What is Player Agency?

[Lumipon]

'Snot railroading because we choose to do so!

I think it's because the contrast between the notions is so incomprehensibly large that you feel like you cannot just leave it unattended. Like seeing a child saying or doing something absolutely ludicrous and you need to make sure they mean what they think they mean.

Plus, I'd guess, a long history of adversity and that online arguments are safe and gratifying thanks to anonymity and the capacity to detach from the situation at any point it feels convenient. To the extent that neither side is capable of giving any ground out of principle, making the whole argument a diverting exercise of pointlessness.

Anyhoo!


Well, except a GM controlled game is a normal game. This is even written into the very game rules and is very clear.

But is there something specific about abnormality that makes such games lame?

[Lorsa]

I really think you've outdone yourself Darth Ultron, but I will take my time to reply anyway.


This is only true if your in a Simple Game. So just to be Clear: A Simple Game is Black and White, like a cartoon or anything made by Disney or made for kidz. In such a game the evil bad orcs will only do evil bad thing as they are evil bad monsters. Always. The good nice elves will only do good nice things as they are good nice paragons. Always. In a Simple Game, the players choice is just about all ways right and things go exactly the way the player thinks they might, with only a very rare and very small chance of anything else happening.

The first big issue I have is that if you use a scenario example with two standard core races from D&D, everyone on a D&D forum will assume they function as written. If, for some reason you are referring to a scenario where they do NOT work as written, YOU NEED TO SPECIFY IT! That is just a basic ****ing discussion rule. Not doing so and then trying to attack the argument with some stupid idea that "oh no, but in MY games Orcs are not evil at all, and Elves are bad, so whatever argument you had is meaningless", is just straight out intellectually dishonest. Don't do that again. Either refer to races as written OR specify how you want them to be different.

If you meant a war between two sides who were morally and culturally very similar, you can always use humans. In standard D&D, HUMANS are portrayed as 50 shades of grey.

Next up is your actual argument. The division between Complex or Simple depending on if there are sides that are more evil than others is just bad.

If you want to compare things on a black & white scale (which doesn't really cover the full spectrum of what "complex" can refer to), then Complex games involve more points on the scale. Your example is "a complex game is where everyone is equally grey in the middle". That doesn't really hold true as that is ALSO a Simple game, just simple in a different way. For a true Complex game, you need some things that are Very Evil, some that are Moderately Evil, some that are morally ambiguous, some that are Moderately Good and some that are Very Good. That brings you the full spectrum which quite evidently should be the more Complex. A standard D&D game DOES involve this whole spectrum, where Orcs happen to be at the Moderately Evil point and Elves at the Moderately Good.

But anyway, even morally black & white games can be complex, just complex in other ways than morally.



In the complex game: anything can happen. The evil bad orcs ''only kill warriors with weapons and never, ever hurt innocents'', the good nice elves will ''slaughter some innocents for a greater good'', and so on to infinity. In a Complex Game the players choice might be right and things might go the way the player thinks about half of the time, but more often then not: anything can happen.

Anything can happen makes a game complex? What has made you come up with THAT idea?

If anything can happen, that makes a game a big random mess. I mean, if anything can happen, the game works like this:

Player: I try to hit the Enemy with my sword.
GM: A lightning bolt comes down from the sky and kills him!

or like this:

Player: I try to hit the Enemy with my sword.
GM: You miss and the force flings you forward 15 feet down into the 30 feet hole.

or like this:

Player: I try to hit the Enemy with my sword.
GM: Make a roll!
Player: I get 23!
GM: Ooohhh! 23 means you are magically transported into the shadow realm.

THAT is what anything can happen imply. And it is by far a more accurate description of a random game than anything you've ever described as such. Technically it is not random though, but rather completely nonsensical.

Lastly, things going the way the players want has nothing at all to do with whether or not the game has black & white morality or not. That's a different discussion entirely. Don't confuse the two.



