D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Arilyn]

But in the DW game, the player just sits back happily because they KNOW everything the GM does is to make an engaging, beautiful game for everyone to enjoy. After all, not only do the rules say that, but the GM will often echo the rules.

Your version of what narrativist games are, if true, would mean nobody would play these games. This is obviously not true. Pemerton has written many detailed posts about how these games are run, and has written many play reports. You have read them. So how do you get your posted impressions?

As someone who enjoys both traditional and narrative games, I can assure you they play differently at the table, and are both fun and engaing for me. Others vastly prefer one style over the other. But just because you either don't understand the difference, or don't choose to understand the difference does not make narrative games broken, surreal, less complex or ridiculously easy for the players. Give one a whirl. Maybe you'll like it, or if not, you'll gain an understanding of why you don't.

 

[Campbell]

Here's how I see things:

A GM has no authority except that which is granted to them by the game we all agree to play together. Can rules text make anyone do anything? Not really. That's not just true of roleplaying games. It's also true of board games and card games. It's also largely true of laws, employment policies or any sort of rules. Their value relies on taking them seriously as compact between the parties that agree to them.

Where Story Now games usually differ from more traditional models is that they lack hidden components. Everything is table facing. I can tell when scenes are not being framed in the ways a game is expecting. I can largely tell in aggregate when the principles of play are not being upheld. That provides a level of accountability that is not nearly as present in more traditional play.

Does that mean I can force anyone to do anything? No. It does not, but that's why we all hold each other accountable. That's the way society works. More importantly that's the way games fundamentally work. Mutual agreement we all enforce together.

Note: I am not suggesting this is superior to other authority models.

 

[Reynard]

Just answering the thread title: the whole point.

 

[Campbell]

This is another digression, but [most*] Story Now games are not oriented towards overcoming challenges. Your expected agenda as a player in Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Sorcerer, Monsterhearts, My Life With Master and Masks is not to overcome obstacles in pursuit of your character's goals. A skilled player is not judged by success, but by advocating for their character and making thematically compelling moves. The challenges presented are more about how your character changes as a person. Will you do it? is less at stake than who are you really?. Scenes are framed to challenge our conceptions of these characters rather than to test their capabilities.

* Games like Blades in the Dark, Mouseguard, Stonetop and Torchbearer mix an element of challenge-oriented design with Story Now techniques.

 

[bloodtide]

Your version of what narrativist games are, if true, would mean nobody would play these games. This is obviously not true. Pemerton has written many detailed posts about how these games are run, and has written many play reports. You have read them. So how do you get your posted impressions?

What part do you say people would not play?

And...well the examples are all over the place. And if he responds he is likely to say "he just makes up beyond awesome stuff on the fly in less then a second". And when I point out that is impossible, then he will say "oh I have lots of detailed notes", but I'm sure he would say it's not an "offical adventure type module" because he only made up roughly 50% to 99% of a "typical adventure module" and as long as he stays under that it's not a "typical adventure module".

As someone who enjoys both traditional and narrative games, I can assure you they play differently at the table, and are both fun and engaing for me. Others vastly prefer one style over the other. But just because you either don't understand the difference, or don't choose to understand the difference does not make narrative games broken, surreal, less complex or ridiculously easy for the players. Give one a whirl. Maybe you'll like it, or if not, you'll gain an understanding of why you don't.

Well, I'm saying improv or on the fly games are less complex then any game where the DM does any amount of prep and more so makes an adventure. There simply is no way this is not true.

Where Story Now games usually differ from more traditional models is that they lack hidden components. Everything is table facing. I can tell when scenes are not being framed in the ways a game is expecting. I can largely tell in aggregate when the principles of play are not being upheld. That provides a level of accountability that is not nearly as present in more traditional play.

But how do you see it? What about the game make it so?

The rules say "the GM must make engaging stuff". Ok...most GMs can do that.....but not everyone will always agree all the time what is or is not engaging. But this just takes you right back to the problem in nearly every RPG. The GM says "x", but the players think it should be "y".

This is another digression, but [most*] Story Now games are not oriented towards overcoming challenges.

