D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Cadence]

I've not read or played BitD, so have only a passing familiarity with how it works.

That's the only relevant one in my shelf to lift verbiage from. I'll see how much a pdf of one of the ones you run is and maybe use that.

 

[pointofyou]

That's the only relevant one in my shelf to lift verbiage from. I'll see how much a pdf of one of the ones you run is and maybe use that.

The poster you responded to has expressed some knowledge of Apocalypse World. There are materials available for download here.

Apocalypse World

 

[bloodtide]

That isn't an accurate account of my RPGing exepriences.

Here's how I would describe it, from the player side:

When I was regularly playing in what would *now be described as a "trad" game - 2nd ed AD&D - my attempt to inhabit my PC, and pursue my PC's interests, had to yield from time to time to the fact that the GM was laying out a situation, with some sort of set of hidden ideas behind it, which I as a player had to engage with and resolve.​

​

When I play Burning Wheel, I inhabit my PC, and pursue my PC's interests, and it's like being there. And "panning out" my perspective, there emerges the *story of my character (which includes my character's family and social world and concerns - it's not narcissistic or solipsistic fiction).​

This is different game Styles.

The Ur Classic Traditional Game Style as codified by D&D is a couple strangers with "no names and no pasts" randomly meet up and then each week or so they have an Eposoctic Adventure. The foundation here is The Seven Samurai movie, and can be seen in most 70-90 'action' type TV shows where each week the group goes to a new place for a new adventure. Each group member has a story, but they take a far back seat to the 'now' story-of-the-week.

It's even the Classic Dragonlance Style. Though most of the 'core' group did use the 'we grew up together' exploit..but the rest just joined. Though Dragonlance also really highlighted the individual stories of each character too. As there were players that wanted more to a character then just a name and background backstory.

And this gets to the ageless problem: Many GM's want to tell a story about an event, or more simply put: an Adventure. And the players want an adventure....a whole world really, that just revolves around them.

Oh so much this. Everyone gets together to play an adventure "The Mummys Mask" and maybe five minutes after the start Player Larry is like "can I abandon everyone else and go look for the orcs that killed my character dad? It is the ONLY thing I want to do." The DM says "no, that is not the adventure this week". Larry gets all mad becuase he is not the super special spotlight the world revolves around.

From the GM side, the following, quoted, post captures nothing about my RPGing experience:
What I enjoy about RPGing, on the GM side, is seeing exciting stories come to life. I enjoy the imagination, the dynamism, the bouncing off one another around the table.

But, to be clear....you ONLY like pure player stories lead by pure player actions with near zero input from you. You sure have never said that as a GM you EVER want to tell YOUR story. And I'd ask: why not? You sure roll out the red carpet for player stories....so why not GM stories?

The difference in "story now" GMing compared to writing up a setting or a situation or a "story" for the players to work through, is that in my GMing I am in a type of dialogue with my players. It's not my job to decide, for instance, whether Megloss's killing of Gerda means that he deserves death. Or whether the sacrifice that Fea-bella made in order to be purged of her lust for the Elfstone (that is, letting Gerda plunge her spear into her heart, which would have been fatal had Fea-bella not had the will to live) was worthwhile.

As a game is just you and some players.....I guess your saying here the players are the ones to decide everything? How do you see it as a dialogue? You make it sound very one sided: the players have all the power and you have none. You can't even say you work with the players together to decide things....because you type, right above, that it's not YOUR job to decide anything.

So the idea that as a GM I am doing nothing but narrating things the PCs want is ridiculous.

But your sure not doing anything YOU want....unless you make the circle argument that all you want is to serve the players. Everything you do in a game is for and by the players....you won't even consider doing anything else.

If, as a GM, your vision of the setting is sacrosanct, and if the way situations resolve needs to reflect your judgement as to how values, opportunities, risks, etc should resolve themselves, then "story now" RPGing won't be for you. And you won't want to use rulesets that don't let you control those things.

Agreed.

This is an example of how a player, in Burning Wheel, can establish a situation that is interesting to them without needing to do anything but play their character.

This is yet another example of a player altering reality. And I just don't get how this is so great.

The character just randomly wanders onto "their land" somewhere. The character then just stands there....and the player makes a "circle check" to see if any of his family is around. The play makes the check. The GM looks at the rules and says "Yup, some of your family members ARE JUST RIGHT THERE" as the GM alters game reality at the REQUEST of the player(so really it's the player doing it, as the GM is just the 'yes middle man'). I GET that as a GM you can ENDLESS hide behind The Rules and say "you did not alter anything whatever the player just asked for was JUST THERE as they make an offical rules roll and made it.

