A Question Of Agency?

[Neonchameleon]

There are three pages. Do I need more to run this, or is that all you need ?

Here's where I'm going to disagree with @Aldarc and @Fenris-77 ; that's all the rules you need, but being able to run it freely requires knowing a bit about PBTA (and a bit about OSR) design assumptions and it's taking from both. If you've already run a Powered by the Apocalypse game it's all you need (and contains absolutely all the rules) but it gets to be so short by not making explicit common design assumptions.

 

[prabe]

This is what I've been saying from the page one. It is highly subjective and the thing that actually matters is if the players feel that they have sufficient agency. If they do, great, if they don't, a convoluted theoretical model showing that they actually have plenty of agency isn't gonna help one bit.

Agreed, especially the last sentence. I'm pretty clear that the combination of mechanically-mandated complicated success (as in, the probabilities at least seem to make it the most-common outcome) and really narrow story premises of Pbta and FitD games would make me feel practically straitjacketed as a player, no matter how well someone could demonstrate to me that as a player I would have at least as much agency as in a well-run game of 5E.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Here's where I'm going to disagree with @Aldarc and @Fenris-77 ; that's all the rules you need, but being able to run it freely requires knowing a bit about PBTA (and a bit about OSR) design assumptions and it's taking from both. If you've already run a Powered by the Apocalypse game it's all you need (and contains absolutely all the rules) but it gets to be so short by not making explicit common design assumptions.

Is there an easy PbtA book that could serve as a base for this?

 

[Fenris-77]

Player agency does not equal player enjoyment. However, just because someone enjoys X game experience doesn't mean they get to say it has oodles of agency when it actually doesn't and what they actually mean is I like that style a lot and don't care about agency.

 

[Campbell]

Is there an easy PbtA book that could serve as a base for this?

I think the best game as primer is Apocalypse World, but what's most important is understanding the GM move cycle. I like to think of it like sparring. You threaten or provide opportunities and then you respond based on the actions players take.

This series of articles is probably the best explanation I have seen.

 

[Manbearcat]

If people want this thread to go anywhere, give it focus and start posting actual play excerpts.

I tried to do this twice; (i) developing an agency matrix and (ii) examination of the play loop of a day’s journey through the wilderness in Sandbox Gaming.

The first effort found little purchase so I’m probably done with it.

The second should have more purchase (it’s much less entangled) but has yet to have much. I posted the idea:

1) Describe the play loop of a day’s wilderness journey in your Sandbox Game. I did that.

2) Post an actual play excerpt (not story hour...how all facets of the machinery of play resolved and changed states from “set out” to “make camp”). I did that.

This is the best way I know to actually have these conversations. Zoom in on something > play excerpt > collectively analyze.

 

[Fenris-77]

Is there an easy PbtA book that could serve as a base for this?

There's a good article on the basics here, with some links to games and further how-tos. There is also a fan-made Dungeon World SRD that will get you rolling.

 

[Campbell]

Player agency does not equal player enjoyment. However, just because someone enjoys X game experience doesn't mean they get to say it has oodles of agency when it actually doesn't and what they actually mean is I like that style a lot and don't care about agency.

I would actually argue that when it comes to games you want neither too little or too much. If you have too little agency there is no real game because you cannot make a meaningful impact on your environment, It's tilting at windmills. Too much and there is no game because there is no challenge. Part of the design of any good game is leaving you wanting more influence than you have and providing the tools to get it.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Manbearcat - did you have any thoughts on that three tiered model of agency I posted upstream, as far as how it maps onto yours? I feel like I may have missed your matrix post(s) too, this thread has moved pretty quickly for a thread that hasn't really gone very far recently.

 

[Fenris-77]

I would actually argue that when it comes to games you want neither too little or too much. If you have too little agency there is no real game because you cannot make a meaningful impact on your environment, It's tilting at windmills. Too much and there is no game because there is no challenge. Part of the design of any good game is leaving you wanting more influence than you have and providing the tools to get it.

Sure, I'd agree that for a lot of folks there's a sweet spot in the middle. That's not really what I meant though. I'd also completely disagree that high agency means low challenge. PbtA is high agency, true open sandboxes are high agency, and neither are cake walk games. I think maybe you have the upper limit of your agency detector set too high.