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

[AbdulAlhazred]

You can still have random dungeon generators. I am fine with those tools. What I am talking about is the GM having the ability, when the player says I want to do X, to figure out a way to make that happen. The power dynamic is definitely a very important, I would say even the essential thing, and what makes that happen. This to me is why RPGs are so different from other media. A computer game can't do that. Even now they can't do it to the extent of a human mind (though AI is certainly catching up). That can definitely be tweaked and played with, and you can experiment with shifting power to players or constraining the GM. And that is all fine. But I still think the key tool that makes RPGs so wonderful is the ability to do that. Having a GM with this kind of power in the game is an enormously powerful tool for bringing the world to life and facilitating player agency. It is a feature, not a bug IMO

But, you don't need an all-powerful referee to come up with "what happens when I cast Icy Ray on the stairs and use my shield as a toboggan." The rules are not going to address it directly, but several approaches suggest themselves. The one thorny point is the Czege Principle. Who creates the challenges? Random generators are a common answer, but they still don't address arbitrary cases, even within their limits.

But, you can figure that out. PbtA GMs get to say when moves are triggered, for example. In this paradigm the rules DO cover all cases in a general way, so the GM has a fairly constrained job. But this is just an example.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, you don't need an all-powerful referee to come up with "what happens when I cast Icy Ray on the stairs and use my shield as a toboggan." The rules are not going to address it directly, but several approaches suggest themselves. The one thorny point is the Czege Principle. Who creates the challenges? Random generators are a common answer, but they still don't address arbitrary cases, even within their limits.

Even if you shift it to some other power structure, you are drawing from the same well as the all powerful human referee. And if you put constraints on the GM, you are just constraining that, you are still relying on human referee, but you have simply limited what the human referee can do. If you use random tables, the point is, like rules, they are only as good as teh tables themselves. It takes human judgement to go beyond those things and make play boundless

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I have never disagreed with that. Again the only time I drew any kind of line on this was when we were talking about the idea of solving an objective mystery versus say one where the facts emerge somehow during play (because that is a distinction that matters when it comes to whether the players are solving the mystery in the sense of an investigator finding clues, putting them together, and there being a factual center to solve). But this whole time I have been promoting a big tent approach to things, including sandbox play.


Again, if you see my above statement I think you will see that is not what I am trying to do. But I do think the way terms have been used in these discussions in the past, pretty clearly point towards things like Burning Wheel or PbtA (neither of which I object to, but I feel like the language often gets loaded to make those the only worthy types of approaches to RPGs: and note when I talk about realism, I am not saying that it takes realism away from other approaches, when I talk about agency, I am not saying someone using Burning Wheel has less agency----but not the arguments this post referred to were certainly saying things like a trad sandbox had less agency than those types of games)

Not to get into any kind of contest about it, but look at it from the other perspective. I can plainly see that the approach you are describing leaves an overwhelming amount of influence over play in the hands of the GM. I get that you have reasons for that, that it forms a part of the technique. I'm not criticizing it or doubting it. And there is obviously player input.

I just see that the player input in, say, a Dungeon World run by an equally expert GM will give the players many more "knobs to turn." That sure sounds like a form of agency! So, how do I describe that? You all either seem unhappy with our use of the term, and those objections come across as rather strained from my perspective. Or the response is that we're really just wrong, it's all smoke and mirrors, or there's some sort of other form of agency (which it's mysteriously OK to define) which is 'lost'.

Again, not approaching this as an argument, but how the heck am I actually supposed to be able to speak here? Argue my position without breaking your rules on what words I can use and how I use them.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Yes to all of these, potentially. Otherwise we're not talking about a living world that exists independently of the PCs, we're talking about a video game where everything remains in stasis until the PCs get within range.

Well, this is what I was attempting to get at. The conversation between myself and @Maxperson was not about some sense of realism but how much of a driving force a GM has via the Setting.
He doesn't view the Setting as a driving force.

Max adjudicates strictly via reaction according to him, any Setting retaliation or setback is designed only as a reaction to PC choices. Which means he never instigates challenges unless player driven actions are a result of that challenge. If a PC decides to drink their adventuring days away the DMs choices are limited unless they utilise linear hooks or they railroad them out of that bar.
And that's how he views Sandbox should be run.

So it's interesting
In PbtA GMs can make moves via the mechanics (as a result of poor roles).
In the Sandbox play per Max GM moves are restricted to being reactionary.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You're operating with your definition of agency within the context of tabletop roleplaying. There’s no authoritative source for what "player agency" means, only competing interpretations offered by RPG designers and commentators. Honestly, we haven’t even reached consensus on what a tabletop roleplaying game is, despite the hobby existing for over 50 years, let alone on specific elements like agency.

I’ve been burned enough times in these discussions that I no longer assume shared definitions beyond the most basic mechanical elements. And player agency is not one of those basic elements.

That division simply categorizes what a player is allowed to do in a campaign. It doesn't assign value. It doesn’t claim that permitting actions outside of a character’s capabilities is inherently good or bad.

Whether such permissions enhance or detract from a campaign depends entirely on the group’s creative goals.

I'm not operating on the definition of agency within the context of tabletop roleplaying. I'm using the definition of a player and the definition of agency and looking at how any game allows agency. I'm not treating TTRPGs any differently than I would other games.

