A Question Of Agency?

[Bedrockgames]

Clearly 'Toon' is not your average RPG, so I would not disagree with you that in MOST other RPGs there is a sort of background assumption that the laws of physics as we know them would adequately describe most events, barring magic or whatever. This is, IMHO, more a matter of 'relateability' than anything else. This can be seen in certain interesting tropes that RPGs carry. For example, Traveller (and a lot of other Space Opera type RPGS) has artificial gravity. Now, we know that Hollywood LOVES artificial gravity, it just obviously makes their job feasible, but why would it exist in an RPG? There's no special effects budget to constrain scenes filled with zero-G action, yet every single location in Traveller is absolutely ASSUMED to have a 1G gravity field. The reason for this is plainly relateability, we players are used to living in a 1G gravity field, and imagining most of the action taking place in zero-G, or under heavy acceleration, etc. is simply burdensome. IMHO this is the explanation for pretty much all of this kind of thing. The game needs to work this way in order to be playable and to conform to genre tropes which originate from other mediums.

I don't think 'plausibility' is really all that much a factor. Anti-gravity, for example, is utterly implausible. As a physics-conversant person I can tell you with utter assurance that such a thing is completely unphysical and no more likely to exist in the real world than spell-casting, no matter the level of technology. So it isn't adding any plausibility to Traveller, quite the contrary! I will agree that in other genres there wouldn't be much motivation for something like gravity, or the existence of the Sun, etc. to be changed, unless you want to deliberately create a very alien sort of environment. D&D traditionally uses this technique for 'other planes of existence', and that's cool. Again though, I don't think this is due to plausibility, these other weird worlds are not really 'implausible' to any vastly higher degree than a world full of dragons and magic is.

This honestly just looks like more of the same argument. But also you are accepting the plausibility I am talking about, pointing out that RPGs often rely on deviations from plausibility for magic and exceptions, then you introduce the exception of anti-gravity, to say plausibility isn't a thing in RPGs. That doesn't make sense. Whether you file anti-gravity under a trope or an outdated theory, obviously it is operating as an exception here. But anything else in the setting is going to be assumed to conform to common sense perceptions of reality. And the anti-gravity itself is still going to be expected to abide by the players and GMs sense of gravity (unless there is something special stated about it in the rules: like it only approximates earth gravity or something).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't do maps like that anymore at all, and I don't actively encourage detailed mapping at the table as I find it often bogs things down more than it helps. Of course I don't do random traps or secret doors either.

Right, and I wouldn't normally use much in the way of maps, except maybe as aids to communications a bit, in a game I was starting up 'zero myth' either. I ran part of a CoC game (it consisted of episodes GMed by each of the participants in round-robin fashion where the PCs were reincarnations of themselves in different periods of time) where I set my part in 1920's Cornwall. I used a real map to kind of fact check my geography a bit, and created a railroad schedule based on what seemed logical from online research, but overall the setup didn't really have maps. The PCs went into an area that I described and had some encounters/did some stuff, and then they ended up finishing up my part stranded on the Moon! Presumably they, at best, survived a while in the alien base there, but again there was no map and not a lot of details. I think the next segment took place in the far future and the PCs found the bodies of their former selves. There were a few other similar details that carried through from the Roman Britain part as well. IIRC the timeline was non-linear too, I think the medieval section was actually the end of the whole 'mini-campaign'.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This honestly just looks like more of the same argument. But also you are accepting the plausibility I am talking about, pointing out that RPGs often rely on deviations from plausibility for magic and exceptions, then you introduce the exception of anti-gravity, to say plausibility isn't a thing in RPGs. That doesn't make sense. Whether you file anti-gravity under a trope or an outdated theory, obviously it is operating as an exception here. But anything else in the setting is going to be assumed to conform to common sense perceptions of reality. And the anti-gravity itself is still going to be expected to abide by the players and GMs sense of gravity (unless there is something special stated about it in the rules: like it only approximates earth gravity or something).

yeah, I just don't think 'plausibility' is all that high on the list of reasons for things, really. It is familiarity mostly, and that can be considered a type of 'gamist consideration'. Now, there are games which aim more at being plausible than others, Aftermath seemed to value that, and there is at least one SF RPG which attempts to accurately describe spacecraft (maybe a couple of them, never looked into it much). I just don't see it as the focus of most games.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@prabe I'm snipping your post a bit, not because I think anything you said wasn't relevant, but because I think we're largely in agreement, and I'd like to just hone in on a few points.

Yeah. I give out neighborhood-level maps of every city the PCs enter. I almost never make it difficult for them to find what they need/want (or at least, where what they need/want would be).