So, this puts a huge restriction on Player Agency: it only is possible in a Simple Game.

Yeah, if you by "complex game" really do mean "anything can happen based on the DM's whim", then you are right, Player Agency is only possible in a simple game. That's also the kind of game 99% of us wants to play, as your "anything can happen" is just a random mess. Why would I want that?

Why would I want to play a game where, one day my character suffers fatigue because eating food has the reverse function and the next day suffer fatigue again because I didn't eat food but today the GM decided food works as normal? And all this just so the GM can say "oh, but this is a COMPLEX game where anything can happen!".



This gets back to Game Zero stuff. If before the game, it is agreed by everyone that the game will be a tailor made war plot for the whole games ''main plot''...then it is. However if the war is an event that just happens in the game play, then it won't be a ''main plot''.

And if it is not the "main plot", then it is only a "side plot" and should not be the focus anyway. New main plots may be "capture X building" or "rescue Y prisoners". In that case, the game WILL look different depending on what the players do, as either their side will have building X or not (which is a difference), or the prisoners Y will be freed or not (which is also different).

If you as a GM choose to make building X or prisoners Y completely meaningless in the game, then that's on YOU. Quite arguable, THAT is a simple game, whereas in a complex game every little thing can affect the world in a small way which will then spread as ripples on the water.



And ''looking different'' is exactly my point. If the Orcs or Elves win the war, the land will look different....but how much will it be different? Is the world so different if the bar at the end of the street is the Bloody Axe or the Golden Tree? A lot of things can look and even feel different, but they won't be all that different really.

If the names of taverns is the only thing that is different depending on the outcome of the war, how can you in any honesty at all claim that this is a "Complex game"? Seriously?

I mean, a quick real world comparison would benefit here.

Just take USA and compare it with Mexico. One has influence mainly from Bits and French whereas the other was settled almost exclusively by Spaniards. There are certainly more things that tell USA and Mexico apart than the names on their bars.

They are different in very cultural ways, from small things that are only visible in family structure up to national differences. Or, if you prefer, we can compare USA and Canada who are also very different culturally despite being very similar in industrialization degree.

One of the cultural differences that fascinates me the most is the concept of time. In northern Europe (and countries with main influence from it + Japan), time is a very linear, strict thing. If you set up a meeting, you are supposed to be there at the time of the meeting. In Germany for example, if you are two minutes late you are seen to be extremely rude, whereas in Sweden we are a little bit more accepting (with a fluidity from 2-10 minutes depending on what type of meeting it is).

This is very different from many countries in southern Europe, and places with main influences from it (like latin America). For them, time is more "fluid" and being on time isn't really important at all. If you invite people home for dinner at 18, you don't expect them to actually arrive at 18, but some time between 18:30-21, whenever seemed convenient for them. I talked to a guy that traveled around latin America for half a year and he said this was the thing he could never get used to, and people continued to see him as "weird" since he always showed up on time (often being the only one) for stuff. It even works that way for work-hours, he had a small job in a shop with another girl, and she NEVER came on time. Often between 30 min-1 hour late. That sort of behavior would automatically lead to you being fired in other countries.

So, cultures are different and they will affect soooooo much more than just the names of taverns. Or well, they will in a Complex game.



Of course, as I noted, the Good Baron will only be an Absolute Beacon of Pure Good in a Simple Game. And it is true the characters can get information before making any choice or descision, but this is all on the players to do this.

So you have to be an Absolute Beacon of Pure Good not to betray and kill people that work for you? Wow. I just think "decent" would cover it, and most certainly "good".

And yeah, the players can choose to acquire more or less information before making a choice. That is also a choice. Regardless of how much information they have though, there is no reason at all why you would make the choice of who to side with functionally identical unless you deliberately want to deny players their agency.

So, DO you want to deny players agency? If not, make sure that there will be a difference between two sides. You know, make sure your game is Complex.



