Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[S'mon]

3. It is low agency, not that that's a bad thing, and you missed the descriptor 'old school', so OSR style play, which is very low agency (by design, and that's not bad). I also defined agency in no such simple way, and in fact have gone out of my way to index just how non-single source the idea is.

I don't like any definition of 'agency' by which people IRL have no 'agency'!

The OSR adventurer can attempt to do whatever he/she wants. It feels like the sort of agency we have IRL. It feels like high 'agency' to me. High character agency. Because of player-PC immersion this also translates to high player agency.

Railroad games by contrast feel like low character agency and low player agency.

Story-building games have high player agency; they may have low character agency if the characters are at the whim of fate, but this does not matter much as there is little or no player-PC immersion.

 

[Campbell]

OSR play (when played under a disciplined referee) has an exceptional amount of player agency over the fiction. The referee does not get to decide what happens unbidden. They are bound by their prep, the state of the fiction, the rules of the game, any precedent set by previous rulings, and their role as a neutral arbiter. Barring Gygaxian levels of caprice that result in an extremely counter-intuitive fiction a player's use of fictional positioning is extremely effective at producing change in the fiction.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm going to quote the post I was replying to to try and clear this up...

Given that we are discussing 2 types of player agency, the obvious question to me is not whether summing up the agencies results in a greater net agency, but whether we should be weighting one type of agency as generally more important. I would tend to think that player agency of character actions is more important there but I'm sure others have different ideas.

See the three bolded parts? That looks an awful lot like talking about the sum possibly being greater than the total of the parts. You even used the word sum. Anyway, I don't think getting to where I got to is at all strange given your post. I wasn't accusing you of anything either, just following along and adding my own thoughts in to what you were saying. Anyway, no, no offense meant at all.

I disagree and more importantly I already explained why. You are just restating the same thing here without giving one word to my objection. For your convenience I've reposted it.

The question of "how much control do you feel you have over the story you are helping to tell" is only a meaningful indicator of a single type of player agency. It doesn't address the other type/types

It does, but I'm not really that interested in explaining why again. We can disagree, and it was only a general example to begin with.

1. No one here is bound by your definition of agency. That said, I do try to address what you mean and not just the term you are using.
2. If your definition of agency is not so simple, then it's very possible I missed something important from it.
3. Repeating yourself that D&D is low agency isn't helpful. My point was that there are at least 2 types of player agency and so your statement isn't entirely correct. You could maybe address why you disagree with my point instead of repeating yourself?

Of course no one is bound by my definitions, that would be rude of me. It just helps when everyone's using the same terms or definitions because it makes it easier to keep straight what's actually on the table. You are free to use whatever definition you want, of course, I only brought that up because in a couple of spots I wasn't quite sure what bits you were talking about. The definition I'm using is pretty much the same one that @Campbell, @Manbearcat, and to an extent @pemerton are using, if that helps any.

I have a whole detailed post upstream about how players agency isn't really one, or two, particular things. It stems from all kinds of places in the rules and table conventions. The notion of questions and answers was something I brought up to illustrate my point. Also, @Manbearcat 's post above is an excellent example.

Hmmmm.... let me get this straight, you are telling me I've using a wrong term which I would be willing to discuss, but then you tell me that based on the term I'm not even using that I've badly misunderstood everything.

Not a wrong term, just a different one, and one that hasn't been used elsewhere in the thread. And based on your position, not the term, I think there's a disconnect somewhere, yes. That's not a criticism, this thread has been wide ranging, and pulling all the strands together isn't simple.

It seems, from your posts, that you are primarily focused on action outcomes and adjudication as the benchmark for player agency. I'm still not quite sure what the second type is that you're referring to. Again, big thread, lotta posts. Anyway, the whole point was discussion, so please remind me and I'd be happy to engage.

