D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Micah Sweet]

Characters don't have any agency. They do not make decisions on their own. Their agency, like them, is fictional in nature.



I think this goes against the idea of a living world that's been talked about. If the players do nothing, then things will happen. Situations change. So the pack of gnolls that's been raiding the countryside, if unopposed, now has resources to hire some giants to bolster their ranks, and they attack the town. Or similar.

If the characters are somehow removed from everything that's happening, then I don't think that's a very great example of a sandbox, and certainly not of the living world type that others are talking about.

This is why I describe it as more GM-focused than it often sited. Because the players may change what's going to happen, but whatever things are in progress are set by the GM. What matters is what the PCs do to change, interrupt, or halt those events.



This statement makes me think you're missing the point of the living world.



Why?



There are many folks for whom those are not different things.

And there are at least as many for whom they very much are different things. You're not going to reach sn accord on that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't have a lot of time right now, but this feels a bit like wordplay to me. I mean what is happening when the GM does not provide information that is obstructed by a wall or rock, is pretty much the same idea as the information being hidden in the envelope in clue. But clue is a broad game, with rigid rules you have to follow. So you have almost no agency in that game. You can't attack and kill professor plum to assume his identity at the unversity because there is no GM who can go beyond the rules or interpret the spirit of the rules to make that allowable when a player says it is what they want to do. In a living world sandbox you can do that. And while the GM might not tell you what is behind Professor Plum, because it is obvious to him that Professor Plum's body would obstruct whatever he stands in front of, this is not an imposition on agency. You can still decide to kick Professor Plum out of the way for a clear view, or move to the right for a clear view.

But you don't expect to be able to kill Professor Plum in Clue. Yes, you are limited to what the rules allow... but those shape how you exercise your agency. You know what you are able to do, and you know how the rules work. Any decision you make about what to do on your turn is informed per the expectations of the rules. You're not making blind calls at all.

Now, when a GM is making judgment calls in an RPG, he is often deciding what is or is not available to the players. Is something hidden behind the rock and unknown to them? Or is it in front of the rock and visible? If the GM decides it's behind the rock, and assuming this matters to some decision the players are making, he's actively affecting their ability to make informed choices. This is a minor example, but it can also happen at scale, and quite often throughout play.

This is just a byproduct of respecting POV (not a requirement in a sandbox, but something many sandboxes do).

Then, in my opinion, your respect of POV is a higher priority than player agency.

 

[hawkeyefan]

"No, there's only one type of agency we're talking about. It's that of the player playing the game. Player agency."

This is not a neutral statement. It is stated dispassionately but not neutrally.

I mean, I'm operating with the definition of agency, and how it applies to playing games. As I said, that's as neutrally as I can manage.

Whereas you are dividing agency into two categories... character agency and meta agency. Which seems far more agenda driven than my take.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But don't forget its also a thread talking about resistance to change within D&D fans, so what its done in the past is not really responding to the question of whether that's all it should do.

I mean, I don't want to put words in @Reynard 's mouth, but I think its legitimate to say that in the context of the thread start "That's what D&D has always done" can be legitimately responded to with "That's the problem."

Fair enough. I have to say I don't really agree with the OP's premise in that case. Not wanting specific new ideas in your gaming is not "the problem". People should just do what they like, and tolerate what they don't, providing no harm is done either way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, but the focus was on the conservatism of the player base. And one manifestation of that conservatism is the lack of recognition of what exists in TTRPGs but outside of D&D.

It is also about the OPs strongly implied view that being conservative in this way is somehow a bad thing that should be corrected.

 

[Campbell]

Fair enough. I have to say I don't really agree with the OP's premise in that case. Not wanting specific new ideas in your gaming is not "the problem". People should just do what they like, and tolerate what they don't, providing no harm is done either way.

Here's how I see it:

Not wanting new ideas in your gaming ... not a problem.
Not wanting new ideas in gaming ... problem.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But you don't expect to be able to kill Professor Plum in Clue. Yes, you are limited to what the rules allow... but those shape how you exercise your agency. You know what you are able to do, and you know how the rules work. Any decision you make about what to do on your turn is informed per the expectations of the rules. You're not making blind calls at all.