How would I do this in D&D? Well....I would NEVER just have family members just 'pop' in right next to a PC when the player asks "so is my family around?" And D&D has no realty altering rules for this so...no rules here.

Most often I, alone, as the GM would make the characters family all by myself. Names, descriptions, who they are, where they are and such. And I would make a "player handout" of "your family" for the player and give it to them. Once in a while a good player might want to make up their own family...though just about always the bare bones of like 'name, what they do and a sentience about them'. Then they will give me a copy and I will utterly do whatever I want with the information no matter what the player wrote....though chances are I will keep the player made names. And the player has no choice but to accept whatever I do, if I choose to do anything.

In ANY case, just about the ONLY way the character could EVER meet a family member is if they were to go to wherever the family member is and meet them in gameplay. Some family members might wander, but I'll make a simple map of "where they are where and when" to keep track of them as needed.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@bloodtide Have you ever enjoyed any contributions that your players have made to play? If so, what were they? Can you offer a few examples?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@bloodtide Have you ever enjoyed any contributions that your players have made to play? If so, what were they? Can you offer a few examples?

An extremely good question. Because, frankly, the way @bloodtide talks about it, 99.9% of players are absolute jerks literally all of the time, who play exclusively to cause others pain and misery.

I would genuinely think they were engaging in parody if they weren't so serious about it.

 

[Aldarc]

My take-away is that enjoying storygames as a GM requires a person who gets their joy primarily from fulfilling the players desires to have their PCs be the focus of everything you're doing, and giving them what they want. If anything else matters to you as much or more than that in gaming, storygames are not for you.

As others have said, I don't think that story games are even remotely about giving players what they want. Engaging their character's dramatic needs is not the same as fulfilling the player's wishes for their character.

Mark may decide, for example, that his character Luke's dramatic need is to become a jedi knight like his father. His wish for his character is to achieve vengeance against Darth Vader for killing his father, probably by killing Vader. Needless to say, the GM didn't fulfill Mark's wish for his character Luke, but, instead, as @Voranzovin put it, the GM pulled the rug out from under him by introducing a variety of complications to his character's dramatic needs.

 

[pemerton]

Many GM's want to tell a story about an event, or more simply put: an Adventure.

In it's typical form, this is what I would describe as GM-driven, low player agency, RPGing.

you ONLY like pure player stories lead by pure player actions with near zero input from you. You sure have never said that as a GM you EVER want to tell YOUR story. And I'd ask: why not? You sure roll out the red carpet for player stories....so why not GM stories?

To quote <whomever>, if I wanted to tell a story, I'd write a novel.

As to "near zero" input: in the post to which you replied, I set out in some detail the ways I have been working through my ideas about Dark Elves and Petty Dwarves over multiple games, and in both GM and player roles, over nearly a decade. That is my input. I want to put my ideas out and see what my fellow participants make of them, how they respond to them, how they might challenge them. For me, that's the point of RPGing.

As a game is just you and some players.....I guess your saying here the players are the ones to decide everything? How do you see it as a dialogue?

I've posted examples. Many of them. In reply to you, I unpacked an episode of 4e D&D play in great detail (post 3809). If you're not interested in reading what I post, that's your prerogative, but I'd be grateful if you'd refrain from empty conjecture about my RPGing.

you type, right above, that it's not YOUR job to decide anything.

Just for anyone following along, here's what I actually typed:

It's not my job to decide, for instance, whether Megloss's killing of Gerda means that he deserves death. Or whether the sacrifice that Fea-bella made in order to be purged of her lust for the Elfstone (that is, letting Gerda plunge her spear into her heart, which would have been fatal had Fea-bella not had the will to live) was worthwhile.​

In that episode of play, I as GM decided that Megloss (a NPC) killed Gerda (another NPC) by conjuring the Flames of the Shroud. This was after (i) the PCs had persuaded him to join them to help deal with Gerda, (ii) had agreed to let him have first pick of her gems, and (iii) had been defeated by her in melee (mostly due to her unexpected plate armour).

This is me, as GM, doing my job of framing scenes, and narrating consequences for failure.

This is yet another example of a player altering reality. And I just don't get how this is so great.

