A Question Of Agency?

[prabe]

I do also think the GM can just decide if he or she thinks outcomes of screen are obvious. But I prefer to roll for that sort of thing because I think that is more fair.

The thing about randomly determining the results--especially if it's for something not explicitly in the rules or adventure--is that the GM is determining the probabilities and (apparently) using whatever randomized process, without necessarily taking into account what the PC is doing. That's not far removed from the GM just deciding.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The thing about randomly determining the results--especially if it's for something not explicitly in the rules or adventure--is that the GM is determining the probabilities and (apparently) using whatever randomized process, without necessarily taking into account what the PC is doing. That's not far removed from the GM just deciding.

Here's a table that can be used!

Roll d100 and consult the table below:
1- 95: Brother is Dead
96- 99: Brother has vanished forever and cannot be found
100: Brother is alive

The GM can now reference his table and wash his hands of the matter!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, I agree with this. The player and GM need to be on the same page. In the initial example, the player offered the idea of the brother, and the GM said sure, and then decided the brother was dead, and this was cited as the "GM seriously considering the player's request".

I'd expect that this would be handled better in an actual example rather than a hypothetical.

I don't know how else I can phrase this and make it clear: in a sandbox, the player is only able to say he wants to search for his brother. It wouldn't be considered reasonable to say I want to have a campaign where I search for my brother and then explore our shattered relationship or something. Once the player says I am going to search for my brother, then the GM needs to seriously consider what happened to the brother. I don't know the details here. He may decide the brother is a live in port town somewhere, he may decide he is dead, he may decide he is dying and has thirty days to live, there are countless possibilities. But settling on any one of them just wouldn't be considered not taking the request seriously in a sandbox. It would be. I think you are looking at this from the perspective of another style of play, which is fine. And in that style of play, this wouldn't be considered a fair consideration (because the player has an expectation that they are able to set out some of the things that are going to be explored with the brother). I get that. I play in a savage worlds group where we do that often. Someone might say I want to look for my father who abandoned us when we were young and have a kind of "girl named sue" relationship with him. We'd all be fine with that, and if I was running the game, and said "Sure thing". Then at the very start of the game handed the player a letter saying his father died of lung cancer, that would be a crappy move I think (honestly though I can't imagine players in my group getting angry if I did that, I think they would see it as an attempt at humor, and roll with it, but it would certainly deviate from the spirit of play and what the player was fairly expecting, so it wouldn't be a good GM judgement). But that isn't the kind of play I am talking about in a sandbox. You typically are not doing that kind of thing in a sandbox. It is almost always, whatever is going on with your brother, that is for the GM to decide. You only have control of what your character does. It is a valid style of play. And agency is considered to be your freedom to explore the setting through your character. That has been the standard understanding of agency in this context. It isn't even controversial I think. I am genuinely surprised to encounter the view I am encountering in this thread.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The thing about randomly determining the results--especially if it's for something not explicitly in the rules or adventure--is that the GM is determining the probabilities and (apparently) using whatever randomized process, without necessarily taking into account what the PC is doing. That's not far removed from the GM just deciding.

I agree. If I use random procedures, I always factor in what the players are doing. Especially in a sandbox, that is important. If the players start a hempseed oil venture, and get into extreme specifics about their shipments, and take all kinds of extra precautions and put resources towards ensuring the safety of their shipments, whatever random roll I make, if I need to make one, to determine how many of their hempseed oils reach their destinations, ought to factor that in as something like a bonus at the very least.

The reason I use methods like this for offscreen stuff, is if the players do something like send an assassin after a major enemy, I would find the outcome difficult to determine fairly through fiat (unless I was given a ton of specifics by them and had a lot of specifics to work with). Ideally I could run the encounter and roll everything. but that would slow the game down a lot for something off screen. So I would simplify and probably have it be a dice pool rolled against the enemy's dice pool (or devise some method I think fairly captures the probabilities). Then roll the outcome. I think deciding to assassinate an opponent is fair in a game like this, so I'd want to have a fair method for reaching a conclusion about it. And this is actually a point in the game, where even if I don't show them the roll result (because it is happening away from their characters and they wouldn't know the outcome when it happens), I would probably explain my method to them for clarity

 

[FrogReaver]

The thing about randomly determining the results--especially if it's for something not explicitly in the rules or adventure--is that the GM is determining the probabilities and (apparently) using whatever randomized process, without necessarily taking into account what the PC is doing. That's not far removed from the GM just deciding.