IMO it's more likely that I'm using the term in a way that doesn't align with how you use any of your terms and that to reconcile that difference you are trying to force my use of the term to align to a different term of yours even though it doens't. I mean it would be a lot simpler for you if I was simply using fictional as you use narrative. That's what I believe is happening here.

Probably, yeah, see above. I'm not trying to force you to do anything either, but I am trying to figure out when we're talking about the same thing or not.

I don't think mine is particularly unique - others seem to understand me pretty well and a lot of vocabulary on this topic is based on what others have said. That said, you say "fictional outcomes" very different than narrative control. So please give me an example of a fictional outcome, or maybe even a few. I'd like to see for myself how they actually differ.

Well, I don't know about fictional outcomes, since I'm still not 100% sure what you mean by that, but I can give you two examples, one about actions adjudication, and one not.

If your use of fictional outcomes indexes action adjudication the way I think it does, then yes, it is different from broader ideas of narrative control. Action adjudication by the DM is very much a key component here of course. A DM who has a very strict, textual approach to the rules, might often limit the outcome of actions to strict ideas about failure and success, and avoid expanding on success in any kind of narrative way. So, for example, I say I'm going to disguise myself as a old man to fool the gate guard (I'm wanted by the authorities!). One style of adjudication on a success gets you the response ok, he thinks you're an old man, now what? At which point the player has to make another action declaration about going through the gate, which involves another potential fail state. That GM, by requiring multiple rolls, is limiting player agency by multiplying the chance of failure. A different GM, one with a more narrative bent, might reply to the first success with no problem, he waves you through the gate without a second glance. Both GMs are following the rules, but with significantly different outcomes as far as agency is concerned. Don't take that simple example to seriously, it's only meant to index the propensity of a given DM to call for more or less rolls to accomplish tasks - it's the frequency there that matters for us. That's our action adjudication example.

I'll give you a second example that isn't action adjudication, nor even really covered under the rules, but is more a part of style and table conventions. Let's call it the chandelier question. A frequent feature of many RPGs, D&D included, is that a player will ask the GM is there X? , in our case it'll be the chandelier. We all know that the reason the player is asking is because they're going to swing from it if it's there. Some GMs, the one who are heavily maps and notes oriented, base their answer strictly on predetermined ideas about the space - if there's a chandelier in their notes you're good, otherwise, not so much. Even if it's not in the notes, they'll probably use their notes to help them decide if there's a chandelier or not. A different GM, one with a more fiction first approach, will base their decision on different criteria. There, unless there's a good reason that there shouldn't be a chandelier there is one, because the player asked and saying yes moves the narrative forward. This example extends to all manner of things, not just chandeliers, obviously any physical features are in play, but it also applies to NPCs and lore, just to name a couple. The first GM is running a lower agency game than the second GM. What we are really talking about here is the likelihood that player suggestions and ideas will be incorporated into the narrative. Players in the first game are far less likely to ask that kind of question because they quickly learn that they mostly wont get the answer they want. In the second game they will. Less agency, more agency. Obviously I'm using slightly exaggerated examples to highlight what is actually a range or spectrum when it comes to describing a set of individual games.

Point was Just that you appeared you understand the impact and importance of what was going on there and now it appears you are taking quite a different position.

I still don't see your point about this. I think it comes back to us having talked past each other for a couple of posts, IDK. I haven't changed my stance on anything though.

 

[prabe]

I don't understand what you mean by the dice decide. And what you mean by comparing it to the GM decides.

One more time.

The player states an action-intent (I want to swim across the river). THIS IS THERE THE AGENCY HAPPENS.

Resolution occurs. This can be the GM decides the outcome is not in doubt; this can be some dice-like mechanical thing (such as, rolling a die and comparing the result to a difficulty).

The result is narrated. THIS IS THERE NARRATIVE AUTHORITY APPLIES.

While in practice, the player usually narrates success and the GM usually narrates failures, that is not set in stone. What is required, though is that the results of the resolution be honored. If the GM chooses to narrate successfully swimming across the river, they need to honor the success, and not put the PC somewhere other than the other side of the river, probably close to where they were trying to go.

