What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Lanefan]

If the PC goes to the market square to purchase a holy sword, and there is no holy sword, how is that impacting their agency?

For added simplicity let's assume the PC is already in the market square, and declares this action: "I check with such merchants as might be expected to sell such things to determine if there's a holy sword for sale. If there is, I buy it." In story now, as far as I can tell a success on the die roll means the PC walks out with a holy sword (and, one assumes, a lighter wallet). The only recourse the DM has if she thinks a holy sword is overkill for that party or PC in terms of game or character balance is to set an unachievably high DC on finding one - but that's just using more words and dice to say 'no', which ain't allowed.

The thing is, some of these guys have hard-tied their view of what constitutes player agency to how much input* the player has to the 'shared fiction' and either minimize or dismiss all other types of agency, then go on to say or imply that players in a typical non-4e D&D game don't really have any agency. As you may have already concluded if you've read all the 1400-ish posts so far, I disagree with this view.

* - be it input from a successful action declaration or straight-on authorship.

When I read Eero's treatise I came away with pretty much the same thoughts on it that you did; only you stated yours better and more clearly: it seems to be advocating away from player input into the fiction, and for the setting and background to be left to the DM.

The whole question around the benefits and drawbacks of "go where the action is", which Eero also advocates, is another headache entirely; potentially impacting a different type of player agency considered lesser by some but important by me.

Lan-"why do I want to go where the action is when I can instead just sneak around it all and steal the treasure while everyone else is busy"-efan

 

[pemerton]

I don't recall you telling me that the player set the DC for the feather. You were setting the chance.

Actually, the player can choose what to search for, which affects the DC. The player can also spend resources or use augments to affect the chance of success.

There isn't, because the players indicated what they wanted to do and were able to do it.

<snip>

The railroad is in the last sentence. You played their PCs for them and decided for them that they would be reckless, taking no precautions to avoid being seen. You also decided that being seen was automatic. The players should have been given the opportunity to decide their approach tactics, but instead you forced them down the rails.

I don't understand how play works at your table. Do the players need permission to speak?

At my table, if the players want their PCs to be stealthy, or take precautions, they can say so. In some systems - eg Traveller, or AD&D - there are also generic surprise rules that apply, but in 4e (which is the system I was envisaging in the example - as evidenced by the reference to residuum) the players would have to actively declare Stealth checks or something similar.

I've already told them that they are walking on a flagstone floor. They know the flagstones exist, and can choose to study them, etc. as they wish.

So it's not railroading to expect the players to ask about uneven flagstones; but it is railroading to expect them to declare Stealth checks if they want to be sneak up on the giants?

As far as I can see, those things are exactly parallel.

Intersections exist in any rational world. I wouldn't dream of depriving my players of their choice to decide which way to go by forcing them down the path of my choice.

Raised, chipped etc flagstone also exist in any rational world. But you don't tell your players about all of those. You wait for them to ask. Why is that not railroading, but it is railroading to expect them to ask if there are any intersections?

As far as I can see, those things are exactly parallel.

Had they walked there more slowly, though, they might have made some allies or acquired some items in the Underdark to help them with the giants. You did deprive them of those(and more) opportunities in the rush to get them to the giants.

Again, this is bizarre. Why is narrating an encounter with potential allies, or with potentinal items, less railroading than narrating an encounter with the giants?

And how do you know the giants that have seen them aren't potential allites?

You seem to be locked into a GM-driven mindset - eg where something being a potential ally is a GM decision rather than a player decision.

And you also seem to think it's important to insert GM-authored filler. Why?

When I describe an area am I deciding to mention the flag stone as part of the description? Yes. I am not deciding to mention an intersection, though. It's there and I have to let the players know about it regardless of what I wish, though I did author it.

Upthread you were very insistent that not everything is pre-authored. If it's preauthored, then you are telling the players something you already wrote. You are giving effect to a past decision.

If you did not pre-author it because you're making it up on the spot, you are deciding to mention it at that time.

This is the point I've been making for most of the thread. Authorship is authorship - it's the making of a decision to introduce some element intto the shared fiction. What's at issue is the techniques and principles one uses in deciding when and what to author.

If they go to the bazaar and it turns out that there is nothing there to help them, that's a lot of time on what turns out not to be the best way.

And here we can see those principles at work.

For some reason you think it's not railroading for the GM to either decide, or to determine by die roll, that there's nothing useful in the bazaar - thus blocking the player's goal for his/her PC without the player even getting to make a meaningful action delcaration. But you think it is railroading for the GM to frame the player into a situation where that meaningful action can be delcared and the outcome turns on that.

That sttrikes me as completely backwards.

 

[pemerton]

Other than the reference to 'PC dramatic needs' this could apply to a typical DM-driven game as well.

Why should that be surprsing? It's RPGing. This thread isn't about "Does RPGing involve - among other things - GMs describing stuff to players, and players declaring actions in response." It's about what the GM describes, how s/he works out what that is, what influence the players have over it, etc. One way of doing that is respoind to PC dramatid needs. Other ways are different. Those differences aren't trivial when it comes to the experience of RPGing.

Something these guys seem to be (intentionally?) ignoring is that beyond the dramatic needs of any individual PC there's also the dramatic needs of the game/campaign as a whole. The sense seems to be that the PCs are bigger than the game...that the whole world revolves around them...where I prefer both as player and DM to see the PCs as small fish in a big ocean full of lots of bigger fish that are nearly all very hungry.

Well, as I've already posted, that "game/campaign as whole" is the stuff the GM has authored and cares about. (Because if the players care about it, then it is subsumed within their PCs' dramatic needs, isn't it?)

