Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Lanefan]

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.

However, there's one really big difference between chess and most RPGs: the rules of chess were long ago set by people not currently sitting down to play, and are pretty much cast in stone; where the rules of most RPGs are somewhat malleable and can be (and frequently are) changed by those who engage in playing them.

Further, when RPG rules are changed probably 99+% of the time that change is being done by the GM. Add that to a rulings-not-rules backdrop as has frequently been the either stated or unstated (or even unintended!) case over the years and yes, in many ways a GM does have the power to unilaterally decide what's legal and what's not.

Oftentimes it's how a GM uses that power that determines whether that GM is good, bad or average at the trade.

 

[prabe]

I say this control resides - and almost completely must reside - with the GM, if only because simple human nature is going to trend players towards adding or modifying setting elements to the advantage of their PCs most of the time in attempts to reduce or overcome challenges. In theory the GM is a neutral arbiter, and while on being asked if there's a chandelier* she's well within her purview to say "Sure, it's over the central table." or wherever she should by no means feel obligated to put one in just because a player asked about it.

I don't disagree that D&D (and games closely akin to it) works better when the GM have primary control over what's in the setting or the scene, but games that have rules for the players to edit scenes can work, and if a GM specifically asks a player what's in a scene it almost always does work--especially if there's player expertise coming into play (such as someone who's worked at a nuclear reactor describing a powerplant control room).

 

[Lanefan]

I don't disagree that D&D (and games closely akin to it) works better when the GM have primary control over what's in the setting or the scene, but games that have rules for the players to edit scenes can work, and if a GM specifically asks a player what's in a scene it almost always does work--especially if there's player expertise coming into play (such as someone who's worked at a nuclear reactor describing a powerplant control room).

My GM often asks me what's what if-when anything maritime comes up - I grew up around boats and he doesn't really know a boat from a beachball - but he still retains full right of veto (rarely if ever exercised, but it's there nonetheless) if what I tell him doesn't mesh with what he's thinking.

The risk of allowing players to edit scenes are twofold. One you've already hit on yourself, that being a hard-to-manage increase in setting inconsistencies as things go along. The other is the risk of players editing scenes specifically in order to unduly benefit either their own PCs or the party as a whole; maybe not all the time (though I've known some who would) but at key pivotal moments, simply as an extension of the players' duty to advocate for their characters.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is a good post. I'm snipping my way through it because there are specific things I want to respond to. It doesn't feel as though I'm arguing with them now--we'll see how they turn out.

The wizard certainly has more options. That probably means he has more (or different) opportunities to exert agency (if that's the right verb, there).

That's probably a good way to phrase it. I would think that it's fairly safe to say, at least for the purposes of this conversation, that greater ability to exert agency or more opportunities to exert agency means that person has more agency in the game.

I think being able to change the fictional state is what matters. Obviously, not being able to control your character means you can't change the fictional state. Having your character's actions not matter means that, too, I think.

Well, yes, if a character is subject to some effect that removes their ability to control their character, I think that's a clear reduction in the player's agency. It may be justified via any number of fictional reasons, but it still takes away their ability to change the game state.

But I think this is just one example of how agency can be taken away. And I don't think that the reverse is true.....that giving a player control over his character may not in and of itself lend agency to that player, not if the system doesn't allow him to change the fiction in any way.

In the sense that the door can open, I agree. In the sense that opening the door matters ... not so much. If the next encounter is [THING], whether you kick open the door or go down the hall, I don't think you really have agency.

This is what I mean when I talk about it needs to matter if you open the door (or cross the river, or whatever). If the next thing happens wherever you are, whatever you do, you might not have as much agency as you think you do.

Sure, that's true. A GM can always quantum ogre the situation and force certain outcomes. In such a case, agency may be taken away, but the illusion of it may remain. I'm not really a fan of that, and I think it's kind of a breach of play expectations.

But that's not what I was going for. My example was admittedly simple.....but if we accept that there is something beyond the door, something that will only be revealed by getting the door open in some way.....then my character kicking the door open reveals that something....and then the fiction moves forward accordingly.

Agreed.

I think we embrace a lot of limitations on our agency....genre, game mechanics, and so on.....and those are fine. I think these things are so accepted that they're being ignored by some....but they are absolutely constraints on how characters can interact with and alter the fiction.

 

[prabe]

The risk of allowing players to edit scenes are twofold. One you've already hit on yourself, that being a hard-to-manage increase in setting inconsistencies as things go along. The other is the risk of players editing scenes specifically in order to unduly benefit either their own PCs or the party as a whole; maybe not all the time (though I've known some who would) but at key pivotal moments, simply as an extension of the players' duty to advocate for their characters.

