E by pointing that out).

The "gating" you mention is why in the 5E games I run, information relevant to long-term goals/situations will eventually be available--any rolls I ask for just determine costs/time (such as library research).

4e was unique in that Noncombat Conflict Resolution (the Skill Challenge) featured exclusively active checks by players. If you're in a Parley, Undertaking a Perilous Journey, Escaping the Collapsing Mine/Volcano/Lair, Rooftop Chase, Sneaking into the Court Mage's Chambers, Exorcising the Demon from the Paladin King (etc), its all scene-based conflict resolution like Fate (you're familiar with that I think?) or Mouse Guard or Clocks in World or Forged in the Dark games.

There are no Passive Perception or Insight checks there. The players make moves and the GM reacts.

In combat, a Passive Perception or Passive Insight check has teeth (its not gatekeeping for an information dump). Some negative condition will trigger and put you at a disadvantage if you're not up to the task (eg a Lurker sneaking up on you, someone from the crowd joining the fray and attacking you, a trap/hazard activating when you enter the area).

 

[innerdude]

I'm pretty sure I don't believe the DM figuring a small child wouldn't be able to place his village on a map, and really having a pretty naive outlook in general removes player agency. It seems as though you think a player should have been able to roll to see whether Turlk knew geography? That doesn't seem right, and I have a feeling I'm misunderstanding something and therefore violently misstating your meaning--apologies, if so.

I highlighted the bold sentence, because this is the absolute heart of everything we've been talking about for 121+ pages of conversation.

Upon reflection, you identified a potential instinct, or approach to play, that you ultimately rejected.

The question is, why did you reject it?

What need did you fulfill by rejecting the proposal that, "Yes, maybe Turlk really does know the geography"?

From what I can gather, it was rejected through some notion of, "Well, it doesn't feel plausible, so even though I'm presenting this village as a place of interest, the 'objective reality' of Turlk being a kid who doesn't know geography forces me to make it harder for the PCs to actually travel to said village."

Which is fine---just understand the trade-off going on here.

Saying, "Yes, Turlk really does know geography, and he can point it out to you on a map," now gives the players more ability to push their in-game agendas through their characters.

They've expressed interest in the village---why set up barriers to that interest?

Why not just say "Yes!"? Was there anything really at stake in the fiction? Was there any momentous happening riding on whether the players could just get that knowledge from Turlk, instead of being forced to go through some other information gathering rigmarole to actually find out where said village is?

If the players really were expressing interest about the village in question, why block the players from exploring it? Why "bait the hook" by presenting this potential village as place of interest, but then immediately block access to said village, because "Turlk doesn't really know geography"?

The point of games like PbtA, BitD, Burning Wheel, etc., is to push GM's in the direction of just saying "Yes"---and then backing it up with mechanics that allow the players to keep pushing the agenda.

And yes, when you first start trying stuff like this out, it does feel uncomfortable. Until you suddenly realize that player engagement increases when they can just start getting to the stuff that matters to them, instead of playing shell games with the GM about "who actually knows where the village is".

This is also an odd statement, though; in that if the players (through their characters) aren't interfacing with in-fiction reality then what on earth are they interfacing with?

I didn't explain this well at all, but I think the example @prabe shared and my response above is going in the thought train I had in mind. You're right, players can only interface with the in-fiction reality as it is presented to them.

What I was trying to get at is, so much of in-fiction reality is controlled by the framing.

Either through or intentionality, negligence, or lack of foresight, it's incredibly easy for GMs in "traditional" RPG play to frame scenes such that any potential opportunities for the players to act in ways that speak to the concerns of the PCs are instantly blocked---and there is no mechanical recourse.

"Turlk is a kid, he doesn't understand geography" was the in-fiction reality as presented in @prabe's game. If that's the in-fiction reality my PC is framed into, then sure, that's all I have to work with. And in D&D 3, it doesn't matter if I feel there's something at stake in finding that village; no amount of "Gather Information", "Perception," or "Intimidation" checks are going to get that information out of Turlk. The mechanics, along with the GM techniques/presentation/assumptions of gameplay coded into D&D 3 provide no interaction points for me, as a player, to get information from Turlk if I feel there's something important at stake in getting that information.

Thus, if I can't mechanically get the information now, due to the framing of the scene, my only other courses of "agency" are:

• Make new action declarations to find someone who actually DOES know where the village is. But now I'm wasting precious real time at the table to do that. When you only play 8 hours a month, every second counts. Is this potentially more "realistic" in terms of the "in-game fiction"? Eh, maybe. But now not only am I not getting to pursue something of interest, I'm being forcibly required by the GM to waste real game time until I do get to pursue it. And I'm sorry, that stopped being fun sometime around 2006 for me.
• Enact some form of social engineering to "Game the GM" / play "mother may I" so I can get what I actually want.

Whereas, in Ironsworn, a "Gather Information" move looks like this:

GATHER INFORMATION
When you search an area, ask questions, conduct an investigation, or follow a track, roll +wits. If you act within a community or ask questions of a person with whom you share a bond, add +1.
On a strong hit, you discover something helpful and specific. The path you must follow or action you must take to make progress is made clear. Envision what you learn (Ask the Oracle if unsure), and take +2 momentum.
On a weak hit, the information complicates your quest or introduces a new danger. Envision what you discover (Ask the Oracle if unsure), and take +1 momentum.
On a miss, your investigation unearths a dire threat or reveals an unwelcome truth that undermines your quest. Pay the Price.

