Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7377197" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Exactly. Because they are an "agent" of the game. Nobody can control their piece except them. Even in something like Sorry!, you are still in control over your own pieces, even though others can make moves that impact them. In something like Snakes and Ladders you really only have the choice to play or not to play. Or to go to the other extreme, 100% player agency could only be achieved by one player in any given game, since any time somebody else has "agency" in respect of the shared fiction, then are taking agency away from another.Yes, you can define it this way (they are an agent of the story). But by allowing everybody to be an agent of the story without context or rules to determine how much control they have over the story leads to the conch-passing analogy that Eero talks about. The reality is, nobody has agency over the story in that approach since the next person to gain agency can undo everything the prior player did.You are fond of quoting Eero's "Standard" Narrative Model. In that, he talks about the player's role of one of advocacy, not agency. He also argues against giving the players narrative control. As long as "you do not require player(s) to take part in determining ... moments of choice." He elaborates on this point several times throughout the essay.That's why I'm saying player agency is different than narrative control, or to be more specific, control of the fiction beyond their character.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. He appears to prefer to leave backstory under the control of the DM, although I think most would agree that the players have considerable freedom in backstory, with the GM having veto power, along with the ability to amend or modify it - including after play has commenced.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. The implication being that the "front" story maintains consistency with the backstory. But it's also clear in his essay that the backstory isn't necessarily fully known to the players, and argues (as I have) against it being entirely known. This brings us back to the OP as well - as world-building is a part or extension of backstory - provides context, and consistency (or at least the appearance of consistency). The model itself is not talking about agency, it's talking about the GM's ability to craft an interesting narrative, and is defining "interesting" by "going where the action is," providing moments that "carry weight as commentary on the game's premise," and complications. These all imply an active DM role, changing things on the fly, to what they (the GM) feel meets those goals. In reality, these three "requirements" are qualitative aspects, and in my mind, subjective. They make an assumption as to what the players are expecting to get out of the game. They make sense in his narrativist model, because he's talking about a narrativist style game. But that doesn't apply to all RPGs, and even if he were talking about player agency (which he's not), it wouldn't mean that alternate RPG models provide less agency.I, personally, don't agree that those three things are the only (or even most important) things that make the game interesting. It is noting that the more narrative control you give the players, the less able the GM is in creating a compelling narrative. And that as a result, the quality of the narrative (particularly from the player's perspective) suffers as a result. I find that interesting.Some folks want a game that hands more narrative control to the players, and while narrative and backstory consistency are somewhat important in assessing the "quality" of the narrative, they may have different criteria, such as creativity, or dramatic impact, or what have you. But to imply or say that this gives more agency to the players is, in my opinion, misguided. It's different, but not necessarily more. It provides more freedom in narrative control, but perhaps less freedom in other areas. To actually compare agency, were it even possible, you'd have to compare the games as a whole, not individual parts. That would be pointless for many reasons, probably starting with the conscious and subconscious goals of the participants.Personally, I think that it's important as a GM to address not only the narrative needs of the characters, but the players. It's much easier to have an impact on the player if you're addressing their needs too. Which is probably why Apocalypse World never resonated for me. I don't care for their particular "world slang" nor the character types and motivations they've created in their game. I don't really feel any connection to it at all. Yes, the GM can provide a narrative need for the character.I think one of the main reasons for that for me, is that I'm not a great acting-type role-player. I can't "act," especially in an improvised manner, so as soon as the game requires me to rely solely on the character's internal motivations for drama, I'm lost. I need something else to hang my dramatic hat on, such as the tension created by the unfolding of the narrative itself, the tension created in uncertain situations, where creativity is needed to "solve" the situation, whether it's a combat that is a bit too much for the characters to be comfortable, or a puzzle that requires player ingenuity and not just engaging the rules through DCs and dice. Dice themselves can be an important part of building suspense, but only one part. A big part of the drama is the drama of the setting itself, meaning the impacts that the decisions of the characters have on the world around them, big and small. This is where world-building excites me, because it considers the complex interactions one life has on the world around them. It includes the drama of people, but without the requirement of being a decent actor. Don't get me wrong, we have some very good acting-style improvisers in the group, and it's great fun to be a part of that, even if I can't participate in the same way. As the DM, however, I can ensure that they have the opportunity to engage that aspect of their skill set and play style. And that's where I think I differ a bit from Eero's, or similar descriptions. I don't typically need to "go where the action is," or "provide moments...