Right. So what impact, if any, would you say this has on the players' ability to make decisions on that matter? I mean, these decisions probably relate to the things found on the map, but I think you get what I mean.

Think of everything you can learn by looking at a map. The proximity to other places that may matter, how many paths one can take from point A to point B, and so on. All of this is placed in the players' hands rather than relying on the GM explaining it all. Or replying on the players to know to ask every single relevant question for the GM to answer.

Now, it's on the players. If they overlook the fact that the watch station is three buildings away from their target, they shouldn't be surprised when the watch shows up. It's their mistake.

The same can apply to other elements beyond just physical geography.

In a game where the Hive is a known entity, not much. OTOH, if the Hive (or the PCs) were a moving into new territory, this could a form of foreshadowing (to the extent that's a thing in Blades).

I guess I'd rather reveal they're dangerous, unless there's a way to measure the reputation of NPC groups. Have them lay waste to something/someone, leave that symbol around.

Oh, sure.....I think using that kind of thing is likely a good way to display the threat that the faction poses. You can even combine the two. "You see this honeycomb symbol, and you remember hearing about The Hive from Slade at the Tin Whistle Tavern...." and then sharing the details.

Huh. So ... if the PCs are trying to figure out who's been impersonating people in the dwarven stronghold, and they guess doppelgangers, and it turns out to be oni ... That doesn't sound quite like what you're talking about.

So ... if they find out that an NPC wizard they've trusted (and always taken to be human, as she presented herself) is an ancient silver dragon with wizard levels ... maybe that's closer? (I think I figure it out around session 36, and I revealed it in session 62, which is about a year, real-world.)

No, not exactly. Definitely not the first example, and I have no problem with the second as long as it doesn't require altering facts that have been established.

I just mean that with any judgment that the GM makes, there's going to be a little leeway. And what's "obvious" to the GM may not be obvious to the players. So to go with The Hive example from Blades......let's say there was no Tier system in place, and instead all of this relied on nothing but GM narration of some sort in order to be established.

What if the GM portrays The Hive as having done something that establishes them as dangerous. In his mind, he thinks it's clear that The Hive are among the most dangerous factions in the city. But the players have taken it as pretty standard levels of danger. If the PCs are to make decisions that matter about The Hive, then the better they understand The Hive the more informed those decisions will be.

I would not say that the Tier system for gangs in Blades is meant to replace narration. I think it's there just as a quick reference to facilitate understanding in the same way narration would facilitate understanding, but to help leave it a bit more concrete.

Like a Strength of 18 isn't the most descriptive way to convey how strong a NPC may be, but it lets players know exactly what it means in the game.

It's a tool. I think some of the principles from that kind of play can go a long way toward improving the experience at the table in games that otherwise aren't built for it, but I haven't really found a need to do much else in this direction.

I think, based on the way you describe your approach to play, that perhaps you already have considered some of these things, even if not for this exact reason.

 

[prabe]

Right. So what impact, if any, would you say this has on the players' ability to make decisions on that matter? I mean, these decisions probably relate to the things found on the map, but I think you get what I mean.

Think of everything you can learn by looking at a map. The proximity to other places that may matter, how many paths one can take from point A to point B, and so on. All of this is placed in the players' hands rather than relying on the GM explaining it all. Or replying on the players to know to ask every single relevant question for the GM to answer.

Now, it's on the players. If they overlook the fact that the watch station is three buildings away from their target, they shouldn't be surprised when the watch shows up. It's their mistake.

The same can apply to other elements beyond just physical geography.

Oh, sure. If a party were doing something that I needed to detail out the buildings nearby, I would; for finding, e.g., stores or inns or libraries, I haven't needed to.

No, not exactly. Definitely not the first example, and I have no problem with the second as long as it doesn't require altering facts that have been established.

Oh, good. Both of those are sequences that happened in my campaigns (as might be clear, at least from the second example).

I just mean that with any judgment that the GM makes, there's going to be a little leeway. And what's "obvious" to the GM may not be obvious to the players. So to go with The Hive example from Blades......let's say there was no Tier system in place, and instead all of this relied on nothing but GM narration of some sort in order to be established.

What if the GM portrays The Hive as having done something that establishes them as dangerous. In his mind, he thinks it's clear that The Hive are among the most dangerous factions in the city. But the players have taken it as pretty standard levels of danger. If the PCs are to make decisions that matter about The Hive, then the better they understand The Hive the more informed those decisions will be.

I would not say that the Tier system for gangs in Blades is meant to replace narration. I think it's there just as a quick reference to facilitate understanding in the same way narration would facilitate understanding, but to help leave it a bit more concrete.