You preferences are what they are, but I don't see how you can both emphasise the role of the GM in establkishing the shared fiction, and also assert that the players have maximal agency over that.

it's possible that if the players are that dead-set on ignoring everything around their PCs they may have railroaded themselves.

This is absurd. You don't say that the player who doesn't ask about the flooring is "railroading herself". Or that the player who doesn't ask, as they walk through the town, about whether any slaves are being beaten, is "railroading herself".

Randmon intersections are no more important than flagstones or beatings. If the players don't care, they don't care, and why would we spend time at the table on it?

There's a spectrum of detail ranging from playing out every second of a PC's day to ignoring absolutely everything that happens between the most major of events. Each end of this spectrum is ridiculous, and we all fall in the middle somewhere. What I'm saying is that as you move along the spectrum from more detail toward less, at some point you're going to cross a line after which you are impacting player agency through denial of choice.

And while we each probably see that line as being in a different place we can't deny it exists.

I deny it.

In my Traveller game, when the PCs spend a week in jump space we don't do anything but mark off the time spent. In my BW game, when the PCs spent 18 months in a tower we resovled the upkeep checks, and there were a couple of actions the players declared (eg making contact with elven merchants so as to buy some herbs), but otherwise the time just passed.

What times and distances matter to play depends entirely on the needs of play. I can easily imagine a dungeon room in which the detail of every block in the floor does matter. (I mean, ToH gets pretty close to this in its opening corridor. You have to notice the stucco on the wall, and scrape it off, to have any chance of finding the secret doors. And there is detailed pattern in the floor tiles. Etc.)

 

[pemerton]

The goal of most of our crew most of the time is just to have some fun at the table. Occasionally one of us will play a truly goal-oriented character...until the rest of the party gets fed up with it and either runs it out or just stops listening to it...but it's not that common. Sometimes there's a temporary goal, either achieved quickly or abandoned as unattainable, but rarely if ever is there anything campaign-long.

I've had highly goal-oriented players in my game in the past, and what I found in general was that they also took the whole thing far too seriously for my tastes.

<snip>

I think that more or less encompasses most players out there.

<snip>

that puts goal-oriented fiction-bending players in the severe minority, I think.

I'm with [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] on this: I don't see how what you describe here is an indicator of a game with deep backstory, verisimilitudinous characterisation, player agency, etc. It seems to suggest a GM-driven game with the players coming along for a fun ride, contributing the odd bit of characterisation or instigating the odd bit of pretty localised mayhem.

 

[pemerton]

In an RPG, the PCs can do anything that their character can reasonably do.

<snip>

If the PC goes to the market square to purchase a holy sword, and there is no holy sword, how is that impacting their agency?

If they are attempting to infiltrate the castle, and there is no secret door, how is that impacting their agency?

Here are two things a character can reasonably do in a fantasy RPG: find a map hidden in a study; find a secret door into a castle. In some cases, finding a holy sword on sale at a market would be a third such thing.

The GM declaring that such things are not possible is thus a burden on player agency as you have characterised it.

As a D&D DM, this is really what I think has been promoted all along, starting with the AD&D DMG for me: When the players declare what they are doing or want to do, the DM sets a probability, and adjudicates accordingly.

<snip>

Again, I don't think this has anything to do with agency. It's about who has control of the narrative, when, and by how much. So the players can control the narrative in my campaign any time they want, simply by making a decision and acting.

I don't follow your contrast, given that "control" and "agency" are near enough to synonyms in this context.

But in any event, what you're describing here is not an example of the "standard narratavistic model". The concepts of dramatic need, thematic moment, etc are doing no work. The context for decision that you describe is all established by the GM independently of those things.

Eero's model is really no different than what most consider D&D to be: The GM is in control of the narrative, and the players are advocates for the characters.

Because you and I disagree with the premise that option #1 means the DM determines all the fiction.

That is not the case. The player decides whether they want to search or not. That is a contribution to the fiction. That there isn’t anything to find is irrelevant, they still have complete control over their actions. They search, they don’t find anything, they learned something, and fiction happened.

The player doesn’t have an impact on the result of their search. They can’t determine whether a secret door is there or not, just that they would search for one.

This fits Eero’s model precisely: the player advocates for the character. The GM is responsible for the backstory and the fiction aside from the player’s ability to take action as the character.

I disagree with your assessment regarding player agency in something like B2. The players have complete agency over the decisions and actions of their characters, in other words, the advocacy that Eero talks about.

This is not at all what Eero Tuovinen is talking about. First, as he says, "Character advocacy is also a common ideal in D&D, although I do admit that there are readings of the game text where advocacy is not present. . . . An alternative reading might be that the player’s job is to create a mechanically powerful character that he then uses to win challenges set up by the GM." The sort of D&D game text where character advocacy is not present would include B2. You can read Luke Crane - a designer of a "standard narrativist model" game (Burning Wheel) contrasting B2 with "story now" RPGing here.

(Luke Crane also makes clear that, in B2, "mechanically powerful characters" aren't that relevant, but winning challenges and solving puzzles is central to play.)

Second, even if there was no actual discussion of this the difference would be obvious.

In the standard narrativist model, the GM's job is to:

frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments (defined in narrativistic theory as moments of in-character action that carry weight as commentary on the game’s premise) by introducing complications . . .

Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character (or wherever the premise comes from, depends on the game). The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.​

And where do the dramatic needs come from?

The rest of the players each have their own characters to play. They play their characters according to the advocacy role: the important part is that they naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background. . . .

The player’s task in these games is simple advocacy, which is not difficult once you have a firm character. (Chargen is a key consideration in these games, compare them to see how different approaches work.)​

The "advocacy role" is not player gets to declare actions for the PC - which is satisfied by any RPG at all (unless it is some bizarre degenerate thing where the GM is declaring the players' moves for them). It is player plays the character in accordance with the PC's dramatic needs. This requires the framing of scenes where those dramatic needs are actually engaged.