I think "unduly" is a key word, here. If the game has been written to allow the players to pay some price to edit scenes--I'm thinking of Mutants and Masterminds specifically here, which charges a Hero Point (limited resource) and IIRC allows the GM to veto said edits--then I think the GM should allow them to edit scenes, while being willing to use their veto if a player goes too far. If there's no price, I agree there are players who are susceptible to the temptation to give their characters more of an edge than is warranted. The rewards when it works, though, are ... pretty awesome, really; I just don't find that it works often enough to be worth the headache/s.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I believe I have located at least one locus of the failure to communicate, here. Player agency (as I've been trying to use it consistently) is about the players making decisions for or through their characters, which choices alter the fictional state. So player agency isn't involved in the action of swimming across the river so much as in the decision to do so. If the fictional state doesn't change--if the encounters are the same whether or not the river is swum, if the same results attain--then there's no player agency involved, even if the action (swimming across the river) is resolved. When I say "THIS IS WHERE THE AGENCY HAPPENS" I mean in the decision to swim across the river, not as much in the declaration of the action.

I know I use the term differently than you; I'm hoping that you can see what I mean, and why I see things like "The DM Decides" (as a method of action resolution) as I do--as not impinging on player agency as I use the term.

And, that's cool. But, I question the location at which you've cited agency. Simply, if deciding is the location of the agency, then how do downstream things have the ability to negate it? If I decide to swim the river, you're saying that's where agency happens. But, you also say that if the fictional state doesn't change because of that decision and intervening action declaration to operationalize it, then agency isn't involved. I don't understand how I have agency at the moment of decision but then lose it if the follow-on action declaration is resolved in a way that doesn't change the fiction. Doesn't it seem that the actual action here, the real deciding point, is if the fiction changes?

I'm not trying to harp on your point, I'm trying to understand because it doesn't flow for me. I don't see how a downstream effect can render agency moot if it resides in the act of deciding. Oh, and then there's the question of if I change my mind after deciding and decide something else, do I double my agency (not a serious question, attempted joke)?

 

[Ovinomancer]

My GM often asks me what's what if-when anything maritime comes up - I grew up around boats and he doesn't really know a boat from a beachball - but he still retains full right of veto (rarely if ever exercised, but it's there nonetheless) if what I tell him doesn't mesh with what he's thinking.

The risk of allowing players to edit scenes are twofold. One you've already hit on yourself, that being a hard-to-manage increase in setting inconsistencies as things go along. The other is the risk of players editing scenes specifically in order to unduly benefit either their own PCs or the party as a whole; maybe not all the time (though I've known some who would) but at key pivotal moments, simply as an extension of the players' duty to advocate for their characters.

There's a lot of thought on this, albeit mostly from the Forge. To sum up in the most useful manner, you have a problem when a player of a game (regardless of role) has authority to decide both the challenge and the solution. This creates a state of play that isn't a game anymore, but it storytelling. It's also likely to be dissatisfying for the other players and even for the authoring player.

Game avoid this by having one player, usually the GM, present the challenge. The player tries to present the solution, which may or may not be subject to a resolution mechanic. This can allow a player to, indeed, "edit" a scene by authoring a success which, one would hope, will benefit their PC, but not unduly because of the constraint of the presented challenge and the constraint that the action address the challenge.

I think you may be thinking of a player declaring that they find 10k gold coins in the den of the kobolds, yes? That's usually not a valid action declaration because it doesn't follow from the established fiction -- ie, it's a non-sequitur. This is also a case of the player presenting the challenge (do I find 10k gold coins) and the solution (yup, in the kobold's den). It's not a valid action in the games I'm thinking of (although it would be valid in other games that are more storytelling exercises).

To give a concrete example, players in Blades in the Dark are encouraged to narrate actions such that they add to the scene. Like, say, you get in a bar fight and you grab a metal spittoon to hit someone with. The spittoon wasn't part of the GM's scene setting, but it makes sense that one could be in a bar. The GM either must let the action happen or can challenge it with the mechanics. Since this seems like it has the potential to make things more interesting, it should, according to the game principles, go to challenge. So, mechanics in Blades is such that it's heavily weighted towards success with cost or complication. Since the action is complex -- establishing a spittoon that within reach and that then is successfully used to hit someone -- the range of outcomes is pretty large. Let's say, though, that the action fails. The GM is now free to narrate that failure within the fiction established and the genre of the game -- ie it has to make sense. Let's further say that the GM had framed this opponent as armed with a knife. That means the fiction is likely to be dangerous to the PC. On a failure, the GM narrates that the spittoon is there, but it's slippery, and in the time it takes to get a hold of it, the PC is stabbed in the ribs, Harm 3 (this is bad, think sucking chest wound) (further, this would all flow from the resolution mechanics, part of which is a severity of failure component established before the roll). The player, though, still has lots of options. They decide to mark a box of armor, which costs 2 equipment, and reduce the harm by 1. They then use a Resistance roll (which costs stress) to deny the resolution, forcing the GM to reduce the impact again. The GM downgrades the Harm to 1, or minor, it's a nasty cut across the ribs, and it stings, but nothing that'll slow you down.