The division as you make it seems to be made solely to maintain the amount of agency you feel one type of game supports.

That it's a chosen limit doesn't change that, or make it another type of agency. It simply means that your preferred style of game relies on the chosen amount of agency.

That easy using spy equipment to listen to the opposing sideline discussing strategy and calling plays.

Thats not a form of agency... that's cheating.

I'm using your words, but I believe meta agency is any influence the player exerts over the game beyond what their PC themselves would be capable of.

Oh, they're not my words. I took them from an earlier post of Robert's.

I haven't seen people on the more traditional side using language that speaks poorly of Narrativist play, but I've definitely seen what looks like the opposite to me.

I'm not speaking poorly of any kind of game. That I think a type of game doesn't have as much player agency as typicaly claimed doesn't mean that there's a problem at all with the game. I've said many times now, I play and run those kinds of games, and I enjoy them.

You're perceiving negativity or an agenda on my part simply because I disagree with the side that you agree with rather than on the content of what I'm actually saying.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not to get into any kind of contest about it, but look at it from the other perspective. I can plainly see that the approach you are describing leaves an overwhelming amount of influence over play in the hands of the GM. I get that you have reasons for that, that it forms a part of the technique. I'm not criticizing it or doubting it. And there is obviously player input.

I just see that the player input in, say, a Dungeon World run by an equally expert GM will give the players many more "knobs to turn." That sure sounds like a form of agency! So, how do I describe that? You all either seem unhappy with our use of the term, and those objections come across as rather strained from my perspective. Or the response is that we're really just wrong, it's all smoke and mirrors, or there's some sort of other form of agency (which it's mysteriously OK to define) which is 'lost'.

No, I have no problem with you calling that agency. Clearly it adds agency to the game for you. Access to those knobs impacts your sense of agency. My gripe is not with that claim. You will note, I don't say, the all powerful GM is the only way this can be done. For me it is an essential feature of what made RPGs tick when I first encountered them, and crucial for opening up agency in something like a sandbox. But that doesn't mean what you are doing automatically has less agency. This is why I have been saying I am all for big tent. If people want PbtA sandboxes, I am all for it.

Where I am saying people are wrong is in this framing of it as agency as this objective thing, that goes up or down depending on style. And then the framing of the definition so in a sandbox you are at like 50% agency and in something like Blades in the Dark or Burning Wheel, you are at 80 or 90% agency. I am not the one framing this as living sandboxes are better. And I am trying to provide usage of the word agency that accounts for these two wildly different answers to the problem of railroading. When people say they want to run something like Blades int eh Dark, I don't say "if you cared about agency, you would probably prefer a sandbox living world, because that gives you more of what you say you love".

I am saying when you set up the definition of the term itself so it favors what you play as offering maximum agency, then when people throw in very acrobatic arguments about the GM needing to give players the most information when they can, even if that were obviously to be constrained by setting, the deck is being stacked in favor of a play style

Again, not approaching this as an argument, but how the heck am I actually supposed to be able to speak here? Argue my position without breaking your rules on what words I can use and how I use them.

I would say, the best way forward is common ground on terms like agency that don't treat it like yardage in a football match.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I don't even know what's being argued any more. My eyes glazed over some 30 pages ago.

We're arguing over whether this debate is poster driven or as a result of the forum Setting via GM Morrus.

And it's all immersively real. Don't you dare imply any part of it is less real than the other.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not to get into any kind of contest about it, but look at it from the other perspective. I can plainly see that the approach you are describing leaves an overwhelming amount of influence over play in the hands of the GM. I get that you have reasons for that, that it forms a part of the technique. I'm not criticizing it or doubting it. And there is obviously player input.

I just see that the player input in, say, a Dungeon World run by an equally expert GM will give the players many more "knobs to turn." That sure sounds like a form of agency! So, how do I describe that? You all either seem unhappy with our use of the term, and those objections come across as rather strained from my perspective. Or the response is that we're really just wrong, it's all smoke and mirrors, or there's some sort of other form of agency (which it's mysteriously OK to define) which is 'lost'.

Again, not approaching this as an argument, but how the heck am I actually supposed to be able to speak here? Argue my position without breaking your rules on what words I can use and how I use them.

I like this "meta agency" term coined in this thread by I believe @robertsconley . That being player influence beyond what the PC themselves is capable of.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, this is what I was attempting to get at. The conversation between myself and @Maxperson was not about some sense of realism but how much of a driving force a GM has via the Setting.
He doesn't view the Setting as a driving force.

Max adjudicates strictly via reaction according to him, any Setting retaliation or setback is designed only as a reaction to PC choices. Which means he never instigates challenges unless player driven actions are a result of that challenge. If a PC decides to drink their adventuring days away the DMs choices are limited unless they utilise linear hooks or they railroad them out of that bar.
And that's how he views Sandbox should be run.

So it's interesting
In PbtA GMs can make moves via the mechanics (as a result of poor roles).
In the Sandbox play per Max GM moves are restricted to be reactionary.

In that case I don't agree with Max. World moves are IMO absolutely necessary for the Living World model to work. You react to the PCs actions, but also have events occur outside their influence.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

This thread is everything I love about this place. Heated debates about topics of questionable importance by a bunch of people smarter than I am. It's great reading material.