Advocating for a fictional character? How does a fictional character change "as a person"? This really makes no sense to me.

I do love player based games (NOT any set game system) but where I as the DM focus on the player. I'm just about always teaching players something in game play. Often simple and direct things, but just as often deep ones. But players are real people....not fictional characters.

 

[pemerton]

Sure, but the DM can still be played. Let me ask you this. Is there any point at which things are not a vote and the DM has discretion with anything?

I really don't know. All I did was glance over the rules, which is why I didn't know about the voting process.

Then that's all that's really required for the possibility to game the DM. It's not a slight on the playstyle. Just an observation that essentially all RPGs involve the ability to game the DM.

You still haven't told me what "playing the GM" looks like.

By "playing", in this context, I assume you mean something like to manipulate to advantage. What does this look like in BW? What sorts of advantages are you envisaging resulting from manipulating the GM?

 

[Maxperson]

You still haven't told me what "playing the GM" looks like.

Why does it matter? It can happen as a general thing wherever a DM has discretion, so we don't need a specific example.

By "playing", in this context, I assume you mean something like to manipulate to advantage. What does this look like in BW? What sorts of advantages are you envisaging resulting from manipulating the GM?

Various. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that DMs of that system are able to be played just as in any other RPG that has a DM.

 

[pointofyou]

And...well the examples are all over the place. And if he responds he is likely to say "he just makes up beyond awesome stuff on the fly in less then a second". And when I point out that is impossible, then he will say "oh I have lots of detailed notes", but I'm sure he would say it's not an "offical adventure type module" because he only made up roughly 50% to 99% of a "typical adventure module" and as long as he stays under that it's not a "typical adventure module".

The rules say "the GM must make engaging stuff". Ok...most GMs can do that.....but not everyone will always agree all the time what is or is not engaging. But this just takes you right back to the problem in nearly every RPG. The GM says "x", but the players think it should be "y".

How many times will you need to be told that's not how those games work before you will believe that's not how those games work?

 

[pemerton]

I still wonder "how" do rules give players agency? You never say it, so my guess is your saying "the rules"......somehow" are "forcing" the GM to do something?

I have explained repeatedly.

A rule which requires the GM to have regard to story elements, and protagonist goals, that the players have established as mattering to their PCs, is a rule which gives the players agency. As I said back in post 211,

in the RPGs I know that have higher player agency, the players cannot "alter game reality" in the way some posters in this thread are talking about. Rather, they establish their own goals and aspirations for their PCs (including working with the group collectively to establish the appropriate backstory and setting elements to underpin those goals and aspirations), and then the GM relies on those goals and aspirations as cues for their own narration of framing and consequence.​

That's it. It's not complicated.

The most basic point, to reiterate, is this: the GM frames scenes, and narrates consequences, having regard to the goals and aspirations that the players have established for their PCs.

This sounds vague enough to be a normal RPG. But you say it's not.

It's not vague. It's quite precise.

You give lots of examples of actual play. They read like typical sessions. But then you say there is "player agency" in there somewhere.

Well they look like typical sessions to me too! But given the visceral response they seem to generate from various ENworld posters, apparently they are not typical. The idea of the GM framing scenes, and narrating consequences, having regard to something other than the GM's imaginary conception of the setting and situation evokes a lot of controversy.

Maybe you can break it down a bit more as I'm missing it.

In post 581 upthread, I posted an actual play report of a meeting between high level 4e D&D PCs and Yan-C-Bin; here it is again:

The PCs erected a magic circle around the Mausoleum of the Raven Queen, in order to prevent anyone from entering it and potentially learning her true name (backstory here); then rested; then scried on the tarrasque, which they knew to have recently begun marauding in the mortal world, identifying its location and noting that it was being observed by maruts. They decided that, to return to the mortal world to confront the tarrasque they would first teleport to their abandoned Thundercloud Tower, and then take that with them through another conjured portal and fly it to where the tarrasque is.

<snip>

When the PCs step through the portal from their resting place to the top of the tower, they find that it is not where they left it - on the disintegrating 66th layer of the Abyss - but rather in the palace of Yan-C-Bin on the Elemental Chaos. This brought the PCs, and especially the chaos sorcerer, into discussion with the djinni who had retaken possession of the tower and were repurposing it for the coming Dusk War. Mechanically, this situation was resolved as a skill challenge.