The character just randomly wanders onto "their land" somewhere. The character then just stands there....and the player makes a "circle check" to see if any of his family is around. The play makes the check. The GM looks at the rules and says "Yup, some of your family members ARE JUST RIGHT THERE" as the GM alters game reality at the REQUEST of the player(so really it's the player doing it, as the GM is just the 'yes middle man'). I GET that as a GM you can ENDLESS hide behind The Rules and say "you did not alter anything whatever the player just asked for was JUST THERE as they make an offical rules roll and made it.

How would I do this in D&D? Well....I would NEVER just have family members just 'pop' in right next to a PC when the player asks "so is my family around?" And D&D has no realty altering rules for this so...no rules here.

I don't understand why you can't accept my account of my play.

Thurgon did not "just stand there" - as per the actual play post,

the two character's wanted to continue more-or-less due east on the other side of both streams. This was heading into the neighbourhood of Auxol, and so Thurgon kept his eye out for friends and family.​

And "the two characters came upon Thurgon's older brother Rufus driving a horse and cart."

This is not the player "altering reality". It's a declared action being resolved.

Most often I, alone, as the GM would make the characters family all by myself. Names, descriptions, who they are, where they are and such. And I would make a "player handout" of "your family" for the player and give it to them.

This is all typical for low-player-agency RPGing.

Once in a while a good player might want to make up their own family...though just about always the bare bones of like 'name, what they do and a sentience about them'. Then they will give me a copy and I will utterly do whatever I want with the information no matter what the player wrote....though chances are I will keep the player made names. And the player has no choice but to accept whatever I do, if I choose to do anything.

This is also low-player-agency RPGing, although maybe a bit more extreme than is typical.

In ANY case, just about the ONLY way the character could EVER meet a family member is if they were to go to wherever the family member is and meet them in gameplay.

You mean like what I described?

 

[Umbran]

Like...this is the equivalent of a dictator saying that

Mod Note:
No, it is not. Please do not liken events at a gaming table to events in a nation. They hyperbole is not constructive or helpful.

Because, frankly, the way bloodtide talks about it...

Please don't make this about the other posters.

 

[hawkeyefan]

An extremely good question. Because, frankly, the way @bloodtide talks about it, 99.9% of players are absolute jerks literally all of the time, who play exclusively to cause others pain and misery.

I would genuinely think they were engaging in parody if they weren't so serious about it.

I asked it genuinely. @bloodtide has mentioned that he has good players, so I assume that these folks must have contributed to his game at some point. And I think if he has such examples… a player suggesting something that sounds cool or that inspires him to come up with something… then I’m not sure why he’s struggling so much with the idea of player contribution.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

no, my preferences would have nothing to do with this, my capacity to fast-talk and infiltrate in the game would be the same equal bonuses, but they are still equally available options are they not? but if i know the GM who narrates the results of my failures is likely to set easier checks and dole out less severe consequences if i try certain methods how is that not playing the GM?

OK, but lets look at this in the context of, say, Dungeon World, since I know it much better than BW. There are no 'levels of difficulty' in DW. The game is simply an endless loop of describe->act->adjudicate->describe repeated endlessly, with 'adjudicate' usually involving a toss of 2d6. There are no varying target numbers! Granted, your ability bonus factors into play, so you may be better at some moves than others, but its the fiction which will decide which move you made, and so you have to PLAY THE FICTION, not the GM.

There is simply, inherently, no playing the GM. The most you could say is that progress in the story arc might be at a different rate of adjudication loops depending on your strategy. So maybe seducing the Princess takes 5 steps, and infiltrating the Dungeon takes 10 steps. In the end though, once those things are accomplished you will simply go on to more things which also take steps, its not like anything mechanically or in the reward system will really change. I mean, sure, you may decide you value whatever the reward is for finishing the Princess or Dungeon forks in the story and pick Princess because it gets you gratification faster. That's simply you PLAYING YOU!

This is the sense in which, if I was having the "show me playing the GM" discussion with Max, I would be saying "I cannot see how you do that in Dungeon World" because you really cannot. I mean, I guess you could try to make up a character that you think the GM will have an inordinate degree of sympathy with and thus play softball with you and give you a high rate of 'you achieved your goal' vs adjudication loops? I don't see how that gains you much, it might create a lower-quality experience, at least in some people's reckoning. I think @Manbearcat might say that PbtA games are intended to push hard against the PCs and playing softball is bad play, but it is all a bit subjective anyway. I don't see this as a 'strategy' to play the GM, at most it is a set of preferences of the type of play you want, and trying to achieve it. If the game breaks down or runs poorly in some people's experience due to that, its probably more a question of quality of function of the group than of 'manipulation'.