Yes, obviously that is the case. But it is pointing to one of the key engines of agency in a roleplaying game. A board game like clue, you don't really have much agency. You are just playing a system. In living world sandbox, you have all kinds of agency because you can do whatever you want as the character. This is why I think fixating on rules expectations isn't really helpful when trying evaluate agency. It isn't the only thing that matters.

Now, when a GM is making judgment calls in an RPG, he is often deciding what is or is not available to the players. Is something hidden behind the rock and unknown to them? Or is it in front of the rock and visible? If the GM decides it's behind the rock, and assuming this matters to some decision the players are making, he's actively affecting their ability to make informed choices. This is a minor example, but it can also happen at scale, and quite often throughout play.

Again this just feels like word play and you have made this argument a number of times. I've responded to it, and we are at an impasse. I explained to you why i think this example is so bad

Then, in my opinion, your respect of POV is a higher priority than player agency.

It isn't. They are completely connected and that is the point we are trying to make. Again, these are largely just linguistic arguments being used to uphold one play style over another. I will point out, I am not treating it as the zero sum game you are. My approach is allowing both of these ways to be maximizing agency. Because both styles and approaches are responses to railroads and arise out of desires to increase agency. They are effectively two different answers to the same problem. I don't see one as being more valuable or offering greater agency. They just offer different solutions, and so there are distinctions but one isn't higher quality than the other in terms of agency

 

[TwoSix]

Fair enough. I have to say I don't really agree with the OP's premise in that case. Not wanting specific new ideas in your gaming is not "the problem". People should just do what they like, and tolerate what they don't, providing no harm is done either way.

The argument between "new things are generally good" and "new things are generally bad/dangerous" is a tension that has existed within humanity since before the dawn of the species. It's not really going away.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Information is how players engage with a game. Any game.

It doesn't mean that there cannot be hidden information. The board game Clue came up in one of the recent threads on the topic... the whole point of play is the find out what's hidden in the envelope. Players exercise their agency by making the moves that the game allows to declare their theories, which help them eliminate suspects, weapons, and rooms until they believe that they know what's in the envelope.

They can fail. They can act on less information than is ideal. What doesn't happen is that information that could be available to them is instead not provided to them. There isn't a GM who says "Sorry, you can't go into the Conservatory right now... Miss Scarlet and Professor Plum are inside and have locked the doors" or "Sorry, Mrs. White doesn't answer your summons to the Study, so you can't cross her off your list this round."

There's no GM judgment that potentially blocks information. That you consider this "meta" in some way is telling. You're too focused on the make believe of play rather than the play of the game.

As for my "agenda", I've said this is simply my observation based on my experiences with GMing and playing this type of game, and the descriptions offered here by others.



I don't think I'm "redefining" agency to match any preference of mine so much as you've already limited it to match your preference. I'm looking at player agency as the agency that a player of a game has. I don't see the need to limit it in some artificial way as you have done.

I don't think sandbox play is just a choice between railroads. I think it does allow for choice. I do think it's very focused on GM-authored material... so I think that although it allows for player freedom to engage with the material how they like (within the constraints of the fictional world of play), it doesn't go as far as many claim when it comes to player-focus.

And yes, I'm viewing any mention of "realism" as "consistent and plausible", meaning that there is some sort of logic applied to the events of play determined by the GM.



No, there's only one type of agency. You and others don't care about player agency beyond what the character says and does. Hence, you prioritize that over player agency, with that being something like "immersion" or something similar.



I don't view it as the gold standard. I am not making any value judgment. I've pointed out many times that I play and run these sorts of games and have a perfectly good time doing so. There is nothing wrong with them in any way. My statements are made as neutrally as I can manage. I enjoy these games, I also enjoy Narrativist or Story Now games.

I absolutely understand why people limit agency to only that of what the characters know and can do. It's a very standard approach to play.

Then why are you trying to get people to conform to your definition?

 

[TwoSix]

It is also about the OPs strongly implied view that being conservative in this way is somehow a bad thing that should be corrected.

Yes. It's definitely an opinion. Considering the OP called it a "rant" in the thread topic, I would imagine them to be aware of the subjective nature of what they said.