Though your saying here the DM must do things that only the players will like. The ''same outcome'' from two choices is very common: if you ally yourself with crime group A or group B...both will not too surprisingly betray you.

I'm not at all saying there that the DM must do things that only the players will like. How did you reach that conclusion based on what I said? Explain the thought processes and logic to me.

The "same outcome" might be very common in YOUR games. They certainly aren't in mine. And we weren't talking about two different crime groups here, can we get back to the comparing the two choices that were listed, that of a crime group and a good baron.

Having the majority of choices lead to the same outcome is a sign of the DM actively railroading and deliberately denying players the agency they could have. I think that is a much more simple game than the one where each choice will make things at least a little bit different (and some a lot different).



And, again, your talking only about a Simple Game.

Except I think my game is much more complex than whatever you are talking about, so what does that give us? A more accurate thing to say is that I am talking about a "Black & White" game. But I'm not doing that either, I was merely providing examples from two different sides of the morality spectrum in order to highlight how player choice can affect the game. If you ONLY have stuff in the middle, or one one end or whatever, how can you claim that is complex? Seems very simple to me...



The thing is: this is just how Reality is...even game Reality.

That is how reality is? Seriously? What universe do you live in?

If I choose to go to the university instead of taking a low-education job my life will look drastically different. If I go to the university, my life will look drastically different depending on which subject I choose to study. If I take a job, my life will look different depending on which job it is.

The only choices that are functionally identical in real life are choices like "do I eat the red or the yellow Skittle", as the effects they have on your body are basically the same.

Hell, even choosing what clothes you wear have a difference as they will affect how people treat you (and the choice of choosing increases your decision fatigue).

Reality very rarely have functionally identical choices. The choices will have an effect of different weight or scale, but they are rarely identical.

[Lorsa]

The thing is that in person I can say more, but I can only type so much. And I don't have the Book of Words that ''everyone'' has.

You mean: https://www.merriam-webster.com/ ?

[Pleh]

But how does it work though?

Example: players start with only character sheets and DM starts with only rulebooks.

DM starts with, "you meet in a tavern." This is only adding that the setting can be expected to be pretty "vanilla" or default. No longer a white canvas, but an empty landscape.

Player chooses to ask the bartender about local news, hoping for a quest.

DM decides to send the player out of the tavern to explore. No news from the barkeep.

Player leaves tavern to explore, then announces that they hear a cry for help. It seems to be coming from the woods nearby. A young boy is caught in a well and needs rescue.

DM asks of it is a noble prince, whose fate will determine the future of the land, or a commom peasant (making the choice to help all that much more altruistic).

Either way, this improv game has allowed the player to create not only choices, but choices with meaning.

[Lorsa]

On Agency Pitfalls: Sending players in blind is a big thing I've had some issues with before. Even if discovery is an intentional part of the game it is easy to actually leave them with so little knowledge that they can't even ask the right questions, completely cutting out the knowledge part of the equation. Discovery can make for some interesting stories, which is why I think people try for it, but translating it into a game doesn't seem to work as well.

The other is I think of right now is placing too many arrows forward. At a certain point there is an obligation to follow them, even if the characters wouldn't. And even if the characters would to that, because of a single path of least resistance, you get a situation where 99% of people would do that. So you only can interestingly talk about the remaining 1%, which tends to be a Chaotic Neutral Rogue who throws the campaign out the window.

The second part here is the motivation behind my discussion with Frozen Feet. This is why I wanted to go beyond the simple "GM allows characters to make decisions and take different actions that can impact the world" definition and expand it to include scenario design.

Basically, it reminds me of an interaction I saw in a TV-series recently.

It was the classic scenario where a mugger jumps forth with a weapon and says "Money or your life!". The person being robbed replied with "Does anyone ever choose life?". In effect, the mugger is saying "Give me your money". We can't really claim "Oh, the victim used their agency and got away with their life!" even though it is technically true. Giving options where, as you say, 99% of people will all pick the same isn't really providing options. I've seen too many GMs falling into this trap.

