D&D General What is player agency to you?

[pemerton]

Oh to toss in an example using quite different mechanics

I thought you were done with this thread!

 

[pemerton]

I think it's most useful to assume a GM wants to be running the game they are running. This might not always be the case for more mainstream games like 5e, but it is assuredly the case for games like Burning Wheel.

I GM RPGs that I want to GM. I have various reasons for wanting to GM them. One reason I like GMing Burning Wheel is because it is more intense than any other RPG I know. By "intense" I mean the same as when someone says "Wow, like that was intense!" The characters are vibrant, and driven by their hopes or fears or other passions, and exciting things happen.

Another way that BW is intense is that the fiction is very colourful. This is a result of the framing and resolution procedures. When Thurgon and Aramina met Rufus, and the interaction unfolded through the initial, successful Ugly Truth check but then the two failed Command checks, there was a very visceral sense of the cowed Rufus slinking off to get wine for "the master". And also of Thurgon's disappointment, and Aramina's disgust.

This is why I find the recurring assertions that "story now" RPGing does not, or cannot, involve coherent settings, complex setting, engaging setting etc utterly false. The unfolding of that scene between Thurgon, Rufus and Aramina is as coherent and engaging, and frankly probably also as complex, as anything I've heard of in RPGing.

 

[pemerton]

there is a whole chapter on combat and all sorts of combat rules.

There is a whole chapter of Circles rules, which explain how obstacles are set, how dice pools are put together (including Affiliations and Reputations), and how success and failure are narrated. There is also a discussion of how Affiliations and Reputations are established as part of PC building or advancement, of how Contacts are established, and of how a Contact can turn into a Relationship.

But your example of 'shaping the fiction' is just telling the GM to do what you want.

No it's not. It's an example of a player declaring an action, of the dice pool being built and rolled to resolve that action, of the result being a success, and of the consequence of that success being established as part of the fiction.

And I say...well if the player can 'shape the fiction' then why can't they just 'shape' it and say 'wish for a pile of gold'.

Finding a pile of gold would generally be a Scavenger test. The difficulty for finding 1D of gold, in a place where gold might be found, is Ob 3. If a PC was in a treasury, one would expect the difficulty for finding a relatively small amount of gold to be less.

Then, you say, oh the players can only shape teeny tiny little bits of the fiction once in a while.

When are you saying I said this? I have not said this.

What I said was that in a high player agency game, a player has agency over matters besides killing things in melee, which is where D&D tends to give players a moderately high degree of agency. These could include matters such as meeting people, finding things, etc.
The example given, at it's basic was:

1.Player makes a 'request'
2.Player makes a successful rules check
3GM does whatever the player requested

So what am I missing?

As I pointed out upthread, and as @pointofyou and @niklinna have elaborated on, what you're missing is that that is the basic structure of action resolution in a RPG.

 

[niklinna]

I thought you were done with this thread!

I've told you several times now that I am done with this thread. How many more times do I have to say it???

 

[Golroc]

I don't know what you mean by a "story" mechanic - clearly you don't use it to mean a mechanic that has the potential to change the shared fiction (which is, presumably, any mechanic used to resolve an action declared by a player for their PC).

But as I have mentioned several times upthread, I reiterate now: "As I travel through the lands of Auxol I look out for any members of my family" is an action declared by me for my character. The fact that AD&D has no canonical rules for resolving it doesn't change that fact

I was referring to any mechanic which isn't a "my character does X" but is something like "event Y occurs", "Z is part of my characters background", etc. Don't get me wrong - I don't think there is anything wrong with such mechanics. I just think they're conceptually different than stating an action carried out by the character. To some extent, levelling up in old-school game is also a mechanic which is special.

The example you give is interesting, because that's almost exactly how my groups have done the vast majority player story input. E.g. "As we approach the Arakani scouting party, I recall that the Arakani have a cultural taboo on the slaying of spiders." Now the GM might roll with this, go with "On second thought, you remember that this was actually a taboo of the Edwo tribe." or choose to have the player think he "remembered" this correctly, but actually it's wrong and make this misunderstanding part of the parlay.