I’m not seeing how that’s different than the DM setting the dc of any other activity in the game?

mans if the PCs are doing something relevant to the outcome that is being taken into account.

 

[Aldarc]

The point people are making is, in a sandbox, the GM deciding the brother is dead, wouldn't be an act of negation.

None of your skilled play as a player will matter or make a difference for pursuing your agenda in this game: your brother is already dead as a result of my invisible hand.

At the very least, it does seem to violate the principle of emergent play and the aversion to GM story authoring that is often quite prevalent in OSR circles.

Either way, the state of the brother is up to the GM, and I think the thing that adds agency and excitement to this is the external unknown. If the players arrive and discover had they got their a week earlier, the brother would still be alive, that is interesting to me, and it gives me the sense that my choices did matter (because maybe the week delay was the product of a choice we made and in hindsight was a bad one).

I think that speaks (again) to the much earlier conversation regarding the illusion of player agency/protagonism.

The thing about randomly determining the results--especially if it's for something not explicitly in the rules or adventure--is that the GM is determining the probabilities and (apparently) using whatever randomized process, without necessarily taking into account what the PC is doing. That's not far removed from the GM just deciding.

Also a good point, but this is where I would expect that the GM and player be on the same page about play procedures.

 

[Campbell]

Here's my perspective : Anytime I am engaged in a conversation with anyone I want to have a conversation with them about their specific experiences and perspective. Anyone who is not a part of the conversation is irrelevant up until the point the decide to speak up. It's also not particularly my job to advocate for anyone else's perspective. If they want to offer it they can and I will do my best to engage with and understand their perspective.

I'm not even really here to advocate for my perspective although I will freely offer it. I just want to have interesting conversations. At the end of the day I only really give a damn about how the other people play with feel about this stuff. That's the only time there are any real stakes involved. I'm not here to be an ambassador or engage in a debate. That's boring to me.

I am not a huge fan of normative language because in my experience it usually acts a shield wall against foreign perspectives. Often on these boards I see people get shut down and told their perspective is irrelevant because they play games in unusual or the games they like to play are niche so their perspective isn't worth engaging. It feels real bad being shut down like that.

I care about what @Bedrockgames has to say. Not what other people who are not in conversation have to say.

 

[innerdude]

Are you using his definition of player agency or your own?

Well, Bedrock's definition clearly doesn't include, "The capacity for players to advocate for their character's dramatic needs and have the system and group social contract support that intention, without unilateral imposition on that drive by the GM."

So, sure, if you exclude that proviso, then BRG's games have as much player agency as every RPG game, ever.


And just to be perfectly clear --- I am NOT attacking BRG's playstyle. Hell, I've run multiple campaigns with the intent to run exactly the kind of campaign he's describing---a largely player-driven (as much as possible within the constraints of a "traditional" system, in my case Savage Worlds) "idyllic sandbox."

And having attempted to do that, in my experience it's very hard to consistently frame situations that remain player focused without some additional systematic backing.

And it takes a lot of effort on the part of the GM, and a desire on the part of the GM to nearly fully avoid inserting their own agenda into the mix. Without that level of effort from the GM---especially when using a "traditional" system---it's entirely too easy for "idyllic sandbox" play to devolve into "setting tourism."

And as a player, I am flat-out DONE with setting tourism.

One of the core drives I've had in exploring new avenues for increased player agency is the experience I had 2 years ago in a friend's Savage Worlds campaign, where he ran the game largely as a "tourist setting" for Shaintar. By the end I was pushing against the restraints on agency so hard, it was like I could practically feel the straitjacket.


So what am I really trying to say? I think what I'm saying is that I both appreciate what Bedrockgames is trying to do, while also fully recognizing that there's a blind spot in his preferred playstyle that isn't addressed through any of the "conventional" sandbox techniques he's holding to.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Again @hawkeyefan we are at an impasse because we have differing definitions of agency. And literally every person who plays sandbox that I know has said they share my definition and they have never even encountered yours. I am not saying yours isn’t in use but I think it isn’t that hard to see what kind of agency I am talking about and how the GM deciding that detail wouldn’t go against it.