The first problem with providing the players with too little information is something I've also seen. I guess this happens because some GMs think they have to create mysteries which will somehow be lessened by the fact that players might "see through them" and solve it "much earlier than expected". So to combat this illusory problem, they basically obfuscate everything, making it almost impossible for the players to make any informed actions.

Funnily enough, both of these tend to go together. As in, scenarios with lack of information often have arrows pointing the one way.

So, this is why I want to argue that in order to achieve real player agency, it is not merely a simple requirement to avoid railroading, you must also avoid making a railroad. Note that open scenario design does not automatically equal a typical sandbox.

[Max_Killjoy]

Guess if I was like you I'd say here that Imporv is not a tool and is always bad....


I think we can safely conclude that you're referring to the misbegotten belief that railroading is a tool, rather than bad GM behavior.

Railroading is not a tool -- it is a misuse of tools, including, oddly enough, improvisation. That is, the GM making stuff up on the fly to make sure things turn out the way they (the GM) wanted things to work out.




I agree. But it still takes away from any Player Agency. Again, the player can't chose or make a meaningful decision over nothing.

Like say a poor character, after fighting some evil folk, comes into a town under a curse, sees no temple in the town so heads over to the open tavern to ask if a cleric levies in the town that can remove a curse. The DM only has a couple lines of notes on the town and nothing about any clerics in the town at all. So the DM has to improv. So, first off, on a whim, the DM can say yes there is a cleric in the town or no there is not. And say the DM improvs two clerics in the town, then the player has to pick one, but they are both just quickly improved names on otherwise blank paper. So the character asks some questions about each cleric, and the DM answers them...improving/making up and creating each cleric on the spot..but only in answer to the players questions...everything else about the clerics is blank.

So it is not just improv, it is speed improv. So the player then has the character heads off to sell some stuff to get gold. As the player does that, the DM does some more speed improv and makes up both clerics....and decides that it makes sense for one of the clerics to be an agent for the evil folk...and the DM then just picks a cleric and notes 'agent for evil'. Then the character walks down the road...and the player, only knowing the random improv information made up from before picks a cleric to go too. But as the tavern talk happened at 8:15, and the DM improved the agent of evil cleric at 8:20 when the player was shopping, there is no way for the player to know that fact at 8:30. The player only knows the outdated information. So the player picks the cleric agent of evil...and that cleric, of course tries to catch the character and start and evil plot.


And I suppose the GM is going to give the player zero opportunity to discern that one of the clerics is an agent of evil?




So the basic problem is quick improv will allays be incomplete...so no player can ever make any choice or decision with any player agency during improving.


That statement rests on the mistaken notion that agency requires prefect and complete information.

There are several routes I can take to work today. I know what road surfaces are like, I know what traffic is typically like, I know how long each route takes on average. What I don't know is if any surprise construction will be going on, whether there will be an accident slowing down or stopping traffic, etc.

When I decide which route to take, I'm still exercising agency -- I made the choice, any results of that choice partially trace back to that choice, and the subsequent choices I'll have derive from the previous choices I made at each intersection.

An RPG can work in exactly the same way.

[Cluedrew]

Seriously guys, this thread was interesting. :smallfrown:Yeah, I don't think we have finished with the actual topic yet, after that we can work on things with Darth Ultron. Although, having read PhoenixPhyre's response I agree with the general trend of the two types of player agency. In fact at this moment I have nothing to add about them, so maybe we are close to the end of the main topic.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, I don't think we have finished with the actual topic yet, after that we can work on things with Darth Ultron. Although, having read PhoenixPhyre's response I agree with the general trend of the two types of player agency. In fact at this moment I have nothing to add about them, so maybe we are close to the end of the main topic.