I'm not opposed to the narrativist style, and as mentioned there are parts of my own preferred style that seem to be similar in nature. I'm not a big fan of codifying player narrative authority, and I prefer the GM have the final say on such matters - but I can see why others might feel differently, and I'm also very open to trying out games like Burning Wheel, PbtA, etc. DW I am a little more on the fence about, but that's mostly due to having done so much dungeon crawling over the years, that I can find it hard to motivate myself to play games focused on that theme (regardless of style/system).

We might define (player) agency in different ways and we do have different preferences as to various styles of gaming, but reading your latest posts, I actually don't think the gap is quite as big, as it have looked earlier in this thread.

 

[pemerton]

I was referring to any mechanic which isn't a "my character does X" but is something like "event Y occurs", "Z is part of my characters background", etc. Don't get me wrong - I don't think there is anything wrong with such mechanics. I just think they're conceptually different than stating an action carried out by the character. To some extent, levelling up in old-school game is also a mechanic which is special.

The example you give is interesting, because that's almost exactly how my groups have done the vast majority player story input. E.g. "As we approach the Arakani scouting party, I recall that the Arakani have a cultural taboo on the slaying of spiders." Now the GM might roll with this, go with "On second thought, you remember that this was actually a taboo of the Edwo tribe." or choose to have the player think he "remembered" this correctly, but actually it's wrong and make this misunderstanding part of the parlay.

I'm not opposed to the narrativist style, and as mentioned there are parts of my own preferred style that seem to be similar in nature. I'm not a big fan of codifying player narrative authority, and I prefer the GM have the final say on such matters - but I can see why others might feel differently

The Arakani thing you describe, in Burning Wheel, would be a Wises check (Arakani-wise, or Spider-wise, or even Taboo-wise) which is the sort of codification you are not a big fan of. Thus the question of whether the GM rolls with it, or instead plays on a misunderstanding, would be settled by the outcome of the check (success or failure) rather than the GM's own decision.

I think background elements can often have a similar structure (as in "I recall . . . "). So I wouldn't normally see them as examples of, or analogous to, "event Y occurs".

Something I have reiterated in this thread, since post 211, and in many previous threads, is that a RPG doesn't needs players to have "event Y occurs" powers in order for the players to have the sort of agency I am interested in. Because the Arakani example - suitably generalised - is sufficient. Which is also why I push back so strongly on this language of "altering reality", as your Arakani example does not involve any altering of reality either in the fiction or at the table.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is what was given as a game example:

1.Player wants something at random.
2.Player makes 'circle check' (or whatever game rule)
3.GM does whatever the player wants

I think the example was from the Burning Wheel game. So it should be noted, when someone gives a specific game example, any reply is only for that game.

Then let's start here, and ignore the rest for now, because this is already off-track.

The player cannot--repeat, CANNOT--just ask for "something at random." Like the GM, the player must remain consistent with what is known to be true. Maybe they push toward something new, maybe they just bring back up something old, but they can't simply contradict, and they definitely cannot just will reality to be whatever they want it to be, whenever they want it to be that way.

What actually happens is this (for DW; Burning Wheel will work slightly differently, but not dramatically so):

1. Player considers their situation and information, e.g.
   • Remembering something that happened in play
   • Asking a question about where they are (e.g. "Are we near <my hometown>?")
   • Acting on a known goal or impuls (e.g., for Dungeon World, a Bond or Alignment)
2. Player says something reasonable that they want to do, which is consistent with the above (= the player "follows the fiction")
3. GM frames a scene appropriate to point #1 that potentially enables point #2
4. Repeat steps 1-3 until the player wants to do something where there is a meaningful risk of failure, and both failure and success are reasonable and interesting (e.g. don't do this if failure would merely be boring.
5. Based on what the player is trying to do, they make the appropriate Move (e.g., if they are trying to "act despite an imminent threat," that move is Defy Danger; if they are trying to "closely study a situation or person," that move is Discern Realities)
6. Whatever they roll, the group follows the instructions of the move (usually, both player and GM have things they must do)
7. The GM tells the player(s) what exactly has happened, and what the new situation is.
8. Repeat from step 1, possibly for the same player, possibly for a different player.