This example of play showcases the player editing the scene, especially at the end with the Resistance roll. The player forces the GM to mitigate the result of the failure, twice, but it still results in a good scene of play that doesn't unduly benefit the PC. This is one example of many kinds of ways games built to do this manage avoiding the kinds of situations you're concerned about.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Lanefan - Challenge level posed by the GM, as a part of how he runs his bit of the game, has a huge impact on player agency and thus player expectations of agency. It doesn't matter that the declared action is the same at all, it's the expected outcome that's different and that's where the differential agency comes from - it's part of the table contract, essentially. Anything outside of combat is affected by choices in playstyle and will certainly effect player decisions on declared actions.

Second, the modification of setting elements indexes authorial ability, thus narrative control, thus agency. Again, it's about expectations and what is generally the case, not that the GM is deciding. The decision does indeed rest with the GM, although it doesn't in all games, but what's important is how the game is generally played at the table, not that the GM is deciding. There are many games, including styles of D&D game, where the precise reason there will be a chandelier is because the player asked about it. If the player didn't ask, it wouldn't matter. That doesn't mean there's always a chandelier, it still needs to make sense (no, there's no chandelier in the privy), but if there's no good reason why there shouldn't be a chandelier, then there isn't really a good reason to say there isn't if someone asks (or a balcony, or whatever minor prop is in question). I am not suggesting that everyone needs to run things this way but it does index greater player agency. This is exactly how my games run btw, so I'm not just spitballing a possibility.

Both of these are excellent examples of how player agency is about far more than just being able to declare actions.

In both cases you are, I feel, conflating who is deciding for how they are deciding when it comes to what's actually important vis a vis agency. In both cases the GM is, in essence, devolving some authority onto the player, or more accurately in the first case, adjudicating success with greater impact on the narrative, and in the second devolving a portion of authorial control.

 

[Manbearcat]

Three things:

1) Agency, as a concept in social science, requires both the ability to make an autonomous decision and then to enact it with the same autonomy. Merely the ability to navigate a decision-point independently is not sufficient.

2) The reason why I frequently invoke the OODA Loop is because it encapsulates all of the necessary components of Agency; Observe > Orient > Decide > Act. You can't get actual agency without the A. To observe, then orient, then decide isn't sufficient.

3) I think contemplating the nature of agency in Heist/Delve play is very interesting and informative, but probably for a different reason than some think. Its not because of less agency in this type of play, but its because of the way system and GMing ethos integrate so well to optimize the very specific kind of agency required to achieve the apex play priority (to test player's skill in a confined obstacle course of danger). The gameplay is encoded with all of the coherent machinery to allow play to express exactly the kind of agency required to pursue its agenda with all vigor. Nothing more, nothing less. So talking about this sort of play as having less, or even more, agency than games that allege to identify with "create dramatic narrative" (no matter how that narrative is created) doesn't seem particularly apt I don't think.

I think what is apt is "what is this game trying to do" and "what sort of agency (including limits) is required to pursue that agenda with all vigor."

This is also why I think agency is often very tenuous, moment in and moment out, with a propensity to go wobbly in games that allege to try to do both things at once (test player's skill in a confined obstacle course of danger and create dramatic narrative). The type of agency required to do the former is often at tension to do the latter...and simultaneously, the system tech (but not GMing ethos, interestingly, the GMing ethos of the former and the latter can coincide perfectly) required to crystalize and propel the former agency is almost always not the same as what is required for the latter.

Again, which is why games like Blades in the Dark and Torchbearer are so bloody brilliant. This is also, why 4e to me was brilliantly designed. No, it wasn't a delve game, but it was very much like a heist game with a formula of thematic action scenes heaped on top of each other as they snowball into a dramatic narrative (with the system tech and GMing ethos to propel the whole thing when GMed correctly).

 

[Fenris-77]

I think the very specific kind of agency present in Delve play probably isn't the common usage of 'agency' although I completely agree with your reading of Torchbearer and Blades. Common parlance, IMO, is pretty firmly in the "create dramatic narrative" camp when it comes to discussions of agency.

Also, I probably should have been specific about my post in reply to @forgreaver above, that's all contextual to within D&D. Sorry 'bout that.

Here's a good question - what is it, exactly, that we thing D&D does well from an agency standpoint?