A Question Of Agency?

[Fenris-77]

If you think of the "mainstream" mindset where the GM has prep notes, then the above action is possibly removing things from the GM's picture of the fiction, if not the fiction established at the table.

Yeah, thats fair. It also really not what I mean when I say 'fiction' or indeed 'authoring', but I think we all knew that.

 

[FrogReaver]

I can't think of an example for the "authoring out of existence" thing. The games in question tend to have a hard rule that additional facts can't overwrite the existing fiction. Authoting things into existence, sure, but not the other way round.

Authoring the removal of an obstacle doesn't mean you are erasing from the fiction already existing fiction. It means you are adding something to the fiction so that whatever was previously an obstacle isn't any longer. You are the only one framing that as "authoring out of existence".

 

[Fenris-77]

Thats different, sure. I might have used 'overcome' there to be clear, but I'm splitting hairs. We're on the same page then.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No problem.

That you either references or provided game examples that fit the description of what you were asking me to provide - albeit in a post to another person.

Yes, some have been offered. I feel many of them are operating on an incomplete understanding of the rules, and so are flawed. I wanted to know how you came up with the concerns you have.....if you had experience, or if you were basing your concern on the posts of others. It sounds like the latter?

I was saying you were not doing that, but that others have tried a few times throughout this thread.

Of course experience can absolutely play a factor in one's understanding of a topic. Do you really think anyone doesn't believe this? It's just more experience about a topic doesn't mean ones analysis is correct.

Not always, perhaps. But generally speaking, I'm gonna go with the person who's familiar with the topic to the one who is not.

I know next to nothing about Fate, for instance. I have the free rules, but have not had time to read them through, only taken a cursory glance here and there. Most of my knowledge, therefore, comes from people posting here. I would never put forth any kind of definitive statement about Fate or its rules, or how they function or what experience they're designed to deliver. Especially when discussing the game with someone who is familiar with it.

If I am in a conversation with someone who knows Fate, the way I'd engage with them would be to ask questions and try and improve my understanding. Not assume that I have a better understanding of the game than they do.

So, it's not that I think anyone doesn't believe that experience is a factor in understanding, but perhaps it's that they post as if it is not a relevant factor? Perhaps there are other factors at play that override their knowledge of that? I don't know why, exactly, but it's certainly happening at times.

The pure mechanics and the playloops of those games I completely defer to them on - that's what knowing more about the game really means. But the analysis of what those mechanics and playloops mean in relation to agency isn't something that experience with a game is going to aid one with (provided that those with knowledge of the game are forthcoming in the relevant details that would enable one to analyze the game).

Well I don't think that anyone is attempting to hide anything. I just think that anyone lacking first hand experience is relying instead on second hand experience, and so something is lost no matter what. When I described the Flashback in my BitD example, I had to revise things several times, and I'm sure it's still not a complete picture for someone who's not already familiar with the game.

Anyone who is familiar will read my summary, and understand immediately what I'm talking about. Anyone who is not, may wind up filling in those unintentional blank spots with their own assumptions.

There's a difference between overcoming an obstacle in character and authoring the removal of the obstacle.

You seem to be using those two terms synonymously and they mean something quite different. For example D&D has plenty of the first and nearly none of the later.

To me, they seem largely the same in the form of declaring an action for my character. That's the primary way that a player interacts with the fiction, though there are exceptions (and more than I'm aware of, I'm sure). When a player declares an attack or an action or a spell or what have you.....aren't they attempting to author the removal of the obstacle?

What's the distinction you're making?

I'd say that's a good example of what I was referring to. The player invoked a meta mechanic in order to change or attempt to change the difficulty of the current fictional obstacle.

I don't know if I like the term meta-mechanic for this. Do you mean Stress or the Flashback itself? The Stress is pretty tied to the character, and is very much like HP or Ki or any number of other PC resources. What I mean here is that it's not entirely removed from the fiction. When a PC has a lot of stress, they're aware of it. It's not a resource entirely in the hands of the player, which is what would make it a meta-mechanic. At least, that's my take on it.

The Flashback may fall into that category, but honestly that's just a question of structure. All it's doing is placing an action in the past and then letting it play out in the present. It's not significantly different in the way it functions to any other Action roll. So again, I don't know what would categorize this as meta.

But that's a quibble, I suppose.

I'm not sure I would say what the player did there was authorship though - at least not directly. Invoking the meta mechanic led to a mini roleplay session where some actual character actions invoked more mechanics that resulted in the DM authoring? that the guards would help them.

How is it a case of the GM authoring the guards helping? The player literally described the scene and then rolled the dice which is what determined success. The GM merely determined the cost, the risk involved, and what the bonus for the critical result meant.

Which does lead me to believe that I'm focused on authorship when it's not so much about who ultimately authors what is happening, but it's more about whether a metagame mechanic was invoked that ultimately led to that authoring of the fiction to make things better for the player.

By authorship, do you mean approval? Like, who approves for this to happen? Or do you mean who describes what happens? I think this is likely where our confusion is....I'm not sure of the term and how you're using it. If you've already described how you are using the term, then I either missed it or have forgotten.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, thats fair. It also really not what I mean when I say 'fiction' or indeed 'authoring', but I think we all knew that.