Like a Strength of 18 isn't the most descriptive way to convey how strong a NPC may be, but it lets players know exactly what it means in the game.

Oh, sure. Like, wizards in a D&D world might not think of spell-levels, or slots, but they have an understanding of how things work in practice (and the players talk in game terms). I'm not any kind of fan of insisting that players at the table not use game-terms, even when speaking in-character, just on the grounds of sanity being a precious, non-renewable resource. ;-)

I think, based on the way you describe your approach to play, that perhaps you already have considered some of these things, even if not for this exact reason.

Probably. I GMed Fate for close to a year, IIRC, and I definitely had put some thought into how I wanted the campaigns I'm running to work before I started them.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm going to throw out an example from Blades here because, first, I'm re-reading it for design purposes, and second, there's on bit of the rules that really captures the idea of putting decision making in the hands of the players. Actions in Blades have a two part rubric that determines how easy and effective they will be. This is the bit about the Blades mechanics that mystifies a lot of new players, so bear with me.

First, you have position which doesn't determine the level of effect, but rather the scale of consequences for failure. Keep in mind here that Blades is a 'player rolls' game, so bad guys don't attack PCs, that part of melee (just as an example) is determined by the success of the player's roll. Failure means the PC takes damage, Success with conditions means both sides take some damage, and complete success means the enemy takes damage. Position can be Controlled, Risky, or Desperate with the default being Risky (roll the dice only when there are consequences that matter etc etc). In melee, to keep using the same example, you're looking at lesser harm, harm, and severe harm as consequences in those three positions. It's not super important exactly what those mean, the labels speak for themselves for our purposes. Position is determined by the GM based on the fiction, but the players have some resources they can choose to spend to add dice to their pool once it's set. However, it's the second part of the rubric I really wanted to talk about, which is Effect.

Effect is also set into three levels, which are Great, Standard, and Limited. This is also baselined by the GM, who has three categories to base their decision on - Potency, Quality, and Scale. The base roll in Blades is Risky-Standard. Here's where things get interesting, at least for me. Let's take Scale as an example. A Warrior decides to charge a band of 20 thugs, sword waving. Well, that was silly, 20-1 isn't great, so the effect there is going to limited (and probably Desperate position as well). However, and this is the bit I really wanted to drill into, is that player choices can change this without rolls. Lets say that same Warrior decides to defend a choke point so only a few thugs can get to him at a time. That would change his Effect to Standard, which in mechanical terms doubles his effectiveness. No rolls, just tactical thinking, and you success doubles. That's a huge carrot, and one that makes complete sense within the fiction. Of course, you can make the same tactical move in any game, but the results for doing so are nowhere nearly as stark and obvious.

I'm going to back this up and get a little more general. What this example shows is that by engaging with the fiction, and declaring actions that makes sense within that fiction, a Blades player can dramatically shift the odds in his favor, and in a way that doesn't quite get matched by other games I can think of. This isn't about better or worse, just about agency. The same logic applies to any test in Blades, not just combat, so framing on the part of the players is crucial and incentivized to a large degree. You can't always do this in Blades of course, it has to make sense within the fiction as presented by the GM., there's no get out jail free card here.

If you compare that to D&D or it's OSR children, just to pick an opposed rules set that I'm intimately familiar with, there's is nothing in terms of framing and approach to situations that carries the same weight. Anyway, this isn't a Blades is better post by any means, I just wanted to throw out an example of how one rules system really makes great hay out of the players' interaction with the fictional framing in a way that allocates a lot of agency to the players.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm going to throw out an example from Blades here because, first, I'm re-reading it for design purposes, and second, there's on bit of the rules that really captures the idea of putting decision making in the hands of the players. Actions in Blades have a two part rubric that determines how easy and effective they will be. This is the bit about the Blades mechanics that mystifies a lot of new players, so bear with me.

First, you have position which doesn't determine the level of effect, but rather the scale of consequences for failure. Keep in mind here that Blades is a 'player rolls' game, so bad guys don't attack PCs, that part of melee (just as an example) is determined by the success of the player's roll. Failure means the PC takes damage, Success with conditions means both sides take some damage, and complete success means the enemy takes damage. Position can be Controlled, Risky, or Desperate with the default being Risky (roll the dice only when there are consequences that matter etc etc). In melee, to keep using the same example, you're looking at lesser harm, harm, and severe harm as consequences in those three positions. It's not super important exactly what those mean, the labels speak for themselves for our purposes. Position is determined by the GM based on the fiction, but the players have some resources they can choose to spend to add dice to their pool once it's set. However, it's the second part of the rubric I really wanted to talk about, which is Effect.