You seem to be asserting, or at lesat implying, that there is no differnce between tossing a coin to see which of us has to do the dishes and you getting to decide every time who has to do the dishes. But the difference between those two things is so obvious to children and parents the world over that I don't see how you could assert that they are the same.

Why are you using what I say for "The Dice Decide" and what someone else says for "The GM Decides" when it seems clear we're not talking about the same thing? That seems unhelpful.

Players in D&D exercise agency over the fiction by declaring actions for their PCs. The resulting influence on the fiction is not confined to their PCs. Eg (to borrow one of @Lanefan's examples) if the player declares I open the door and it is aready uncontentious that the door is unlocked, has working hinges, and is in the immediate proximity of the PC who is not in any way trapped or paralysed, then it becomes true in the fiction that the door is open.

If there's nothing that can/will stop the PC from opening the door, then the outcome of the action isn't in doubt. The fiction is changed by resolving the action.

Again the analysis here is unhelpful. Impossible is not a self-actualising category. Someone has to make the call. Who gets to decide, at the table, that a tugboat can do this but not that? I explaind how, in the game I described, it was a player who was not the GM who did that.

The limits on what a tugboat can do don't change the player's agency any more than walls in a dungeon do.

I'm not describing authorship. I'm providing an example of a non-GM participant deciding what sorts of action declaration pass the credibility test and hence can be resolved by engaging the resolution mechanics. The player isn't authoring anything in the sense of contributing new content to the fiction. S/he is helping to curat the fiction to make sure it remains coherent/consistent. I posted the example to rebut the assertion that the GM is uniquely responsible for this.

I could argue that "curate the fiction" come pretty close to "authorship" in a collaborative process like a TRPG.

If I asserted that the GM is uniquely responsible for keeping the game-world consistent, I hope it was in the context of saying I prefer to have final authority on the world, and that I find too much player-contribution in that regard makes it hard for me to keep the game-world consistent in my head as I'm running it--mainly because my players don't think the way I do. I hope it wasn't about that being a universal truth, because I know it's not; I've played (and run) games where it wasn't--that's how I know I prefer to run the way I do.

But in any event, in a game whose main activity is collectively generating a shared fiction, what is the contrast you are drawing between authorship and agency?

See my example of swimming across the river. "Agency" is deciding to swim across the river. "Authorship" is describing what you find there, and/or describing the river, and/or ...

 

[Fenris-77]

OSR play (when played under a disciplined referee) has an exceptional amount of player agency over the fiction. The referee does not get to decide what happens unbidden. They are bound by their prep, the state of the fiction, the rules of the game, any precedent set by previous rulings, and their role as a neutral arbiter. Barring Gygaxian levels of caprice that result in an extremely counter-intuitive fiction a player's use of fictional positioning is extremely effective at producing change in the fiction.

The reliance on maps and notes to set the boundaries of the frame does mean inherently less agency than a game that instead is engaging in some flavor of playing to find out what happens. That's neither good nor bad though, just different. I will certainly agree that the discipline and goals of the DM in this style of play are crucial to agency though, for sure. I think maps and notes play is where we really get to start usefully talking about railroads, which is a DM style issue. (IMO anyway)

edit - it isn't really a binary either, of course, there are a lot of stops on that bus route.

 

[FrogReaver]

serious question for all: In d&d does a Player That’s playing a fighter PC that’s not able to teleport have a limitation put on his agency in any way due to the restriction that his PC cannot cast a teleport spell?

 

[pemerton]

One thing I've noticed is that there is a tendency for some to equate player agency with having no restrictions on PC action declaration. I believe that restrictions on PC action declaration don't necessarily impact player agency of PC actions in any way. That was one point I was bringing to light in my chess example. Your player agency over your pieces isn't limited because you cannot move your knight as a queen. Being constrained by the agreed upon rules of the game (for an RPG this includes social contracts, houserules, etc) never constrains player agency.