It could hardly be more obvious that B2 is not an example of this. Character generation does not yield anything about PCs' natures and backgrounds. And even if they did, there is absolutely no provision in B2 for the GM to frame scenes in a way that responds to those elements of character and thereby provokes thematic moments.

It's almost equally obvious that a game in which the dramatic need is entering a castle, and in which the GM simply blocks - by narrative fiat - an attempt by the PCs to sneak in via a secret door, is not being run on the "standard narrativistic model".

The narrative aspect of his model is that the GM frames the action toward the dramatic needs, provoke thematic moments, and introduce complications. In other words, by your definition it puts more agency in the hands of the GM.

The only real restriction placed on the GM in this model is to keep track of backstory.

<snip>

The model itself is not talking about agency, it's talking about the GM's ability to craft an interesting narrative

Have you actually played any of the RPGs that Eero Tuovinen references as exemplifying the "standard narrativstic model"? (The ones he mentions are Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, Heroquest, The Shadow of Yesterday, Mountain Witch, and Primetime Adventures.)

The most important "restriction" on the GM - which you mention! - is to frame the action so as to provoke thematic moments. And where do the salient themes and dramatic need come from? The players! This is one of significant way in which players exercise agency over the content of the shared fiction.

And it's not about the GM's ability to craft an interesting narrative! This is what these games were invented to get away from. Sorcerer, DitV etc are reactions against GM authorship of narrative (as exemplfied eg by a module liek Dead Gods, or the White Wolf games of the 1990s).

The whole point, as Eero Tuovinen puts it, is that "[t]he fun in these games from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character". He's not talking here about pseudo-choices (to look for secret doors where there are none, which has no impact on anything). He's talking about actual choices that actually change how things unfold; and that - as he says - yield actual consequences that then feed into subsequent framings.

 

[pemerton]

When I read Eero's treatise I came away with pretty much the same thoughts on it that you did

Have you ever played, or even read the rules for, the games he mentions? (Sorcerer, DitV, HeroQuest, etc.)

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Here are two things a character can reasonably do in a fantasy RPG: find a map hidden in a study; find a secret door into a castle. In some cases, finding a holy sword on sale at a market would be a third such thing.

The GM declaring that such things are not possible is thus a burden on player agency as you have characterised it.

I don't follow your contrast, given that "control" and "agency" are near enough to synonyms in this context.

But in any event, what you're describing here is not an example of the "standard narratavistic model". The concepts of dramatic need, thematic moment, etc are doing no work. The context for decision that you describe is all established by the GM independently of those things.



This is not at all what Eero Tuovinen is talking about. First, as he says, "Character advocacy is also a common ideal in D&D, although I do admit that there are readings of the game text where advocacy is not present. . . . An alternative reading might be that the player’s job is to create a mechanically powerful character that he then uses to win challenges set up by the GM." The sort of D&D game text where character advocacy is not present would include B2. You can read Luke Crane - a designer of a "standard narrativist model" game (Burning Wheel) contrasting B2 with "story now" RPGing here.

(Luke Crane also makes clear that, in B2, "mechanically powerful characters" aren't that relevant, but winning challenges and solving puzzles is central to play.)

Second, even if there was no actual discussion of this the difference would be obvious.

In the standard narrativist model, the GM's job is to:

frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments (defined in narrativistic theory as moments of in-character action that carry weight as commentary on the game’s premise) by introducing complications . . .

Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character (or wherever the premise comes from, depends on the game). The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.​

And where do the dramatic needs come from?

The rest of the players each have their own characters to play. They play their characters according to the advocacy role: the important part is that they naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background. . . .

The player’s task in these games is simple advocacy, which is not difficult once you have a firm character. (Chargen is a key consideration in these games, compare them to see how different approaches work.)​

The "advocacy role" is not player gets to declare actions for the PC - which is satisfied by any RPG at all (unless it is some bizarre degenerate thing where the GM is declaring the players' moves for them). It is player plays the character in accordance with the PC's dramatic needs. This requires the framing of scenes where those dramatic needs are actually engaged.

It could hardly be more obvious that B2 is not an example of this. Character generation does not yield anything about PCs' natures and backgrounds. And even if they did, there is absolutely no provision in B2 for the GM to frame scenes in a way that responds to those elements of character and thereby provokes thematic moments.

It's almost equally obvious that a game in which the dramatic need is entering a castle, and in which the GM simply blocks - by narrative fiat - an attempt by the PCs to sneak in via a secret door, is not being run on the "standard narrativistic model".

Have you actually played any of the RPGs that Eero Tuovinen references as exemplifying the "standard narrativstic model"? (The ones he mentions are Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, Heroquest, The Shadow of Yesterday, Mountain Witch, and Primetime Adventures.)

The most important "restriction" on the GM - which you mention! - is to frame the action so as to provoke thematic moments. And where do the salient themes and dramatic need come from? The players! This is one of significant way in which players exercise agency over the content of the shared fiction.

And it's not about the GM's ability to craft an interesting narrative! This is what these games were invented to get away from. Sorcerer, DitV etc are reactions against GM authorship of narrative (as exemplfied eg by a module liek Dead Gods, or the White Wolf games of the 1990s).

The whole point, as Eero Tuovinen puts it, is that "[t]he fun in these games from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character". He's not talking here about pseudo-choices (to look for secret doors where there are none, which has no impact on anything). He's talking about actual choices that actually change how things unfold; and that - as he says - yield actual consequences that then feed into subsequent framings.

But this is still all missing my point. I never once indicated that my game is, or that I ever wanted it to be, a “standard narrativist game.” Which means that this specific definition of player agency is irrelevant to me.