Effect is also set into three levels, which are Great, Standard, and Limited. This is also baselined by the GM, who has three categories to base their decision on - Potency, Quality, and Scale. The base roll in Blades is Risky-Standard. Here's where things get interesting, at least for me. Let's take Scale as an example. A Warrior decides to charge a band of 20 thugs, sword waving. Well, that was silly, 20-1 isn't great, so the effect there is going to limited (and probably Desperate position as well). However, and this is the bit I really wanted to drill into, is that player choices can change this without rolls. Lets say that same Warrior decides to defend a choke point so only a few thugs can get to him at a time. That would change his Effect to Standard, which in mechanical terms doubles his effectiveness. No rolls, just tactical thinking, and you success doubles. That's a huge carrot, and one that makes complete sense within the fiction. Of course, you can make the same tactical move in any game, but the results for doing so are nowhere nearly as stark and obvious.

I'm going to back this up and get a little more general. What this example shows is that by engaging with the fiction, and declaring actions that makes sense within that fiction, a Blades player can dramatically shift the odds in his favor, and in a way that doesn't quite get matched by other games I can think of. This isn't about better or worse, just about agency. The same logic applies to any test in Blades, not just combat, so framing on the part of the players is crucial and incentivized to a large degree. You can't always do this in Blades of course, it has to make sense within the fiction as presented by the GM., there's no get out jail free card here.

If you compare that to D&D or it's OSR children, just to pick an opposed rules set that I'm intimately familiar with, there's is nothing in terms of framing and approach to situations that carries the same weight. Anyway, this isn't a Blades is better post by any means, I just wanted to throw out an example of how one rules system really makes great hay out of the players' interaction with the fictional framing in a way that allocates a lot of agency to the players.

Good example by the way. I don’t think the contrast is quite as large as you think. A 20-1 choke point in d&d will have a huge effect vs being surrounded 20-1. Much greater than double.

However, it’s good to explicitly point out that Blades action resolution does depend on fictional positioning which does tend to get lost in translation a bit.

My issues that I keep coming back to with blades are:
1. The players role in determining the outcome of a success. It’s very possible this is overblown in critics minds as there may be some fairly large constraints on what can be achieved with a success. But if those constraints exist to the extent that would be necessary then it’s really hard to see how it’s nearly as agency enhancing as advertised. What I’m afraid is most likely happening are that players adapt to the boundaries in any given system and so as long as they can do what they want within those boundaries then agency! IMO. I don’t see blades or d&d as having fewer boundaries over what a PCs can attempt, just different ones. nor does the set of outcomes that can be achieved via each systems action resolution actually differ much if any as far as I can tell.

I might be wrong and change my mind later, but i get the feeling that blades is set up to handle complex actions better, whereas d&d is set up more to handle simple actions. That’s an interesting difference to me.

But agency isn’t a useful descriptor here. We all agree that the major thing the blades player can do that the d&d player cannot is set what the success state of his action is. (Well some forms of d&d play approximate this with goal and approach). What we disagree on is whether that’s actually more agency. That’s not something we are going to agree on.

2. The players ability to change fictional positioning by creating fictional details their character in the now doesn’t have control over. (Think flashbacks and possibly some details they can add to the scene on a success or via some other mechanic).

 

[Fenris-77]

Good example by the way. I don’t think the contrast is quite as large as you think. A 20-1 choke point in d&d will have a huge effect vs being surrounded 20-1. Much greater than double.

However, it’s good to explicitly point out that Blades action resolution does depend on fictional positioning which does tend to get lost in translation a bit.

My issues that I keep coming back to with blades are:
1. The players role in determining the outcome of a success. It’s very possible this is overblown in critics minds as there may be some fairly large constraints on what can be achieved with a success. But if those constraints exist to the extent that would be necessary then it’s really hard to see how it’s nearly as agency enhancing as advertised. What I’m afraid is most likely happening are that players adapt to the boundaries in any given system and so as long as they can do what they want within those boundaries then agency! IMO. I don’t see blades or d&d as having fewer boundaries over what a PCs can attempt, just different ones. nor does the set of outcomes that can be achieved via each systems action resolution actually differ much if any as far as I can tell.

I might be wrong and change my mind later, but i get the feeling that blades is set up to handle complex actions better, whereas d&d is set up more to handle simple actions. That’s an interesting difference to me.

But agency isn’t a useful descriptor here. We all agree that the major thing the blades player can do that the d&d player cannot is set what the success state of his action is. (Well some forms of d&d play approximate this with goal and approach). What we disagree on is whether that’s actually more agency. That’s not something we are going to agree on.