You really want to put it out there, in this thread, that everyone knew what you were talking about? Hokay.

 

[Manbearcat]

In the case of Fate if you're playing a character in Fate you absolutely can use Fate Points as e.g. willpower if you set your character up that way. It takes only a little finessing of your aspects and deciding how to invoke.

I'd be interested in an actual play example of authoring the removal of an obstacle - if I've understand what you mean I can't think of any time I've seen it happen if you grant flashback scenes (which only normally come up in heist games) as being examples of overcoming an obstacle; they are IME textbook examples of mini roleplay sessions.

I forget who it was that commented that it's generally a bad idea to have the person responsible for creating an obstacle to be also responsible for overcoming it.

I can't think of an example for the "authoring out of existence" thing. The games in question tend to have a hard rule that additional facts can't overwrite the existing fiction. Authoting things into existence, sure, but not the other way round.

Well, after much effort to achieve distinguishing clarity, hopefully we're finally at consensus (though I'm very skeptical of that) that these two things are NOT the same:

PROPOSAL OF GAMESTATE/FICTION CHANGE + INVOKE ACTION RESOLUTION MECHANICS = GAMESTATE/FICTION CHANGE WHERE OBSTACLE IS NOW DEFEATED

DOES NOT EQUAL (NOT IN PRINCIPLE, NOT IN PLAY PROCEDURE, AND NOT IN PLAY AESTHETIC)

AUTHORING NEW GAMESTATE/FICTION CHANGE BY FIAT WHERE OBSTACLE IS NOW DEFEATED.

I (and others) put in a lot of words to establish that these things are not equal but I don't think we've achieved consensus that they're not equal.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, some have been offered. I feel many of them are operating on an incomplete understanding of the rules, and so are flawed. I wanted to know how you came up with the concerns you have.....if you had experience, or if you were basing your concern on the posts of others. It sounds like the latter?

Correct.

Not always, perhaps. But generally speaking, I'm gonna go with the person who's familiar with the topic to the one who is not.

If we are talking about analysis then I'm going to go with the person who has the most logical analysis.

I know next to nothing about Fate, for instance. I have the free rules, but have not had time to read them through, only taken a cursory glance here and there. Most of my knowledge, therefore, comes from people posting here. I would never put forth any kind of definitive statement about Fate or its rules, or how they function or what experience they're designed to deliver. Especially when discussing the game with someone who is familiar with it.

I would, but only by referring back to what those that are familiar with the game have said about it on those fronts. What has happened a few times is two people familiar with the game actually disagreed about certain aspects of it. This has happened most often on the D&D side, but also with some non-D&D/non-traditional games (i really want a better term there).

If I am in a conversation with someone who knows Fate, the way I'd engage with them would be to ask questions and try and improve my understanding. Not assume that I have a better understanding of the game than they do.

Same here. I think you are trying to conflate better understanding of the game with more correct analysis of the game and that's where I object.

So, it's not that I think anyone doesn't believe that experience is a factor in understanding, but perhaps it's that they post as if it is not a relevant factor? Perhaps there are other factors at play that override their knowledge of that? I don't know why, exactly, but it's certainly happening at times.

I don't think it is happening at all. Do you have any examples of anyone telling someone they are incorrect about how their game is played? I'd love to see what's making you think someone is doing this. My gut reaction is that you are conflating analysis with telling someone they are incorrect about how a game is played.

Well I don't think that anyone is attempting to hide anything. I just think that anyone lacking first hand experience is relying instead on second hand experience, and so something is lost no matter what. When I described the Flashback in my BitD example, I had to revise things several times, and I'm sure it's still not a complete picture for someone who's not already familiar with the game.

That's fair. Here's the thing though. If you are familiar with how a game works and I have some incorrect assumption because as you note here - sometimes gaps can be filled in with incorrect assumptions - then it's typically going to be very apparent to you (being the one that knows the game from experience) and you will be able to easily step in and correct the misunderstanding so long as it applies to actual game mechanics or game play loops etc.

What I would say is happening is that those wanting to correct misunderstandings about how their games work aren't trying to correct misunderstandings about mechanics or play loops but are rather presenting their own analysis as if it's in the same category as a mechanic or play loop.

 

[FrogReaver]

Note: I separated your quote over two posts as the first half was about something that's only tangential and probably isn't going to be very worthwhile to really dig into. This part though I think will be really beneficial.

Anyone who is familiar will read my summary, and understand immediately what I'm talking about. Anyone who is not, may wind up filling in those unintentional blank spots with their own assumptions.

I thought you did an excellent job explaining the flashback mechanic.

To me, they seem largely the same in the form of declaring an action for my character. That's the primary way that a player interacts with the fiction, though there are exceptions (and more than I'm aware of, I'm sure). When a player declares an attack or an action or a spell or what have you.....aren't they attempting to author the removal of the obstacle?

It depends on how you want to define authoring. It's certainly not how I'm meaning it right now. If one wants to call in fiction character actions an attempt to author I won't fault you for it. I think I've used authoring that way earlier in this conversation as well.