The narrativist model is one way to design or play an RPG.

Not using that model doesn’t mean the players lack agency.

Character advocacy is to have control of your character. As long as you can make decisions for your character and your character can act appropriately in a given circumstance, you have agency.

Restrictions do not equal lack of agency.

Dramatic need is a subjective thing. What you view as dramatic need is different than what I think. Each player at the table has a different view of what dramatic need is, as does the GM.

Control and advocacy of the character is not subjective. Either I get to make decisions and choose actions for my character or not.

Restrictions in the fiction do not constitute a lack of player agency. If you were to set a scenario where the characters are interred in a concentration camp on WWII, the player’s agency has not been altered. The character has many restrictions set upon them, but they can still make decisions and take actions as the character.

A game where the character is imprisoned in an oubliette and chained to the wall does not remove player agency. It makes for a very challenging game where much of the action might occur in the character’s head, but as long as there are no restrictions on the part of the player in playing that character, they have agency.

Who writes the fiction of whether something is there or not does not alter player agency. It alters the fiction.

When parts of the fiction are written is also irrelevant. A player can pre-author something too. However, some things might be more fixed than others.

The GM deciding that there is no secret door in this particular passage 10 years before play does not affect player agency, any more than the DM declaring that in this pseudo-medieval fantasy world there are no space ships, and no, you can’t have one.

If you are playing a standard narrativist model game, however, then some of these things remove player agency. Because by design, some of these things are within the agency of the players, and some of these scenarios or mechanics take that agency away.

That does not apply in other games where the agency that the player has, by design, is different.

If you want to design a football game where the players can alter the circumstance of scoring, or where they can make decisions they are currently within the realm of the referee, you have not altered the agency of the players in the original game. They still have 100% player agency, even though there is now a game that gives them more options.

You, and others, continue to attempt to assess the agency of the players by the lens of your specific game or game model. I have a problem with that because the implication is that others are “doing it wrong” or it raises the possibility that players who don’t make the distinction between games expect something different from other gameplay models.

But I think you are entirely wrong about what constitutes player agency in other games. The goals of the design of the game, the goals of the GM, and the players all help define what agency the players want/get, along with what agency the GM wants/gets.

The type of agency may be different. And that remains my point - the definition of player agency is dependent upon the game being played.

How does B2 restrict agency at all? The provisions you say are lacking are part of the game system itself. It doesn’t need to be repeated in the adventure.

In the same “standard” OD&D, AD&D, BECMI, 2e, 2.5e, etc models it doesn’t.

The characters are free to wander the keep and do whatever they’d like. They can wander the wilderness. They can explore the caves of chaos in whatever manner they choose. They can interact with anything they feel like.

There are no restrictions that I can discern in the reading of the text that restricts a player’s agency at all. And while there is a lot of material that is already authored, the GM is free to add or alter it accordingly. There is no doubt that the world, and creatures in it, are going to have to react to the actions of the PCs. I’ve never seen two runs through the module the same, because each group’s goals, approaches, and decisions are different.

It could just as easily be played as a Story Now or Standard Narrativist game where the GM altered whatever is needed as the game progresses. Of course, depending on how much control the players have over the fiction might eliminate much of it from play anyway, but there isn’t anything wrong with that. Within those styles, as long as restrictions aren’t placed on the GM (you must use this text without alteration) or player’s that alter their agency within their game, then the module still doesn’t alter agency.

A different perspective is the player who prefers a simulationist game, where he is a character within a world, and has no control other than “to be me,” then forcing them to take narrative control of the world around them is impacting their agency.

It’s all well and good what those games are reactions against. But this also addresses my point. I’m not interested in those games nor the type of agency they are designed to provide. Their existence does not alter the agency present in my games. They are designed for the people who want to play those types of games. Yay for them!

People who are looking for a different kind of agency don’t have to play them. Yay for us!

 

[pemerton]

But this is still all missing my point. I never once indicated that my game is, or that I ever wanted it to be, a “standard narrativist game.”

I quoted you saying that "Eero's model is really no different than what most consider D&D to be" and that "This fits Eero’s model precisely: the player advocates for the character."

You, and others, continue to attempt to assess the agency of the players by the lens of your specific game or game model. I have a problem with that because the implication is that others are “doing it wrong” or it raises the possibility that players who don’t make the distinction between games expect something different from other gameplay models.

I think you are entirely wrong about what constitutes player agency in other games.

Look, you can tell me as much as you like that players of snakes and ladders have as much agency as do players of chess, but it isn't true. All you do in snakes and ladders is roll the dice and move your piece as the dice and board markings dictate. No choices are made at all.

If you take that to be an implication that players of snakes and ladders are doing it wrong, well, that's on you. Some gamblers play roulette; others play blackjack. That doesn't mean that they each have 100% agency. Rouletee players obviously have 0% agency over the outcome of their bet. Whether that is a reason to play roulette or a reason to play blackjack depends on how much agency you want to exercise.

When it comes to auction-and-trick based card games, my favourite is five hundred. I think it makes for a better social game than bridge precisely because, once the auction finishes and play begins, the amount of player agency is less.

Which means that this specific definition of player agency is irrelevant to me.

OK. But then what is your point?

I assert that a GM-driven game, which relies heavily on the GM to either establish setting in advance and indepndently of the players, or permits the GM to establish setting more-or-less at will in the course of play (including unrevealed setting that permits saying "no"), puts very significant constraints around player agency in respect of the shared fiction. Examples you have given include the finding of an item in a market, or a secret door in a castle. Another that was discussed at length upthread was finding a map hidden in a study.

You may not care about these constraints. You may not even be interested in talking about them. As [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has already posted, that doesn't mean they're not there.

