Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7378089" data-attributes="member: 6778044">This is Eero's definition of advocacy:"Character advocacyPlayers 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.</blockquote>

Verification