It's not hard to see, no. I understand. And I hope it's clear that I have no problem with that approach. The issue I had a concern with was the example of allowing the PC to have a personal goal and then just shooting it down.

look again at the example. He didn’t realize his goal. He failed at the exams. He was free to pursue trying to become a scholar official because those exist in the setting. But he wasn’t free to set the outcome. He failed. Also this is different from the brother example. The degrees the player wants exist in the setting. The player is free to seek those degrees. He has no control over what kind of post he is assigned should he get the degree. The player saying he wants to search for his list brother and explore their broken relationship is like a player saying he wants to take the imperial exams and explore the challenge of being a county magistrate on the frontier: that last but us a part of the hand the GM controls via the player’s superiors in the setting and the customs atriums advancement

I know he failed. My point was that he was free to pursue it. Compared to the brother being declared dead at the end of the first session, that seems a lot of ability for the player to pursue what they want.

I'm not saying that the goal MUST be realized. But that it be considered and that play be about that goal.

When I ask if there was a chance for the scholar to succeed, I only ask because I think that has a huge impact on his agency. Was the player aware that this was an impossible goal he's set for his character? Or was there actually a chance that he could succeed, and he somehow fell short through play?

I think this is key. I'd really like to hear your answer to this.

The point people are making is, in a sandbox, the GM deciding the brother is dead, wouldn't be an act of negation. The player was always free to search for that, but he or she was never free to determine the brother's status. And the concept is the GM would determine that early on most likely. Or he may decide something more nuanced like the brother is in peril on an island somewhere (I don't know perhaps he got shipwrecked on the isle of dread) and there is a weekly chance of him dying (which the GM would probably eyeball and set: or he may roll based on the brother's level which is what I would do). It may even be a more elaborate arrangement where the brother is potentially taking damage as they search). Either way, the state of the brother is up to the GM, and I think the thing that adds agency and excitement to this is the external unknown. If the players arrive and discover had they got their a week earlier, the brother would still be alive, that is interesting to me, and it gives me the sense that my choices did matter (because maybe the week delay was the product of a choice we made and in hindsight was a bad one).

All of these are far more considered then your initial statement that declaring the brother dead at the end of the first session was the "GM seriously considering a player request".

Here' s the initial exchange below for reference.

I simply mean, when the players say they want to try to do X, truly thinking about that request in a serious way (not simply rushing to a judgment on it, not blocking it because it is convenient for what you had planned, etc).

Also, I'd be interested to know what you mean by taking such an attempt seriously. I've posted multiple times in this thread about the GM taking suggestions. Do you mean that, or something else?

What happens if the GM on day 1, writing his/her secret notes, decides that the brother is dead, and then in a session a week later on day 8 the player decides to have his/her PC look for his/her brother. Does it count as taking that seriously if the GM goes on to adjudicate (let's say) 3 hours of play where the upshot of that is that the player learns what the GM had already decided and had already known, namely, that the brother is dead?

Yes it is. Taking it seriously isn't about seriously considering changing the setting details (at least not in the style of play I am describing). If the brother is dead, then he is dead. You have established that. What I am talking about is seriously considering whatever actions within that setting the players seek to take. This can extend to things undetermined in the setting, but the answer is ideally based on some criteria other than, this is what I want to happen (there should be a rationale for it).

 

[FrogReaver]

Here's my perspective : Anytime I am engaged in a conversation with anyone I want to have a conversation with them about their specific experiences and perspective. Anyone who is not a part of the conversation is irrelevant up until the point the decide to speak up. It's also not particularly my job to advocate for anyone else's perspective. If they want to offer it they can and I will do my best to engage with and understand their perspective.

I'm not even really here to advocate for my perspective although I will freely offer it. I just want to have interesting conversations. At the end of the day I only really give a damn about how the other people play with feel about this stuff. That's the only time there are any real stakes involved. I'm not here to be an ambassador or engage in a debate. That's boring to me.

I am not a huge fan of normative language because in my experience it usually acts a shield wall against foreign perspectives. Often on these boards I see people get shut down and told their perspective is irrelevant because they play games in unusual or the games they like to play are niche so their perspective isn't worth engaging. It feels real bad being shut down like that.

I care about what @Bedrockgames has to say. Not what other people who are not in conversation have to say.

Then why make a big deal about him bringing that up instead of just ignoring it?