You may even assert that your game offers some different form of player agency. All I've really grasped about that is that players are able to declare actioins for their PCs - which personally I would regard as a basic property of any RPG, and so a baseline for what players do in the game rather than some alternative mode of agency. But that assertion doesn't contradict mine. The fact that you want to assert it in fact suggests that you think I'm correct about agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction.

Character advocacy is to have control of your character.

This is not what Eero Tuovinen means by the term.

Dramatic need is a subjective thing. What you view as dramatic need is different than what I think. Each player at the table has a different view of what dramatic need is, as does the GM.

Control and advocacy of the character is not subjective. Either I get to make decisions and choose actions for my character or not.

This is completely at odds with what Eero Tuovinen asserts. It's also obviously wrong.

If a player writes a Belief for his PC "I will find an item that will help me confront my balrog-possessed brother before I leave Hardby", then I know what that PC's dramatic need is: an opportunity to acquire said item.

If a player writes down, in his PC backstory, "I travel the galaxy, with the support of the Travellers' Aid Society, searching for signs of alien life and civilisation", then I know what that PC's dramatic need is: an opportunity to confront alien life or culture.

As long as you can make decisions for your character and your character can act appropriately in a given circumstance, you have agency.

This is also obviously wrong. I have played RPG sessions (on occasion) in which all events are dictated by the GM. The players can declare actions for their PCs, but either (i) the GM ignores the outcome of the resolution mechanics (sometimes called "fudging"), or (ii) the GM manipulates the backstory to introduce elements into the fiction that render the outcome of the resolution mechanics (so eg the PCs defeat opponent X, but the GM brings a new opponent Y into the situation who plays exactly the same role).

In a RPG like I describe the players have no meaningful agency. l mean, they can speak in funny voices and choose whether their PCs use scimitars or longswords, but they don't actually have any impact on the salient content of the fiction.

Who writes the fiction of whether something is there or not does not alter player agency. It alters the fiction.

Again, this is obviously wrong: if the GM has extensive power to establish the fiction, and the players have little such power, then obviously the players lack significant agency over the content of the shared fiction.

Restrictions in the fiction do not constitute a lack of player agency.

They are (self-evidently) limits on the capacity of the players to shape the content of the shared fiction.

If you were to set a scenario where the characters are interred in a concentration camp on WWII, the player’s agency has not been altered. The character has many restrictions set upon them, but they can still make decisions and take actions as the character.

That is not what we are talking about. If I agree to play that game, then the presence of those ficitonal constraints is an expression of my agency.

But if I delcare actions to try and survive in the camp, or escape from it, and the GM establishes or manipulated unrevealed backstory so that those actions cannot succeed, that obviously is a limit upon player agency.

The GM deciding that there is no secret door in this particular passage 10 years before play does not affect player agency, any more than the DM declaring that in this pseudo-medieval fantasy world there are no space ships, and no, you can’t have one.

A player agreeing to play in a fantasy RPG is exercising agency.

If, subsequently, that player declares that his/her PC searches for a secret door in a wall and the GM, by reading some pre-authored material, declares the search a failure - that is clearly a case of the player lacking agency over the content of the shared fiction.

When parts of the fiction are written is also irrelevant.

It may be irrelevant to you.

But the basic act of RPGing is conversation: "You are in situation XYZ . . ." "OK, then, I perform action ABC . . ." If the GM has presecripted all his/her contributions to the conversation, that makes a huge difference. Eg it is not going to be very responsive to what the players say. The module Dead Gods is a practical example of this, but only one of dozens.

How does B2 restrict agency at all? The provisions you say are lacking are part of the game system itself. It doesn’t need to be repeated in the adventure.

<snip>

The characters are free to wander the keep and do whatever they’d like.

<snip>

There are no restrictions that I can discern in the reading of the text that restricts a player’s agency at all.

Here's one way that B2 restricts player agency: if a player declares "I want to meet an alchemist in the keep" then, as the module is written, that action will fail.

Which also shows that the characters can't do whatever they like. They can do whatever the established fiction of the keep might permit them to do.

It could just as easily be played as a Story Now or Standard Narrativist game where the GM altered whatever is needed as the game progresses.

Are you saying this from experience?

I've used B2 twice in a "story now" game. The Caves are irrelevant in that sort of game: at best there are little elements of them (the most striking being the cultist area) which can be adpated for other contexts or purposes. The Keep iteslf needs to be injected with story elements that aren't given in the module - ie it is primarily a map, and a source of a couple of NPCs with motivations (the evil priest the most obvious one). And the whole setup of the module - that the PCs are here to fight chaos by raiding/defeating the Caves - has to be ignored.

If you are playing a standard narrativist model game, however, then some of these things remove player agency. Because by design, some of these things are within the agency of the players, and some of these scenarios or mechanics take that agency away.

What things? Which RPG system are you talking about here - DitV? Burning Wheel? HeroWars/Quest? Cortex+ Heroic? And what scenarios or mechanics do you have in mind?

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, the player can choose what to search for, which affects the DC. The player can also spend resources or use augments to affect the chance of success.

Do you really think that what the PCs search for and how they go about it doesn't affect the DC in DM facing games? Also, that still isn't the player setting the DC, so I'll assume from your answer, since you chose not to answer it directly, that players do not in fact set the DCs in your game.

I don't understand how play works at your table. Do the players need permission to speak?

At my table, if the players want their PCs to be stealthy, or take precautions, they can say so. In some systems - eg Traveller, or AD&D - there are also generic surprise rules that apply, but in 4e (which is the system I was envisaging in the example - as evidenced by the reference to residuum) the players would have to actively declare Stealth checks or something similar.

You gave them no opportunity in your example. Here it is again.

