D&D General What is player agency to you?

[EzekielRaiden]

It does happen, though. There are a non-zero number of Burning Wheel games where the DM is gamed. It may not happen often. It may be missing the point. But it does happen.

Okay...so if it's rare, and missing the point, and against the intent and spirit of play, and almost always results in worse outcomes...

What, exactly, is the point of bringing up the example? Because at this point, this is a bad-faith-player argument. Something I had thought we had dispensed with a hundred pages ago, when people agreed that presumption of bad faith from any participant--be it GM or player--was not kosher.

Are we rescinding that agreement now? Are we allowed to make arguments which presume bad faith play? Because I really don't think that's a line you want to cross.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay...so if it's rare, and missing the point, and against the intent and spirit of play, and almost always results in worse outcomes...

What, exactly, is the point of bringing up the example? Because at this point, this is a bad-faith-player argument. Something I had thought we had dispensed with a hundred pages ago, when people agreed that presumption of bad faith from any participant--be it GM or player--was not kosher.

The point is this. People shouldn't bring up playing the DM like it's some downside to D&D when every RPG that has a DM experiences it. I also never said it was rare. Someone else said that. I'm saying just it exists in that game and every other RPG with a DM. So no, my argument is not in bad faith.

 

[pemerton]

Any human that is a DM with discretion can in fact be manipulated(played) into using that discretion to the advantage of the player doing the manipulation. Are you claiming that humans cannot be manipulated?

No. I'm asking you what manipulating the GM for advantage would look like in Burning Wheel.

The exact procedures aren't relevant. Only whether or not the DM has discretion over portions of the game at any point. If yes, then he can in fact be manipulated(played) during those times. Are you saying that there's never a point where the DM of Burning Wheel has discretion?

As @Campbell and @Citizen Mane have posted upthread, there are lots of points at which a BW GM has discretion. But I'm asking you to actually provide me with an example of what manipulating the GM for advantage looks like in Burning Wheel.

I've played a fair bit of BW, and also a bit of its related game Torchbearer. I don't know what this would look like. That's why I'm asking you to provide an example (preferably actual, but even hypothetical might do).

 

[pemerton]

The point is this. People shouldn't bring up playing the DM like it's some downside to D&D when every RPG that has a DM experiences it. I also never said it was rare. Someone else said that. I'm saying just it exists in that game and every other RPG with a DM. So no, my argument is not in bad faith.

So in some RPGs - including, perhaps, 5e D&D as you play it - the GM gets to decide consequences, and stakes. And so we can imagine a player trying to manipulate the GM in respect of those things. In BW, the player establishes stakes and the GM only gets to establish consequences on a failed check.

In some RPGs, the GM has discretion over whether or not to grant advantage. In BW, the rules say that if a player wants an advantage die and articulates a reason for it, the GM should grant it - there are other aspects of the rules (in particular, the advancement rules) which mean that players won't always seek out an advantage die.

In some RPGs, the player might desire scene X, but the GM has planned to deliver scene Y, and manipulating the GM to change their mind is a thing. In BW, if the player wants scene X, then there is a mechanic for that (Circles, Wises, even Perception to Assess in some contexts).

I've already provided examples, upthread, of players establishing (via Wises checks, or PC backstory) that the fictional positioning is there to make a Scavenging check to find a desired thing: this is what caused all the worry from @bloodtide and other posters about "I win" buttons and vorpal swords beneath the bushes and so on. These examples show that the player doesn't need to manipulate the GM into including desired fictional elements.

This is why I am asking for a concrete example of what you are talking about. Because frankly at this stage it seems like you're just asserting it without any foundation at all, other than an apparent inability to take seriously the ways in which Burning Wheel is high player agency and hence doesn't depend up on the GM "doing favour" in order for the player to get the fiction that they want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So in some RPGs - including, perhaps, 5e D&D as you play it - the GM gets to decide consequences, and stakes. And so we can imagine a player trying to manipulate the GM in respect of those things. In BW, the player establishes stakes and the GM only gets to establish consequences on a failed check.

In some RPGs, the GM has discretion over whether or not to grant advantage. In BW, the rules say that if a player wants an advantage die and articulates a reason for it, the GM should grant it - there are other aspects of the rules (in particular, the advancement rules) which mean that players won't always seek out an advantage die.

In some RPGs, the player might desire scene X, but the GM has planned to deliver scene Y, and manipulating the GM to change their mind is a thing. In BW, if the player wants scene X, then there is a mechanic for that (Circles, Wises, even Perception to Assess in some contexts).

I've already provided examples, upthread, of players establishing (via Wises checks, or PC backstory) that the fictional positioning is there to make a Scavenging check to find a desired thing: this is what caused all the worry from @bloodtide and other posters about "I win" buttons and vorpal swords beneath the bushes and so on. These examples show that the player doesn't need to manipulate the GM into including desired fictional elements.