When you talk about it in that way you pretty much render the concept of agency useless as a comparative analysis tool. Limitations that we accept are still limitations. The whole point is to be able to meaningfully talk about what is actually going on in any moment of play.

I want to offer a slightly different perspective here from Campbell's.

First, a bit more about chess. When we play chess no one unilaterally sets the rules. The rules reflect a consensus among the participants, an agreement to play according to a common framework for what is permissible and what is forbidden. No particular participant has the power to decide, unilaterally and at each and every moment of play, what is legal and what is not. There is therefore, from the start, no useful analogy to GM decides as an approach to action resolution in RPGing.

Second, a bit of a tour through some possible decision procedures that might be used if a group of us get together to see a film. This is a more useful analogy because, ike RPGing, it involves a group making a decision about a collective endeavour.

Maybe we all want to see the same film: in which case, as soon as that information comes to light, unless something has gone badly wrong in our discussion, we all go and see that one.

Maybe we discuss it, thrash it out, and arrive at a consensus. Among good friends this can work well. Sometimes it leads to bullying, dominant personalities getting their way a lot, etc. When it works well everyone gets to exercise their agency through the negotiation process.

Maybe we identify our different preference rankings, and we make a list of all the top two or three films and toss a coin or roll a die. This procedure means that not everyone gets what they most wanted; but everyone has a say (in setting up the list) and everyone had a chance.

Maybe we draw lots and whoever wins gets to decide this time. Next time we'll draw lots but last time's winner will be excluded - ie a system of randomised rotation. This procedure does not involve any sort of negotiation or consensus, but rotates decision-making power.

Maybe the most bossy or popular or loved person in the group decides, and we all go along with him/her.

That last one clearly does not distribute decision-making agency among the group, either on this one occasion or over multiple occasions of going out together. The fact that soeone chooses to go along with it - because they love the leader, or are scared of the leader, or think the leader has excellent taste in films, doesn't affect this basic feature of the decsion-making procedure. This is a procedure in which one person has the agency and the others go along with it. (A more formal version of this is a film club or similar: the organisers/convenors set the program, and the other members go along and view whatever is being presented that night. Their reaason might be friendship with the convenors, or a desire to support the club, or trust that the convenors will run a good season. They're not exercising agency in respect of which films are viewed at club events.)

We can see analogues of all these approaches in RPG decision-making. The first is what happens when the GM "says 'yes'". There is no difference of opinion and everyone gets what they want.

The second is pretty common, at least in my experience, for establishing genre constraints, and resolving disagreements or uncertainty about fictional positioning. The GM often plays a leading or "chairperson" role which can be more formalised than among a group of friends going out to a film.

The coin toss across preference rankings has its analogy in the use of randomisation to settle action resolution.

Rotation of who gets to choose is probably a bit less common in RPGing, but might be seen in some games that rotate scene-framing responsibilities and maybe is also one way of understanding some approaches to "spotlight balance".

Decision-making on an ongoing basis by the one dominant personality looks like what we see in a consistent application of "GM decides". As I said, it's obvious that this does not involve any sort of sharing of agency. Just as in the film case, other participants might have good reason to not exercise their agency and to go along with the GM. That doesn't change the fact that that's what they're doing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

serious question for all: In d&d does a Player That’s playing a fighter PC that’s not able to teleport have a limitation put on his agency in any way due to the restriction that his PC cannot cast a teleport spell?

I would say so. His ability to move about is limited to his speed based on race/class/feats/etc. without access to spells that would increase his ability to move. If he had the teleport spell/ability at his disposal, his movement range would be far more broad, and could impact the fiction in more ways. It becomes easier to bypass obstacles and to escape enemies or other threats, and so on.

Now, having said that, lesser agency in this instance is not a bad thing. It's simply part of the game mechanics and the choices that each player must make about how they want their character to interact with the world.