GM: Just as the dwarves told you, after a hard trek through the tunnels you find yourself at the entrance to a massive cavern. It's lit a dull red by the glow of lava that bubbles up through the floor of the cave and flows away in criss-crossing channels. In the glow of the lava, you can see fire giant sentries on patrol. And it seems that a group of sentries has seen you!

You gave them no opportunity to tell you that they were stealthy in giant territory. You went from hard trek through the tunnels to being at the entrance and spotted with 0 time in-between. I on the other hand would have at LEAST(if I was going to fast forward the journey, depriving them of countless opportunities) told them that they were approaching giant territory. That way they could have a moment to actually tell me how they approach.

How far in advance do they have to tell you every move that they want to make? Do they have to give you contingencies for their moves?

Players:We follow the instructions of the dwarves. When we get close, we start being stealth to avoid being seen. If we're seen by a giant that can cast spells, we do A. If we're seen by a giant child, we do B. If we're seen by a giant patrol, we do C. If the giants have hell hounds, we do D.

How much do they have to tell you before they even leave on the journey? It appears if they don't spell everything out, you're just going to play their PCs and decide things on their behalf.

So it's not railroading to expect the players to ask about uneven flagstones; but it is railroading to expect them to declare Stealth checks if they want to be sneak up on the giants?

As far as I can see, those things are exactly parallel.

Raised, chipped etc flagstone also exist in any rational world. But you don't tell your players about all of those. You wait for them to ask. Why is that not railroading, but it is railroading to expect them to ask if there are any intersections?

As far as I can see, those things are exactly parallel.

Stop looking down. I already told you that I described the flagstone floor to them and would let them know if the floor changed. This idea you have that I have to describe every individual flagstone of the dungeon is absolutely absurd. It's a deflection on your part from the argument.

Beyond that, the overwhelming difference is that I am not playing their PCs by not describing individual flagstones. You are playing their PCs by deciding that they just stroll brazenly up to the entrance of giant territory.

Again, this is bizarre. Why is narrating an encounter with potential allies, or with potentinal items, less railroading than narrating an encounter with the giants?

And how do you know the giants that have seen them aren't potential allites?

You seem to be locked into a GM-driven mindset - eg where something being a potential ally is a GM decision rather than a player decision.

And you also seem to think it's important to insert GM-authored filler. Why?

I don't know what you are talking about. These sentences do not in any way describe my game or what I have been saying.

And here we can see those principles at work.

For some reason you think it's not railroading for the GM to either decide, or to determine by die roll, that there's nothing useful in the bazaar - thus blocking the player's goal for his/her PC without the player even getting to make a meaningful action delcaration. But you think it is railroading for the GM to frame the player into a situation where that meaningful action can be delcared and the outcome turns on that.

That sttrikes me as completely backwards.

No blocking is being done by nothing being at the bazaar. There are many other ways to achieve the goals.

Edit: removed some text that I did not respond to.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I quoted you saying that "Eero's model is really no different than what most consider D&D to be" and that "This fits Eero’s model precisely: the player advocates for the character."

Look, you can tell me as much as you like that players of snakes and ladders have as much agency as do players of chess, but it isn't true. All you do in snakes and ladders is roll the dice and move your piece as the dice and board markings dictate. No choices are made at all.

If you take that to be an implication that players of snakes and ladders are doing it wrong, well, that's on you. Some gamblers play roulette; others play blackjack. That doesn't mean that they each have 100% agency. Rouletee players obviously have 0% agency over the outcome of their bet. Whether that is a reason to play roulette or a reason to play blackjack depends on how much agency you want to exercise.

When it comes to auction-and-trick based card games, my favourite is five hundred. I think it makes for a better social game than bridge precisely because, once the auction finishes and play begins, the amount of player agency is less.

OK. But then what is your point?

I assert that a GM-driven game, which relies heavily on the GM to either establish setting in advance and indepndently of the players, or permits the GM to establish setting more-or-less at will in the course of play (including unrevealed setting that permits saying "no"), puts very significant constraints around player agency in respect of the shared fiction. Examples you have given include the finding of an item in a market, or a secret door in a castle. Another that was discussed at length upthread was finding a map hidden in a study.

You may not care about these constraints. You may not even be interested in talking about them. As [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has already posted, that doesn't mean they're not there.

You may even assert that your game offers some different form of player agency. All I've really grasped about that is that players are able to declare actioins for their PCs - which personally I would regard as a basic property of any RPG, and so a baseline for what players do in the game rather than some alternative mode of agency. But that assertion doesn't contradict mine. The fact that you want to assert it in fact suggests that you think I'm correct about agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction.

This is not what Eero Tuovinen means by the term.

This is completely at odds with what Eero Tuovinen asserts. It's also obviously wrong.

If a player writes a Belief for his PC "I will find an item that will help me confront my balrog-possessed brother before I leave Hardby", then I know what that PC's dramatic need is: an opportunity to acquire said item.

If a player writes down, in his PC backstory, "I travel the galaxy, with the support of the Travellers' Aid Society, searching for signs of alien life and civilisation", then I know what that PC's dramatic need is: an opportunity to confront alien life or culture.

This is also obviously wrong. I have played RPG sessions (on occasion) in which all events are dictated by the GM. The players can declare actions for their PCs, but either (i) the GM ignores the outcome of the resolution mechanics (sometimes called "fudging"), or (ii) the GM manipulates the backstory to introduce elements into the fiction that render the outcome of the resolution mechanics (so eg the PCs defeat opponent X, but the GM brings a new opponent Y into the situation who plays exactly the same role).

In a RPG like I describe the players have no meaningful agency. l mean, they can speak in funny voices and choose whether their PCs use scimitars or longswords, but they don't actually have any impact on the salient content of the fiction.