Or, if you want that REALLY REALLY TL;DR:

1. Player thinks/asks about what's going on
2. GM tells them (framing a scene)
3. Player tries to do something that makes sense
4. If flat yes (or flat no), go back to step 1; if neither, use the rules to resolve it (often, a roll)
5. GM uses that result to tell the player reasonable consequences for their attempt
6. Repeat from start (possibly with a different player)

That is what is happening. Every single time. You keep inventing wild, crazy nonsense that doesn't even match the first point, which makes everything that comes after it wrong.

Players can't just declare what they want at random. GMs can't just declare what they think should happen at random. Nobody has that much unbound freedom in this context. Both sides must make sense. If someone is truly trying to push for nonsense, they have already broken the rules.

With @pemerton's example of the dwarf and his brother, it is not, at all, "I want to meet a relative in this random place, who will then give me everything I desire." You have failed before you even get to the tenth word. Because it isn't just a random place. The place they're in IS his hometown. This is already known. If you had bothred to read Pemerton's posts, you would know that Auxol IS Thurgon's hometown, a place where relatives of his have some authority. Of course he could expect to find some of his relatives there if he keeps an eye out for them...that's where they live.

And then you insert this utterly ridiculous notion about getting 25 healing potions from the brother. Nothing whatsoever like that occurs. At all. You keep harping on your invented examples like that, but nothing in what Pemerton said looks like that! Instead, it's just, "I'm on the lookout for members of my family, I want to talk with them and find out what's going on." So the GM frames a situation where, at some point along the PCs' walk, they pass a field where Thurgon's brother is located--but said brother seems to be a broken man, cowed by something and unwilling to discuss it. This is the conflict of the scene that the GM has framed; the player wants to get information from Thurgon's brother, perhaps even have the brother swear to support his cause, but the brother is fearful and reluctant--Thurgon must face a conflict between his desire to fulfill the mission he's on, and his desire to respect and support his family. He makes a choice, one that requires a roll to resolve, and appropriate consequences follow from that roll, perhaps good, perhaps bad.

At no point did anything ridiculous like this "25 healing potions" thing come in. At no point was the player asking for something unreasonable--and if they had, they would be playing in bad faith, and told to stop or, if it gets out of hand, to leave. Likewise, if the GM is simply dictating what is true to the players, narrating the results of their actions without actually respecting the rules for how actions should be resolved, then the GM is being unreasonable and SHOULD be told to stop. Do you see how this relationship is reciprocal? All participants are required to obey the rules, and one of the rules is that you be reasonable and attempt actions (or frame scenes, for GMs) that are reasonable. The instant you start asking for ridiculous nonsense, no matter who you are, you have broken the rules.

 

[Krachek]

Depending on whose posts here you believe (or even read, it would seem from some of the conversation).

(And by the way, the first rule of Player Agency Club is You do not talk about Player Agency Club!)

But, I am done with this thread!

Much better!
The player agency club is lead by a delusional, gather fat rather than gold from fight, and Use fat to build bombs to blew up the whole DM setting!

 

[soviet]

This is what was given as a game example:

1.Player wants something at random.
2.Player makes 'circle check' (or whatever game rule)
3.GM does whatever the player wants

1.Player wishes to randomly find some family members
2.Player makes check
3.DM says "oh, there are some family members right there".

So what part am I missing? Player made a wish. Player made a roll and made a rule check. DM did what the rule...and player...told them to do.

It can't be a surprise that such a reductionist take makes the game look absurd.

1. DM says 'a sofa falls from the sky at your character'
2. Player fails Dex save
3. Player character is killed by a sofa

1. DM says 'make a Wis save or be charmed'
2. Player fails Wis save
3. Player character thinks the Dark Lord is his best bud and arranges a movie date

1. DM says 'make a Con save or get food poisoning from the street vendor's sausage'
2. Player fails Con save
3. Player character dies of dysentery

Or even

1. Player says random stuff
2. DM says random stuff
3. Roll dice to see which one happens
4. Go to 1

 

[soviet]

I've told you several times now that I am done with this thread. How many more times do I have to say it???

I am so done with you being done with this thread