Sirrajadt, the leader of the djinni, explained that the djinni were finally breaking free of the imprisonment they had suffered after fighting for their freedom the last time (ie with the primordials against the gods in the Dawn War), and were not going to be re-imprisoned or bound within the Lattice of Heaven, and hence were gearing up to fight again in the Dusk War. He further explained that only Yan-C-Bin (Prince of Evil Air Elementals) and the Elder Elemental Eye could lead them to victory in the Dusk War.

The PCs both asserted their power (eg the paladin pointed out that the reason the djinni have been released from their prisons is because the PCs killed Torog, the god of imprisonment), and denied the necessity for a coming Dusk War, denouncing warmongers on both sides (especially the Elder Elemental Eye, whom Sirrajadt was stating was the only being who could guarantee the Djinni their freedom) and announcing themselves as a "third way", committed to balancing the chaos against the heavens and ensuring the endurance of the mortal world.

Sirrajadt was insisting that the PCs accompany him to meet Yan-C-Bin, declaring that mercy would be shown to all but the sorcerer. (The reason for this is that the chaos sorcerer - who is a Primordial Adept and Resurgent Primordial - has long been a servant of Chan, the Queen of Good Air Elementals, who sided with the gods during the Dawn War and is resolutely opposed to the Prince of Evil Air Elementals; hence the sorcerer is a sworn enemy of Yan-C-Bin.) As the PCs continued to debate the point and explain their "third way" reasoning (mechanically, getting closer to success in the skill challenge), Sirrajadt - sufficiently unsettled by their claims - invited them all to resolve the matter in conversation with Yan-C-Bin, who moreso than him would be able to explain the situation. The PCs therefore went to meet Yan-C-Bin himself, as guests and not as prisoners - not even the sorcerer.

Yan-C-Bin greeted them, but mocked the sorcerer and his service to Chan. There was some back and forth, and some of the same points were made. Then the PC fighter/cleric Eternal Defender, who has recently taken up the divine portfolio of imprisonment (which position became vacant after the PCs killed Torog), spoke. Both in the fiction and at the table this was the pivotal moment. The player gave an impassioned and quite eloquent speech, which went for several minutes with his eyes locked on mine. (We tend to be quite a causal table as far as performance, in-character vs third person description of one's PC vs out-of-character goes.) He explained (in character) that he would personally see to it that no djinni would be unjustly imprisoned, if they now refrained from launching the Dusk War; but that if they acted rashly and unjustly they could look forward to imprisonment or enslavement forever.

The player rolled his Intimidate check (with a +2 bonus granted by me because of his speech, far more impassioned and "in character" than is typical for our pretty laid-back table) and succeeded. It didn't persuade Yan-C-Bin - his allegiance to the Elder Elemental Eye is not going to be swayed by a mere godling - but the players' goal wasn't to persaude Yan-C-Bin of the merits of their third way, but rather to avoid being imprisoned by him and to sway the djinni. Which is exacty what happened: this speech sufficiently impressed the djinni audience that Yan-C-Bin could not just ignore it, and hence he grudgingly acquiesced to the PCs' request, agreeing to let the PCs take the Thundercloud Tower and go and confront the tarrasque - but expressing doubt that they would realise their "third way", and with a final mocking remark that they would see for whom the maruts with the tarrasque were acting.

And here is some further discussion, that elaborates on the agency exercised by the players:

*The reason the Raven Queen and her Mausoleum were an element in play is because multiple players had built PCs who were Raven Queen devotees, and their relationship to the Raven Queen (as well as the more ambiguous relationship to her of the other PCs) had been an ongoing element in the game;

*The Thundercloud Tower was an element in play because, first, a player had put it on a wishlist and his PC had found it:

In an earlier session (linked to above), the PCs had helped an eladrin noble deal with a demon that was cursing his apple grove. I told the players that the noble gave them a reward, and gave them licence to choose their own item or items of 28th level or equivalent value. They chose some sensible, eladrin-noble-appropriate stuff (a couple of elfin chain shirts, the winged boots, a ring of regeneration and a surge-boosting belt) but the player of the sorcerer also liked the idea of the 25th level magical vehicle the Thundercloud Tower (from a Dungeon magazine, maybe one of the Giants ones). It seemed unlikely that an eladrin noble had such a thing on-hand to gift to them, so we agreed that the best they got was to learn rumour of its existence on the Elemental Chaos from the noble, while discussing the threat that the Elemental Chaos (especially its giants) poses to the Feywild.