Again, this is obviously wrong: if the GM has extensive power to establish the fiction, and the players have little such power, then obviously the players lack significant agency over the content of the shared fiction.

They are (self-evidently) limits on the capacity of the players to shape the content of the shared fiction.

That is not what we are talking about. If I agree to play that game, then the presence of those ficitonal constraints is an expression of my agency.

But if I delcare actions to try and survive in the camp, or escape from it, and the GM establishes or manipulated unrevealed backstory so that those actions cannot succeed, that obviously is a limit upon player agency.

A player agreeing to play in a fantasy RPG is exercising agency.

If, subsequently, that player declares that his/her PC searches for a secret door in a wall and the GM, by reading some pre-authored material, declares the search a failure - that is clearly a case of the player lacking agency over the content of the shared fiction.

It may be irrelevant to you.

But the basic act of RPGing is conversation: "You are in situation XYZ . . ." "OK, then, I perform action ABC . . ." If the GM has presecripted all his/her contributions to the conversation, that makes a huge difference. Eg it is not going to be very responsive to what the players say. The module Dead Gods is a practical example of this, but only one of dozens.

Here's one way that B2 restricts player agency: if a player declares "I want to meet an alchemist in the keep" then, as the module is written, that action will fail.

Which also shows that the characters can't do whatever they like. They can do whatever the established fiction of the keep might permit them to do.

Are you saying this from experience?

I've used B2 twice in a "story now" game. The Caves are irrelevant in that sort of game: at best there are little elements of them (the most striking being the cultist area) which can be adpated for other contexts or purposes. The Keep iteslf needs to be injected with story elements that aren't given in the module - ie it is primarily a map, and a source of a couple of NPCs with motivations (the evil priest the most obvious one). And the whole setup of the module - that the PCs are here to fight chaos by raiding/defeating the Caves - has to be ignored.

What things? Which RPG system are you talking about here - DitV? Burning Wheel? HeroWars/Quest? Cortex+ Heroic? And what scenarios or mechanics do you have in mind?

This is Eero's definition of advocacy:

"Character advocacy
Players can have different roles in a roleplaying game. Typical overarching categories are “player roles” and “GM roles”, which are fuzzy and historically determined expressions of natural language. One type of player role is when the game requires a player to be an advocate for a single player character – this advocacy thing is an exact theory term, unlike the fuzzy concept of “player role”. When a player is an advocate for a character in a roleplaying game, this means that his task in playing the game is to express his character’s personality, interests and agenda for the benefit of himself and other players. This means that the player tells the others what his character does, thinks and feels, and he’s doing his job well if the picture he paints of the character is clear and powerful, easy to relate to."

This doesn't require anything on the part of the GM to respond to it in any specific way.

The narrativist model indicates that the GM should take this into account. But the player's agency - to advocate for their character - doesn't change if the GM doesn't address the character's interests.

In many examples of my play, I've pointed out that I do use many (if not all) of these techiniques to a greater or lesser degree in my campaigns. They are tools among the many tools available as a GM in running a game. Sometimes the circumstances are directly related to the interests and dramatic need of the character, sometimes they aren't. I provide lots of hooks and options, and the players decide which are important to them and their character. It's not a narrativist model, because I'm not directly framing things all the time to press that particular type of drama.

And despite that, you continue to seem to imply that everything that I, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and others inflexibly pre-script all of the GMs contributions ahead of time. Your answer regarding B2 and the player looking for an alchemist completely ignores the fact that we (and the AD&D/D&D rulebooks themselves), provide all that is needed for the GM to decide that, yes, in fact, there is an alchemist in town. On the other hand, being able to do, or perhaps attempt is a better term, whatever you'd like doesn't mean you'll succeed all the time.

If your group of 1st level characters in a standard narrativist game decides they want to go kill an ancient dragon, are you implying that the players lack agency if they fail to kill the dragon when they wander into its lair and get barbecued? Agency cannot be tied to success, because there's no game if the players can simply declare what they want and then achieve it.

While I get that the general philosophy of the standard narrativist model is for the GM to not say, "no." Saying "no" doesn't require preauthoring at all. I am perfectly capable of improvising such a thing on the spot. Nor does the fact that my notes or thoughts ahead of the game might say "no" prevent me from changing that during the course of the game.

Failure does not equal lack of agency over the content of the fiction. The content of the fiction is the combination of the contributions of all players (including the GM) in an RPG. For example, the secret door:

The rogue searches the area where he suspects a secret door carefully. Any cracks that look out of place? Scuff marks indicating a door that might slide or swing out here? Perhaps the mortar is different, lighter in this area? Despite his best efforts, no secret entrance is found. The wizard indicates that he should move aside and casts passwall.

The player of the rogue contributed to the fiction, and the narrative continued. The player of the wizard did too, and also changed their current situation.

The reason why the rogue failed is really irrelevant here with regard to player agency. Whether the GM knew ahead of time, decided it in the moment, or it was the result of a failed skill check, it just doesn't matter.

But the fact is, the game is designed for character advocacy, exactly as Eero described. An "exact theory term" as he described it, to "express his character's personality, interests and agenda for the benefit of himself and other players...(he) tells the players what his character does, things and feels..."

Rogue: I want to get in the castle undetected. I think there's a secret door here. I'm going to search for a secret door here. Even, "I think that there ought to be a secret door as an escape route, and will go to what looks like the most logical place for it." The GM could frame the scene at "the most logical place for it" and there still not be a secret door. No loss of agency, the player still had full advocacy of his character.


Why do the caves have to be ignored in a Story Now game? Are you saying that the players are not allowed to create characters that are there for the very (basic) premise of the module itself. That you are actively taking away their agency to play that scenario in that manner?