But when I'm contrasting the difference of in character action resolution and authoring, I'm certainly not talking about 2 equivalent things. If you want to say that the difference is types of authoring as opposed to authoring vs not, then I'm fine with that. As long as some distinction is given.

I don't know if I like the term meta-mechanic for this. Do you mean Stress or the Flashback itself?

The Flashback itself. I should have probably been more specific on that.

The Stress is pretty tied to the character, and is very much like HP or Ki or any number of other PC resources. What I mean here is that it's not entirely removed from the fiction. When a PC has a lot of stress, they're aware of it. It's not a resource entirely in the hands of the player, which is what would make it a meta-mechanic. At least, that's my take on it.

The name Stress certainly has different connotations that would make it easy to assume things about it that weren't true.

I am curious on what it's supposed to represent in the fiction though? Is it some kind of magical energy? Something else? Possibly abstract like D&D hp and can be one of many things at any given time?

The Flashback may fall into that category, but honestly that's just a question of structure. All it's doing is placing an action in the past and then letting it play out in the present. It's not significantly different in the way it functions to any other Action roll. So again, I don't know what would categorize this as meta.

I'd describe the player's ability to shift the narrative in the game back to some past event so that some help may be had with the present obstacle as a very metagame thing to do.

How is it a case of the GM authoring the guards helping? The player literally described the scene and then rolled the dice which is what determined success. The GM merely determined the cost, the risk involved, and what the bonus for the critical result meant.

There's a bit of a process going on there right?

1. Player describes the scene
2. Stakes are set
3. Success/Failure is determined via a die roll
4. On a success the GM establishes new fiction in accordance with the player's desires. On a crit the GM establishes something additionally good for the player.

The question about authorship is who came up with the fiction and who established the fiction. And actually, that may make the term author/ship a bit misleading - as normally an author comes up with and establishes the fiction all as part of the same process.

By authorship, do you mean approval? Like, who approves for this to happen? Or do you mean who describes what happens? I think this is likely where our confusion is....I'm not sure of the term and how you're using it. If you've already described how you are using the term, then I either missed it or have forgotten.

Both? I think both aspects are important to authorship. Who comes up with the fiction. Who establishes the fiction. In which case maybe it's better to say the player and DM co-author?

 

[Fenris-77]

You really want to put it out there, in this thread, that everyone knew what you were talking about? Hokay.

I was trying to be generous.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Correct.


If we are talking about analysis then I'm going to go with the person who has the most logical analysis.


I would, but only by referring back to what those that are familiar with the game have said about it on those fronts. What has happened a few times is two people familiar with the game actually disagreed about certain aspects of it. This has happened most often on the D&D side, but also with some non-D&D/non-traditional games (i really want a better term there).


Same here. I think you are trying to conflate better understanding of the game with more correct analysis of the game and that's where I object.


I don't think it is happening at all. Do you have any examples of anyone telling someone they are incorrect about how their game is played? I'd love to see what's making you think someone is doing this. My gut reaction is that you are conflating analysis with telling someone they are incorrect about how a game is played.


That's fair. Here's the thing though. If you are familiar with how a game works and I have some incorrect assumption because as you note here - sometimes gaps can be filled in with incorrect assumptions - then it's typically going to be very apparent to you (being the one that knows the game from experience) and you will be able to easily step in and correct the misunderstanding so long as it applies to actual game mechanics or game play loops etc.

What I would say is happening is that those wanting to correct misunderstandings about how their games work aren't trying to correct misunderstandings about mechanics or play loops but are rather presenting their own analysis as if it's in the same category as a mechanic or play loop.

I just want to reply to this as one rather than go point for point because I think I can sum it up.

I'm not going to go back and look for examples of when folks have acted as if they know more about the game....or that their analysis is more accurate.....because I think it's better to move on. If it happens going forward, I'll try and point it out, and maybe that will help us resolve that issue.

That being said, if I'm talking about a game, I generally assume people are not familiar with it unless they state otherwise. The likely exception to this is DD, but even then, there are so many editions and retroclones and branches of it that it's silly to assume anyone's on the same page.

So when I explain games, I know that my explanation is imperfect. It's a byproduct of this being a kind of casual interface that I mostly do on my phone to pass the time a bit here and there. I applaud those who have typed up deep and meaningful analysis in this thread and in others. I realize that my posts pale in comparison.

It's not always easy to pick up when someone has misinterpreted or when I've explained things poorly. Sometimes it is. Sometimes I'll see it easier when other posters are talking past each other, but I'll miss it when it's me.

So I ask questions. When someone tells me "this is what I meant" or "I'm using this word this way" I generally try to acknowledge that rather than argue the definition. Yes, I think common terminology would help in these matters...and I think certain ones make sense to try and pin down (like, agency in the case of this thread given its central to the discussion) but I know that's not something that's always gonna happen, so I'd rather get to the discussion rather than argue definitions.

I think there's some really interesting posts being made, and really interesting examples being put forth. I'd love for the conversation to be about those rather than disagreement on the exact definition of a term.