 

[pemerton]

So a fundamental conceit important to my understanding of role playing games (related to agency) is that the fiction is shared. Once anyone introduces something to the fiction it no longer belongs to just them.

<snip>

In a more character focused environment the expectation is that everyone is playing their characters with integrity - letting what happens in the fiction affect their characters physically, mentally, and emotionally. This includes the GM. They must play the world with integrity. No gets to hold on to their conceptions of things. No character concepts - only characters.

This made me reflect on some of my experiences as player and GM.

I don't play (as opposed to GM) very often, but I thought about my holy warrior in Burning Wheel who (as a result of a GM narration) discovered old letters in the abandoned tower of Evard (an evil sorcerer) that implied that my mother (an important relationsip called out on my PC sheet) was Evard's daughter - making him my grandfather. That was very challenging. I (which is to say my PC) burned them in the campfire (my character has an instinct When camping, always ensure that the campfire is burning).

As a GM my NPCs are not always that deep. By default they are foils for the PC's actions. So whereas it is easy for me to point to changes in my gameworld that refect what has happened in play, I would say that NPCs are not always at the forefront of that. But I can think of examples. In my 4e game the one I rememer best is the Baron of Threshold, who went from being unsure of the PCs, to their ally and supporter, to a broken man after they revealed his niece to be a necromancer and killed her. In our Prince Valiant game a lot of the NPC changes are drawn in rather broad strokes - eg Saxons and Huns who convert and join the PCs' order - but there have been more nuanced examples, including some of the romantic relationships.

A challenge in RPGing (at least for me) is bringing out the inner lives of characters, which can be demanding and generate a degree of self-consciousness when we're talking about low-key fiction among amateur authors/performers.

I think in many ways agency over the shared fiction and agency over the content we create are opposing forces. Assuming equitable relationships and not naughty word ones (where I can affect your stuff and you cannot affect mine) the more agency we have over our stuff the less everyone else has over it. Agency then becomes this elaborate maze of walled of gardens where we must carefully negotiate the ones in which we can effect each others stuff.

This was interesting. I guess there are always opposing forces in the most basic sense that we can't all get what we want when we want different things.

I think the structure of action declaration and resolution - both formal and informal - plays a big role here. Eg in a system like Burning Wheel it is made overt that the GM doesn't just have the job of deciding what s/he would like to happen. The GM has to decide if things go wrong for this character, what will that look like? So the game's procedures and structure force us to confront these opposing visions of how the fiction will unfold, and then dice to see which one prevails.

I tend to run other systems in a similar way to this - to the extent that they permit - but few are as demanding as BW. But thinking, say, about Classic Traveller: it doesn't involve character in anything like the way that BW or even Prince Valilant does, but it still forces the GM to make those sorts of decisions. Eg if a player has his/her PC attempt any non-basic manoeuvre while wearing a vacc suit the rules call for a check, and if it fails the GM has to narrate the threatening situation that has arisen. And when a player has his/her PC talk to a NPC, the reaction dice have to be rolled (at our table the player rolls this like a check in D&D) and if the roll is poor the GM has to narrate the way in which the NPC is opposed to or hostile to the PC.

And if it goes the other way - the player makes the vacc suit check or rolls a good reaction check or whatever - the GM has to honour that. The PC is not in danger from suit tearing or deoxygentation or whatever. The NPC takes a shine to the PC and will help him/her. Etc.

I think walled off gardens would make RPGing very hard. I don't quite see how anything would really happen in the game.

 

[pemerton]

This is curious. It was established in the fiction via the argument with the Count that there would be a charge during the battle the next day, it just wouldn't be the PCs that lead it. How were the players able to negate that by engaging a night time raid? Shouldn't there have been both the night time raid AND the day battle with the charge?

The successful night time raid rendered the plans for a battle the next day irrelevant. The enemy was defeated and dispersed, and the enemy captain taken prisoner.