The fact that you ran it twice as a Story Now game, and didn't engage those parts doesn't mean they can't be. It just means that you didn't. Or again, are you saying that as the GM you will dictate what they can and can't do? Of course, I don't believe that to be the case. What I believe is that you and your group have decided that telling the story of the module in that manner is boring. It's a story you don't want to tell, so you tell a different one. Fair enough, but that also doesn't apply to everybody and has nothing to do with player agency. More likely, it was exactly what I describe in my campaigns: The characters found themselves in whatever situation they were in, and decided to do something other than what was authored in the module. One of the things that I do quite frequently, which is to steal bits and pieces without running an entire adventure. I encourage it, and find it very helpful. But I'm not sure I would say I "ran" the module when doing that. The fact that the PCs will tend to do things I don't expect, and won't follow a set plot, so I don't bother, and that's one of the main reasons I don't run published adventures very frequently.

And again, you'll see that despite the fact that I do have pre-authored (and published materials) in my game, including some story elements, I don't have control over the story of the characters. I can certainly take control, but that's not my role in the game as far as I'm concerned (and really as I think the game was designed). That's not to say that I don't have an impact on it. Of course I do. I have a much greater impact on the setting, and the motivations and actions of the NPCs and monster in the setting. And all of this exerts some control over the story of the characters. But their contribution to their story is probably 60-80% and mine is 20-40%.

Even Eero's examples can clearly fit B2 as written:

"The actual procedure of play is very simple: once the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character (or wherever the premise comes from, depends on the game). The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.

The player’s task in these games is simple advocacy, which is not difficult once you have a firm character. (Chargen is a key consideration in these games, compare them to see how different approaches work.) The GM might have more difficulty, as he needs to be able to reference the backstory, determine complications to introduce into the game, and figure out consequences. Much of the rules systems in these games address these challenges, and in addition the GM might have methodical tools outside the rules, such as pre-prepared relationship maps (helps with backstory), bangs (helps with provoking thematic choice) and pure experience (helps with determining consequences)."

The premise of the setting is a that a keep exists on the outskirts of civilization, and it's rumored that there's a monster infested cave filled with treasure.

The players have established a fighter, wizard, cleric and thief. They arrived at the keep this morning. The fighter wants to test his skill and help clear the region of monsters in the hopes he'll be able to one day build his own keep. The wizard is looking for some rare ingredients and components, and scrolls, spellbooks, magic items, etc. The cleric wants to aid his friend the fighter in his quest, and his hope that he'll one day lead a temple in the fighter's keep. And the thief is a childhood friend that's looking for a way to fast riches with little work.

There's nothing that indicates any issue with using preauthored material to present to the characters.

Chapter #1 The Keep. The characters are free to explore, meet the locals, purchase equipment, and learn of the local lay of the land and potential threats, rumors of lost treasure, etc.

Chapter #2 The Wilderness. The characters have learned that there is a mysterious place called the "Caves of Chaos" nearby. Or at least that's what the rumors say. If any have found it, none have returned. Their most specific information is that it lies to the northeast, but the trustworthiness of the source was a bit suspect. But it's the best information they can go on.

Chapter #3 The Caves of Chaos. The PCs locate the caves, and find that they are indeed infested. However, they survived their first foray, and claimed some treasure before narrowly escaping death. While they could set up camp and stay here, they feel it's better to return to the keep to recover. They decide to conceal their treasure, and tell anybody who asks that they didn't find the caves, but did get attacked by an orc warband. To further support the ruse, they choose to circle around and approach the keep from the northwest.

Chapter #4. The Keep. Resting and reprovisioning, and searching for more rumors. The thief goes behind the others backs to bribe a local to learn any secrets regarding the keep and the caves. Why haven't they been discovered, and why have the monsters been allowed to flourish there?

Maybe not the most compelling story, but all quite possible with the adventure as written. At times the players take a greater role in the content of the fiction, and other times it's simple exploration - is there a secret door here? All using traditional D&D approaches and meeting all of the requirements of Eero's model at the same time, although not necessarily all the time (although I still don't see anything in his theory that would indicate a problem with exploring a wall for a secret door and not finding one). All of it could happen without altering the authored text, and yet additional information can be added as well, as is suggested in the module itself.

A Story Now or Narrativist approach (one that's actually utilizing the caves) might skip the Wilderness part altogether. "We want to find an explore the Caves of Chaos" the players/characters declare. "So after hours (or days) of searching, you find yourself entering a small box canyon well hidden by the surrounding forest." For a great deal of us, that's significantly taking away player agency. Why? Because even though they said they wanted to go to the Caves, it doesn't mean that something else might alter their course - voluntarily or involuntarily. They might have had plans to do something else on the way, which hadn't been expressed yet. Personally, I'm not opposed to skipping ahead, but it requires the input of the players to make that decision, not just a declaration by their characters. And no, I'm not implying that you can't do that as well in a Story Now or Narrativist approach, but it is a potential pitfall of the style.

"Meaningful" agency is undefinable, because meaningful is different for different people. Being able to advocate in the manner I'm describing may be meaningful for one player, and in the way you describe for another.

In terms of advocacy in the standard narrativist model, Eero even clarifies at the end of the essay:

"For these purposes it is useful to example games in close reading and find out what it is, actually, that the game requires of a player. This whole post has actually been an overview of how certain types of game require players to be engaged in the role of advocacy (“I play my character to express him into the story”) as opposed to authorship (“I play my character to fill the narrative role allotted to him”). Both are called “playing your character” in different game texts, but psychologically and practically they are rather different processes."

He spends quite a few words about why authorship, particularly shared authorship by the players, is a problem in games like these, and then arrives at the point that the "job" of the player is one of advocacy. He is clearly separating advocacy from authorship here.