This is why I am asking for a concrete example of what you are talking about. Because frankly at this stage it seems like you're just asserting it without any foundation at all, other than an apparent inability to take seriously the ways in which Burning Wheel is high player agency and hence doesn't depend up on the GM "doing favour" in order for the player to get the fiction that they want.

It does seem to be near impossible to game a DM who has no power to do anything the players don't want.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's it though? A player says "I want to do this", the GM says "ok" and it's "just" a high player agency game after that point? Ok.

No. You treat it like a transaction; it is not.

The player expresses their interest in something, through the structures of the game. In Dungeon World (which I know better than other PbtA games), these structures are (from broadest to narrowest) Alignment, Bonds, class moves, and generic moves.

• Each character has an Alignment move which describes a particular but broadly-applicable action reflecting that character's values, and which the player is rewarded for fulfilling, e.g., the two default Paladin Alignment moves are "Lawful: Deny mercy to a criminal or unbeliever" and "Good: Endanger yourself to protect someone weaker than you."
• Bonds are short statements about the attitude, beliefs, goals, etc. that a character has toward something else--another character, an NPC, an organization, a place, an object, etc.--which drive action forward, e.g. the Fighter Bond, "<name> is soft, but I will make them hard like me." Note that these are one-sided; there doesn't need to be a reciprocal relationship, this is how this character views that thing, rather than what each specifically thinks of the other.
• Class-specific moves include baseline ones, such as the Paladin move Quest, where the player chooses a goal to pursue (from a handful of prepared goals with fillable blanks, e.g. "Discover the truth of <blank>") and two Boons from a fixed list (e.g. "Senses that pierce lies" or "An unwavering sense of direction to <blank>"), and the GM then responds with the Vows that that Quest will impose, again from a list, e.g. "Honor (forbidden: cowardly tactics and tricks)" and "Piety (required: observance of daily holy services)".
• Generic moves include things like Discern Realities, Spout Lore, Parley, and others. These do not directly state player intention. Instead, they are tools which the players can use while pushing toward whatever target they're aiming at. Discern Realities in particular is very good for players to tell the GM what they care about, as it's specifically a search for information, and the player is rewarded for following up on the information they gather.

From these various sources, plus more general things like...just talking with players, having a Session Zero, etc., the GM can get a pretty solid idea of what situations or topics the players find worthy of interest and engagement. They then take that input, and "frame scenes" (more on this below) where those situations or topics will be relevant, to which the players must respond.

As I have phrased this before, the players define their Values, the things they care a lot about, and then seek out Issues, unresolved situations that will put those things to the test. In general, all possible results from those tests are valid. Failure means something bad happened to something you care about, or you were unable to do a thing you really cared about doing, or you chose to abandon something you previously cared a lot about, etc. Full success (since many games of this type allow degrees of success) means you were able to secure the thing you wanted this time, but future issues arise because an adventurer's life is never idle for long. Partial success means you got some of what you wanted but not all of it (so tension still remains), or you got what you wanted but also got something you didn't want (so that unwanted thing must be resolved), or you were only able to get one or two of the multiple things you were hoping to get (e.g., only answering one question, when you hoped to answer three.)

Well....I guess you'd say you DON'T do that........but you DO! I don't see how you separate the two. If a character walks into a store and the player asks "what is for sale"....you as the GM will then give your imaginary conception of the setting and situation. I guess you can say you are making a "frame" and just "narrating"...but you are giveing your imaginary conception of the setting and situation.

Then you are starting off on the wrong foot for understanding this. The difference is significant.

Narration means saying what, specifically, happens. You narrate, and whatever you said is simply true--and often, narration specifically means declaring the result of something that was previously in doubt. Framing means setting something up so that something could happen. Framing cannot declare what the final result is, for exactly the same reason that positioning your camera does not determine what the final picture would be, or why putting specific props and scenery on a stage does not make every play performed upon it Macbeth.

The two do have similarities. Most narration requires that some framing occurred first. This is not always true--sometimes, there just isn't anything in particular that is "at stake"--but usually something is in question. Narration, however, goes further and actually resolves the situation, declaring what has happened or is happening. This is why I and others say things like how the GM facilitates or enables things to happen, but only rarely (if ever) makes things happen. The Dark Forest and the Ogre that prowls its environs are created by the GM to enable a conflict between a vicious monster and a character, one that follows from the player's declared interests (e.g., perhaps the character wishes to become a hero brave and true). It is the character's choices which determine exactly what form that conflict takes and how the conflict comes to a head; the obvious choice is a physical battle, but it could be a battle of wits, or a sneaking into its lair, or a rallying of the people, or any number of other things. It is the rules, receiving the inputs from both the GM and the player, which resolve that conflict. This then provides the new raw material for the next conflict.