It had already been discussed that the Glacial Rift was very cold (the PCs are under the protection of an Endure Primordial Elements ritual, cast by the sorcerer), infused with the stuff of the Elemental Chaos. And so the player of the sorcerer decided that perhaps the Thundercloud Tower was somewhere here, having crossed over from the Elemental Chaos. This actually wasn't as farfetched as it might seem, because I had already decided that the mad Storm Giant Mirkamaur (sp?), a servant of the Crushing Wave detailed in the Plane Below, was visiting the giants (in the original I think it is a storm giant princess who is in the lower levels), and a Thundercloud Tower seemed like the sort of vehicle that he might travel in.

So the player made a perception check, assisted by the player of the paladin, and indeed they realised that one of the spires of rock half-buried in snow and wind-blown ice was in fact not a natural outcropping at all, but a 30' tall tower. They made their way in, up the stairs and to the top where the drow made an Arcana check to attune himself to the control circle for the tower. The next round they were up and away.

and second, because after it was abandoned in the Abyss the players had now declared action to try and recover it;

*Yan-C-Bin is an element in play because one of the players had chosen to play a chaos sorcerer who is an Emergent Primordial, who is a servant of Chan the Queen of Good Air Elementals and hence an implacable foe of Yan-C-Bin;

*The question of the Dusk War is in play because the whole trajectory of play, driven by the various PCs and their relationships to Law (Erathis, Moradin) and Chaos (the sorcerer) and Destiny (the Raven Queen) had made this a central focus of the campaign;

*The stakes of the confrontation are the matters that have been brought into play by the players: will they get their Tower back? will Yan-C-Bin and the Djinn aid them or thwart them? is the Dusk War coming, or can it be held off?

*The resolution of the confrontation is not pre-determined by the GM, nor is it decided by the GM based on extrapolation from what would "make sense" as a reaction by the Djinn or Yan-C-Bin; it is resolved by applying the skill challenge rules.​

I hope that provides a clear illustration and account of high player agency D&D play.

GM: "The vault door is locked"
Player: "Whatever GM, my character does their Door Action Ability...and got a total of 17, and as per page 11 of The Rules, My character opens the door! All Hail the Rules!"
GM (looks down utterly defeated and powerless) "Yes, your character opens the door...All Hail the Rules!"

This doesn't tell us anything about player agency. Why is a locked vault a focus of play? What is the PC hoping to find, and who - player or GM - made that a concern of play? And who decides what the PC finds if they successfully open the door?

In addition, you seem to think that the "Door Action Ability" is something outrageous, whereas PC builds that have a percentage chance to open locked doors have been a part of D&D almost since the game's inception.

it SOUNDS like your saying "The Rules" can be used by the players to over power and over rule the GM. Like the GM says "the door is locked and your character can't open it". Then the player whips out a rule like a 'reverse Uno card' and says "Ha I got a 17 for my Action Check and my character opens the door! All hail the rules!" So over rifing or over ruling the GM is "player agency".

I'm taking it for granted that the rules are followed, yes. On its own this doesn't tell us much about the degree of player agency, but obviously it's a necessary condition of the players exercising significant agency.

The player makes a roll and takes an action.....but the GM can ALWAYS say "nope, did not work." Even in a normal simple game there can be dozens of reasons a "roll rule" does not work 100%. So, a GM always gets final say...no matter the roll or rules.

What you describe here isn't true of any of my RPGing (as I posted upthread, eg post 224).