2. The players ability to change fictional positioning by creating fictional details their character in the now doesn’t have control over. (Think flashbacks and possibly some details they can add to the scene on a success or via some other mechanic).

The doubling effect is about the PCs effect on the thugs, not their effect on the PC, although that does play in based on position.

To speak to 1) I have played Blades, I've also played other FitD games like Scum and Villainy, and a couple of others, so I'm pretty familiar with how the mechanics and adjudication work. The difference in this instance is player control over the outcome. Not only can the player move in-fiction to increase effect, the plyer can also elect to trade position for effect if they're willing to risk increased damage. This is before any dice are rolled. It's not even remotely about what PCs can attempt, as in both rules sets the PCs can attempt anything, but in Blades, after the declaration or as part of the declaration, the PC can substantively change the chances of or effect of the action they have proposed, which is something that doesn't really happen in, say, D&D.

No rolls, just player decision making and framing. The player chooses to engage with the proffered fiction, and by doing so in a competent way changes the dynamics of the test and resolution. That is the essence of player agency.

As far as complex actions go, Blades does handle those really well, but not any better than 4E's complex skill challenges does IMO. That level of competence can be had in 5E from a good DM, but it's not enforced and bounded by the rules like it is in Blades.

I wasn't really addressing your 2), although we could chat about that if you like. The flashback isn't what most people think it is when it comes to how it changes the basic experience of an RPG at the table.

 

[Campbell]

From my perspective the most empowering feature of Blades in the Dark is Position and Effect. It foregrounds negotiation of fictional positioning between the GM and other players. Because you do not have to commit until Position and Effect are agreed to you always know what you are getting into. Between Position/Effect and being able to ask specific questions with Gather Information pretty much all your decisions will be informed ones.

That's not to say that with the player agency that provides you lose nothing. Blades is not really a game that rewards you that much for being clever. Instead it provides you with the ability to influence the setting that in other games would require clever thinking. I like having to be clever sometimes. It provides a rush when I get it right and something to strive towards when I get it wrong. 3D Pictionary is a lot of fun for me sometimes. It also means that you lose out on the joy of discovery because you do not need to hunt information down or explore red herrings.

 

[pemerton]

I would not disagree with you that in MOST other RPGs there is a sort of background assumption that the laws of physics as we know them would adequately describe most events, barring magic or whatever. This is, IMHO, more a matter of 'relateability' than anything else. This can be seen in certain interesting tropes that RPGs carry. For example, Traveller (and a lot of other Space Opera type RPGS) has artificial gravity. Now, we know that Hollywood LOVES artificial gravity, it just obviously makes their job feasible, but why would it exist in an RPG? There's no special effects budget to constrain scenes filled with zero-G action, yet every single location in Traveller is absolutely ASSUMED to have a 1G gravity field. The reason for this is plainly relateability, we players are used to living in a 1G gravity field, and imagining most of the action taking place in zero-G, or under heavy acceleration, etc. is simply burdensome. IMHO this is the explanation for pretty much all of this kind of thing. The game needs to work this way in order to be playable and to conform to genre tropes which originate from other mediums.

I don't think 'plausibility' is really all that much a factor. Anti-gravity, for example, is utterly implausible. As a physics-conversant person I can tell you with utter assurance that such a thing is completely unphysical and no more likely to exist in the real world than spell-casting, no matter the level of technology. So it isn't adding any plausibility to Traveller, quite the contrary! I will agree that in other genres there wouldn't be much motivation for something like gravity, or the existence of the Sun, etc. to be changed, unless you want to deliberately create a very alien sort of environment. D&D traditionally uses this technique for 'other planes of existence', and that's cool. Again though, I don't think this is due to plausibility, these other weird worlds are not really 'implausible' to any vastly higher degree than a world full of dragons and magic is.

What I would add to this is that D&D worlds don't assume the laws of physics as we know them, just common sense.

Eg D&D worlds tend to have a sun, but there's no reason to suppose that the sun is a giant thermonuclear furnace. Maybe it's a ball of light, or of fire.

Things fall to earth, and so in that sense there is gravity; but there's no reason to suppose that the explanation for objects falling to earth is the same as the explanation for planets orbiting the sun. (And maybe planets don't orbit the sun at all!)

Conversely, a game like Traveller does assume law of physics but "cheats" with them in certain respects - eg anit-grav as you say, and FTL travel. Which shows that in a sci-fi game even laws of physics are just a trope, not a deep thing about plausibility or realism.