Well, based off this....you are saying High player agency is where EVERYTHING in the game is "in play" because the players requested it to be and the whole game revolves around only the players and their actions. So, going by your example, a GM must never create, do or add anything ever to the game...unless the players bring it into play.

No, that's not true at all. Framing often requires creating things. But it, critically, requires never resolving things. That is left to player choices, mechanics, and (for DW) the Agendas and Principles. Framing almost always requires that you do and add things! You just do not do or add things which conclusively fix the endpoint of something. And, extremely importantly, when you do or add things, those things should be consistent with the players' declared interests (which I discussed above).

Though I really don't get how you have a world that does not make sense. To me that just sounds like a random mish mash of random stuff....that by your defination will never, ever make sense. Again, your saying here the GM does nothing. The GM only acts when the players or the dice or the rules tell them to act.

I mean it makes sense that the only way for players to have any agency is for the GM to willing give up all their power....but you seem to take that to 11, as the GM just sits there want waits for the rules, rolls, or players to tell them what to do.

There is no giving up of all power, so this whole line of reasoning is simply incorrect.

Though to be clear your not talking about traditional game prep where a GM utterly and totally independent of the players, rolls or rules simply preps whatever THEY feel like having, making and using in the game world. And then have those people, places, things, events, and such happen independent of the actions of the players, any rolls or any rules.

Certainly you are not doing "traditional" game prep--by which I mean "trad" games. Prepping for Dungeon World is rather different from prepping for some other thing.

But you are incorrect when you say these things have no independence from the players. They do! As an example, take DW "Fronts." A "Front" is a medium- to long-term, evolving problem of some kind. Most fronts have at least three components: a "Danger," an "Impending Doom," and one or more "Grim Portents." Dangers are...things that are bad, for lack of a better term. It can be something as simple as a rampaging beast, to something as complex as a world-spanning conspiracy. The "Impending Doom" is whatever bad result the Danger points to, e.g. a rampaging beast might damage cropland or disrupt trade, while a world-spanning conspiracy might be trying to control world governments so they can summon Vgraltha the Soul-Flenser.

But things get really interesting with the "Grim Portents." These are bad things which could--indeed, often will--come to pass, unless the characters do something about it. Dungeon World without the players goes to hell in a handbasket (for varying degrees of "hell," depending on the scale of the game.) Remember how I spoke of "Fronts," plural? That's because there's supposed to be more than one of these at a time (you're recommended to start with three campaign-scale Fronts.) So, even if you deal with the Black Dragon Gang trying to take over the city, there's still the eco-terrorist Shadow Druids and the Cult of the Burning Eye with their own nefarious designs. Focusing too much on one front leaves the others exposed--allowed to advance. The world really does continue to spin when the players aren't looking, and their choice not to look is part of the process.

Now that is interesting. Not really the rules....but the idea. Telling a player to make something they find uninteresting into something interesting. But I do see why there are rules...as most players idea of "interesting" would just be "I attackss!" And this where you get the "I'm bored...I attack the king yuck yuck yuck" kind of play...rules for action would prevent that.

Your idea of "most players" is not nearly universal. In fact, I think most players are not like that. Most players do, in fact, desire a genuinely meaningful experience. You keep acting as though the vast majority of players are infantile trolls. This is not true. Unless and until you become willing to see more in players than "infantile troll," you'll never be able to engage with things that require players who are not infantile trolls.

Right, if you keep the game or fiction very tightly focused and simple...then you have no problem making stuff up. Your not even trying to come close to a game reality world simulation....you just have a spotlight on the characters. It's all about focus.

Who said anything about having to keep it "simple"? I don't think the focus needs to be that tight, and it definitely doesn't need to be simple. Jinnistani politics in my Dungeon World game are notoriously complicated, and the players have been on the receiving end of that complexity twice now. Both times have made them feel wary, but not cowed--which is precisely how I had hoped they would respond. Noble genies are weird, and dangerous, but they're also alluring and influential. Being on good terms with them is exceedingly useful. Getting on their bad side is exceedingly risky. (They are similar to fey, but more engaged with mortal-world stuff than the fey are usually portrayed to be.)

I've got a timeline spanning over three thousand years of formal history (with almost all of the events in that timeline determined as part of Session Zero, or elaborated through play and the players showing what things are of interest to them) and over ten thousand years of deep cosmological time. I, and my players, have developed Jinnistan (and their Genie Rajah forebears who ruled the mortal world), the mysterious El-Adrin, the War in Heaven and how it produced both Devils and Demons (and why all three sides believe they won the war), complex political shenanigans within the main city of Al-Rakkah and between Al-Rakkah and other cities like Al-Maralus, Al-Tusyoun, Shalast-Asmar, the City of Brass, and Mt. Matahat (the latter three being cities in Jinnistan.)