After all a normal RPG has a lot of detail and pre game prep......and you'd say this is not done. Though when I say "it's not done"....you will like say "it IS done". So...you will just be going around in circles......

the examples are all over the place. And if he responds he is likely to say "he just makes up beyond awesome stuff on the fly in less then a second". And when I point out that is impossible, then he will say "oh I have lots of detailed notes", but I'm sure he would say it's not an "offical adventure type module" because he only made up roughly 50% to 99% of a "typical adventure module" and as long as he stays under that it's not a "typical adventure module".

If you read my actual play posts, you will see that they talk about the use of prep.

As a general rule I do not have lots of detailed notes. For 4e, I do often have detailed stat blocks, because the game needs them for combat. And obviously I have the rulebooks, which include things like the DC-by-level and damage-by-level charts.

I provided an example not far upthread of the way that I use prep in Torchbearer (which plays differently from both 4e D&D and from Burning Wheel, as I've also explained in this thread).

As to whether it's possible to make up awesome stuff on the fly in less than a second: it's probably for others to judge whether or not the stuff that I make up is awesome, but making stuff up is not all that hard if the game rules are good and the themes are clearly established.

The rules say "the GM must make engaging stuff". Ok...most GMs can do that.....but not everyone will always agree all the time what is or is not engaging.

This is why Burning Wheel tells players that, if the situation doesn't interest them, it's their job to make interesting situations. And I've posted actual play examples upthread: as a player, I have made Wises checks (thus making Evard's tower a focus of play) and Circles checks (thus bringing NPCs who are interesting to me into play).

But even where a game doesn't have such rules, it's not that hard in my experience to come up with stuff that speaks to player-authored goals and aspirations for their PCs. The first Torchbearer dungeon I wrote up included the dream-spirit of a banished Dwarf, locked within an Elfstone. I was fairly confident that this would speak to the two players - whose PCs were a Dwarven Outcast and an Elven Dreamwalker - and I was correct.

Advocating for a fictional character? How does a fictional character change "as a person"? This really makes no sense to me.

This is a fairly basic idea in any but the most simplistic fiction. Consider, for instance, Rick in Casablanca, or Han Solo in Star Wars.

 

[pemerton]

I'm saying improv or on the fly games are less complex then any game where the DM does any amount of prep and more so makes an adventure. There simply is no way this is not true.

a game randomly made 'on the fly' can never ever come close to the complexity of a game with a bulk ton of detail made up pre game. The best example is a murder mystery. You can have a Simple murder mystery....this is exactly what cartoons like Scooby Do do. But you need a plain and simple fictional world too. Lets take a murder mystery where a wizard at magic school is killed.

So the characters start to look for clues in the DW game....and the GM has made NOTHING up at all about the murder. So as the players just randomly aimlessly search, the GM just tells them random things. The GM has not written down the murder background...THAT would be part of writing an adventure. So, for every action a player takes....the GM just comes up with a random on the spot response.

But this can ONLY work in a Simple game.....with a plot like an episode of Schooby Do. If the wizard school only has eight wizards(one for each school) and each wears ONE color always and ONLY one of the wizards did the killing. Then when the blue robed wizard is killed, and the characters find a bit of torn red thread in the hand.....then they KNOW the red wizard did it.

But in any game more complex then that....like the suspects are not color coded and you have at minimum 25 wizard teachers, 200 students, another 35 faculty, 5 guests, the spouses, children, partners, or friends of the previous 265....plus potentially anyone else in the city/world/multiverse. Well, for this type of murder mystery the GM MUST know who did it, how and why, and lots and lots and lots of other details. You HAVE to write this adventure out a head of time.

Dungeon World can easily do a complex murder mystery. It won't work the same way as your GM-plotted mystery. But it need not be "Scooby Doo".

The player "suddenly" wants to head south. The GM says "the bridge over the river of doom was washed away in the last storm and has not been rebuilt.".

So in a game like D&D, a player might get all on edge because they think the GM is "just stopping" their character from going south because the DM does not want that to happen.


But in the DW game, the player just sits back happily because they KNOW everything the GM does is to make an engaging, beautiful game for everyone to enjoy. After all, not only do the rules say that, but the GM will often echo the rules.

This displays that you have no idea but how Dungeon World works, despite @AbdulAlhazred's rather detailed explanation.