(of) weight,"  or introduce complications. I have no doubt that I do that from time to time. But a lot of the time, it's enough to just let the narrative "write itself." In most of my groups, I often provide very little input beyond a simple description of the location. They take things from there narratively, but not in a world-sense, just their actions and decisions. Much of it is between the players, and I "let the world" react to what they do. Other times I have a more active role and, occasionally, take over the narrative entirely, such as in the realm of things like powerful illusions or hallucinations, dream states or worlds, etc. The illusion being that they have control, when they really don't. It doesn't happen often, always involves magic, and the drama is not only in the events, but the reveal also has an enormous impact if the scenario was done well. I always have clues that something is not quite right, but they usually don't notice those until after the fact. Similar situations would be if characters are captured or imprisoned, whether it's a complex magical trap, or simple apprehension by the local watch after they've chosen to drink a bit too much and black out.Is that taking away agency? I don't think so, although I know a lot that would argue that it is. It's extremely rare that it can't be avoided, and even in those cases where it can't, it's the result of other choices the PCs have made to get to that point. Is it a more narrativist approach? I think so, at least as defined by Eero in that I'm not handing over narrative control to the players, which is in line with what he recommends. I haven't run into a player personally that didn't like this shifting "agency" in my games, although, at least theoretically, I've met quite a number online that appear to hate the idea.Which is why expanding "agency" to include "how much" control you have, to me anyway, becomes a futile effort, simply because RPGs are terribly complex. For example, Apocalypse World has a quite restrictive character creation approach, while 4e has an expansive character creation approach. Which has more agency? Or is it just that the agency is different? Is AD&D different than OD&D or 4e? I think it's better to understand what aspects of an RPG you like, what are you trying to get out of it.If you prefer more narrative control as a player, then Burning Wheel or similar games may be more your style. Certainly the design of 4e is conducive for playing in this style as well. And there's really no reason why D&D can't be played in the same manner, although many D&D players probably don't want to share narrative responsibilities in that way.Alternatively, to consider games that don't provide the same level of narrative control "choose your own adventure" or "just guessing what's in DMs notes" is disingenuous. Just because a certain game doesn't give players narrative control over the world doesn't mean they can't influence the narrative or world around them indirectly. A DM who has full control of the world narrative can be operating entirely from improvisation, not to mention they could be operating entirely within Eero's model.If you go back to a lot of Gygax's and Arneson's descriptions of games, particularly early ones, the maps and their keys are starting points. They often changed things on the fly, and had empty rooms that might be filled in the moment. Once a room was explored, those maps and keys became tools to help maintain consistency in the backstory - the backstory now including what prior adventurer's did. The rest of the backstory could be improvised as needed, but once improvised became part of the world itself. For those that don't improvise well, not to mention those who just enjoy the exercise, world-building became an end in itself. It's fun. How strictly a DM sticks to that pre-authored material depends as much on their skill set as it does the needs of the game. A published adventure might include story (narrative) elements in the world-building process.In a more sophisticated world-building approach, like the Forgotten Realms, story elements are in place, but are designed as background and hooks with undetermined consequences. The Realms relied more on sourcebooks than adventures (although there have been plenty), where the published stories (including novels) provide backstory for the setting, and rumors provide hooks for the DM to flesh out. Where I think they failed, is that they also published novels based on many of those rumors, which often had the effect of "ruining" the DM's own campaigns. Even if they avoided using those rumors altogether, though, altering the state of the setting always runs that risk. They seemed to have a decent handle on that, other than the 4e changes which seemed to spark a specific backlash. I'm still not entirely sure if it was the sheer amount of changes, or that they didn't like the changes they made. I usually incorporate even the changes I don't like into my campaign, because we don't always like what happens in the world. I might make some changes, and there have certainly been some I've outright ignored. But since I utilize the published lore as backstory, as I think it's intended, it's often irrelevant whether or not it actually happened. It might just be a bard's tale, or it might be fact. Usually it lies somewhere in between.Do some D&D (and other RPGs) rely solely on the published or pre-authored content? Absolutely. Does it remove player agency? I say no. Because in the context of "how much" agency a player has in a game is dependent upon what that player defines as agency. If they are a type that is more focused on their character build, and the primary goal is to gain XP to get to the higher levels of the character, than narrative control isn't necessarily important. They may never have heard of narrative control, nor care to. They might have little interest in the actual story altogether. They might view things that affect their ability to gain XP, or effects that reduce level as impacting their agency.So I go back to where I started - "player agency" is a useless term without the context of the game being played. Within that context it can have some benefit, but the reality is that most games rarely advocate impacting player agency anyway. Whatever agency the players have is hopefully consistent within the structure of the game. Comparing two different games requires more refined comparisons, centered on the goals of the player.</blockquote>

Verification