It's also very Cinematic. It's exactly what hollywood does for 75% or more of it's movies: simple, straightforward, easy to follow and understand entertainment for everyone. Star Wars is the perfect example: anyone from 5 and up can understand "empire bad, other people good, death star bad, death star must go boom" and watch the movie.

If you believe narrative games are confined to such simplistic storytelling, you are simply wrong. I have a player actively trying to reform a thousand-plus-year-old assassin-cult because he knows they have been manipulated, and has seen the way they can stay true to their beliefs without needing to kill people. My players have prompted the existence of a woman who was a succubus, and has since become...something else, because she was redeemed by the power of sincere, full-hearted love. I have complicated an assassination contract with a devil, by having one of the targets be a genuine victim, despite the fact that she has truly killed several people. I have challenged a character's ironclad conviction that his grandfather could never be anything but a slimy businessman, and put a mad dictator into a situation that almost made her sympathetic, while the players' "ally" was revealed to have been manipulating her (and the party!) the entire time, though he did remain true to his word to the players, giving them all the aid he promised. I have featured fanatical defenders of a faith...who genuinely do only target truly awful things and people, absolutely dedicated to their mission of putting down true heretics (NOT non-believers--heretics, people who have betrayed the faith) and Far Realm abominations.

All this, in a game you claim must somehow be bound to simplistic black-and-white morality and no-thought storytelling.

Because I have confidence that my players are not infantile trolls. They are adults with whom I can have a respectful, adult conversation and get real results.

And that is EXACTLY the problem I have. The players encounter some sort of problem. They don;t even try to think about it or do anything close to reality. They just come up with a wacky, goofy idea.....and automatically expect it to work.

It is unfortunate that you have been saddled with such problematic players. But you need to understand, they are not representative.

But see that's the difference. Your game has the troops on dewbacks hunting the drioids as the players/rolls/rules trigger that action.

In MY game....I have the fully detailed description of The Avenger(that's Vader's Star Destroyer here) so I know the ship has tie fighters, shuttles, speeder bikes, walkers and such. So in my game the two droid Player Character would be caught VERY quickly....

I...don't understand. That doesn't follow from what was said. At all. Like...not even remotely.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It does seem to be near impossible to game a DM who has no power to do anything the players don't want.

And which game does that, exactly?

Because I do things my players don't want all the time.

When they fail rolls.

 

[Maxperson]

So in some RPGs - including, perhaps, 5e D&D as you play it - the GM gets to decide consequences, and stakes. And so we can imagine a player trying to manipulate the GM in respect of those things. In BW, the player establishes stakes and the GM only gets to establish consequences on a failed check.

And you really think the DM can't be gamed into lighter consequences? If the DM has discretion, and you just described discretion, then it's a fact that you can game the DM. It might be harder or easier depending on the system. It might make more or less sense. But the DM can be gamed.

In some RPGs, the GM has discretion over whether or not to grant advantage. In BW, the rules say that if a player wants an advantage die and articulates a reason for it, the GM should grant it - there are other aspects of the rules (in particular, the advancement rules) which mean that players won't always seek out an advantage die.

The DM should grant isn't the DM will grant. If you know what the DM likes, you are less likely to be denied because you can craft your declaration in such a way as to game him.

This is why I am asking for a concrete example of what you are talking about. Because frankly at this stage it seems like you're just asserting it without any foundation at all, other than an apparent inability to take seriously the ways in which Burning Wheel is high player agency and hence doesn't depend up on the GM "doing favour" in order for the player to get the fiction that they want.

Agency isn't even a part of this particular tangent. This is about whether the DM has any discretion at all in the game. If so, you can game him under those circumstances. It's an assertion of fact. Humans can be gamed when they have to make a decision on how they want to do something. We are a fairly easily manipulated species.

 

[Maxperson]

No. I'm asking you what manipulating the GM for advantage would look like in Burning Wheel.

And I'm saying it doesn't matter. All that matters is if it is possible, and it is since there are aspects of Burning Wheel that give the DM discretion.

 

[pemerton]

It does seem to be near impossible to game a DM who has no power to do anything the players don't want.

I don't think this post demonstrates a very serious attempt to understand the difference between the play procedures of (say, and on the one hand) Moldvay Basic, as spelled out in his rulebook and in module B1, and which are intended to be applicable to B2 as perhaps the most quintessential example of a Moldvay-version module; and (on the other hand) Burning Wheel.

Playing the GM is a notion that assumes that the GM has secret information, which they might be tricked into revealing; or can make somewhat unconstrained decisions, which they can be cajoled into making one way rather than another. In a system that is transparent in respect of information and decision-making, there's no need to play the GM.

This has nothing to do with whether or not the GM can give the players bad news about what happens to their PCs.

.