So tell me, which option allows the player more agency?



One final observation --- Over the past 3 years, I have consciously attempted to implement "Say yes or roll the dice" as a core principle while GM-ing Savage Worlds, but it's hard. Because there's no systematized backing of that principle in the game mechanics. It's still too easy to catch myself thinking, "Well, that wouldn't be immediately apparent to the character," or, "I can't just share that with the players NOW." I have to constantly check against my own instincts---"Well, are you sure you can't share that? Does this play into what the players are looking for?"

And having experience with GM-ing D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e, I know the same would be true for those systems.

 

[hawkeyefan]

One question regarding RNGs: are you lot saying that high randomization increases agency, decreases agency, or has no (or neutral) effect?

I would say that the larger the scope of the randomization, the harder to predict the outcome, right? A d6 will yield far less results when combined with a static number like a stat or skill check or what have you than would a d20.

So the ability to understand the odds is the same in either case, but the ability to predict the likely outcome is greater with the smaller spread.

Regarding authorship: every bit of the emergent story is ultimately authored by someone, and that 'someone' isn't often the game system itself.

Let’s try not to get too hung up on the word “Author”, right? Instead look at the two things that are being discussed.

If you do that, the system would certainly seem to have an impact here, no?

In D&D, when I declare that my fighter is going to attack the orc, have I authored the outcome? It simply happens? Do I have the ability to author the fiction in such a way?

No, of course not. A roll is required to see if my attempt is successful.

To make both of these things an instance of Authorship is to make them indistinct, and clearly that’s not the case.

Or, if you think it is, then please explain why.

 

[prabe]

I highlighted the bold sentence, because this is the absolute heart of everything we've been talking about for 121+ pages of conversation.

Upon reflection, you identified a potential instinct, or approach to play, that you ultimately rejected.

The question is, why did you reject it?

That's bone-simple. Turlk isn't their character.

What need did you fulfill by rejecting the proposal that, "Yes, maybe Turlk really does know the geography"?

As you guess later, a need for plausibility and verisimilitude. More specifically, my own suspension of disbelief.

And a small helping of not wanting to decide where on the continent he was from.

Which is fine---just understand the trade-off going on here.

Saying, "Yes, Turlk really does know geography, and he can point it out to you on a map," now gives the players more ability to push their in-game agendas through their characters.

Or, it serves as a distraction and makes more work for me, as the DM, because the expectation at the table is that if Turlk knows enough geography to know where on the continent he's from, I can narrate that.

Why not just say "Yes!"? Was there anything really at stake in the fiction? Was there any momentous happening riding on whether the players could just get that knowledge from Turlk, instead of being forced to go through some other information gathering rigmarole to actually find out where said village is?

If there was nothing at stake, why say yes? The logic holds just as well, I think.

Also, I see absolutely zero gain in having him know where he's from, because the PCs can't get there in any reasonable time. At this point in the campaign, they only have access to stuff like teleportation if some NPC casts it.

If the players really were expressing interest about the village in question, why block the players from exploring it? Why "bait the hook" by presenting this potential village as place of interest, but then immediately block access to said village, because "Turlk doesn't really know geography"?

I'm not sure they really were expressing interest, other than looking for a way to solve the problem of "what do we do with the orphaned orcs?" There wasn't any bait-and-switch; there was "these orphaned orcs have to come from somewhere."

The point of games like PbtA, BitD, Burning Wheel, etc., is to push GM's in the direction of just saying "Yes"---and then backing it up with mechanics that allow the players to keep pushing the agenda.

And yes, when you first start trying stuff like this out, it does feel uncomfortable. Until you suddenly realize that player engagement increases when they can just start getting to the stuff that matters to them, instead of playing shell games with the GM about "who actually knows where the village is".

I believe my players are at least as engaged as they want to be, thanks, and I don't bait-and-switch or play shell games with them, either.

And considering that my response to reading AW and the Blades SRD was to realize I would disengage from any character I played, I am at best skeptical that those games universally work as-advertised in that regard. The Hub and Spokes thing isn't really complete enough for me to have any sense of how I'd react to it, but BW seems less as though it was intentionally designed to put me off TRPGs than AW or Blades.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But my main point was that if the mechanics allow you to state things about the fictional reality and roll to see whether it sticks, then that becomes the main way of solving problems.

Isn’t this the fundamental way that RPGs work?

Instead of finding clues to figure out who was the murderer, you invent clues and roll the dice to see if your invention applies. Both are perfectly fine ways to play and produce a differnt experience, but I cannot accept that the latter is somehow clearly higher agency method than the former.

I mean, it seems pretty definitionally so. But I don’t know if whodunnit style mysteries are really the best example for either approach.

 

[FrogReaver]

Isn’t this the fundamental way that RPGs work?

No. In D&D play you roll when something is uncertain. The best way to solve a problem is to put yourself in a situation where the outcome will not be uncertain.

I mean, it seems pretty definitionally so.

How so?