As I said before, I'd like to see a discussion of common ways DMs or players violate other players' (or the DM's) agency, especially unintentional violations. But that could possibly be its own thread.

[Lorsa]

I agree. But it still takes away from any Player Agency. Again, the player can't chose or make a meaningful decision over nothing.

Like say a poor character, after fighting some evil folk, comes into a town under a curse, sees no temple in the town so heads over to the open tavern to ask if a cleric levies in the town that can remove a curse. The DM only has a couple lines of notes on the town and nothing about any clerics in the town at all. So the DM has to improv. So, first off, on a whim, the DM can say yes there is a cleric in the town or no there is not. And say the DM improvs two clerics in the town, then the player has to pick one, but they are both just quickly improved names on otherwise blank paper. So the character asks some questions about each cleric, and the DM answers them...improving/making up and creating each cleric on the spot..but only in answer to the players questions...everything else about the clerics is blank.

So it is not just improv, it is speed improv. So the player then has the character heads off to sell some stuff to get gold. As the player does that, the DM does some more speed improv and makes up both clerics....and decides that it makes sense for one of the clerics to be an agent for the evil folk...and the DM then just picks a cleric and notes 'agent for evil'. Then the character walks down the road...and the player, only knowing the random improv information made up from before picks a cleric to go too. But as the tavern talk happened at 8:15, and the DM improved the agent of evil cleric at 8:20 when the player was shopping, there is no way for the player to know that fact at 8:30. The player only knows the outdated information. So the player picks the cleric agent of evil...and that cleric, of course tries to catch the character and start and evil plot.

So the basic problem is quick improv will allays be incomplete...so no player can ever make any choice or decision with any player agency during improving.

I really wonder where you got this weird idea of improvisation from. It certainly isn't based in reality, unless you want to highlight a particular pitfall of improvisation, just as railroading is a pitfall of linear adventure design.

In any case, I will start off by saying that "improv" is an abbreviation, or short form for "improvisation" and should really come with a . at the end (improv.). I only mention this because when you go from the noun to the verb but still keep the abbreviated form and exclude the dot you get "improving", which really isn't the same thing as "improvising". Unless you specifically want to say that the DM DID improve the clerics while the players asked questions. If that is the case, you probably should be more precise and write "improving on/making up" instead. If you think "improvising" is too hard to write, you can instead keep the short form with the dot and write improv.-ing. That would still be readable without the possibility of confusing it with another word.

Now, to your actual example. What you write is a a ridiculous example of poorly done improvisation.

Let's start from the beginning.

The characters head to the tavern to ask the townsfolk if any cleric lives in the village. The DM, not having thought about this before as the village was just a name on a paper, decides that there are in fact two clerics there. So far so good. Now, at this stage, the DM should ALSO decide, during their quick improv. the general alignment of the clerics and preferably which deities they serve (which, in normal D&D, happen to be related). So, when the characters ask around for information, the DM can provide good, solid information. Such as "The villagers say that the Cleric of Lathander (I'm going to use FR examples) is a good, solid Cleric although a bit naive as he tends to believe everyone is good of heart. They also say that he is a little bit dimwitted and have problems understanding sarcasm.". And also "The people at the tavern also say that the Cleric of Helm adheres to the letter of the law, even though she always tries to bend it to best fit her own needs (or her Church's). She doesn't seem to believe in mercy, even if the crime was committed due to starvation or similar desperation. One can always trust her to keep her word though."

Now, if the players given this information choose to go to the Cleric of Lathander, and the GM THEN decides that he is really an agent of the evil folk, THEN it is quite evident that the GM is deliberately trying to negate player agency, "making stuff up on a whim" and RAILROADING the players. It's not like improvisation magically makes it impossible to railroad, but it is impossible not to railroad unless you can improvise (to some degree).

The scenario you describe is just piss-poor improvisation, it doesn't mean improvisation as such is bad. Nor does it mean that this is the type of scenario that results from improvisation. Get your arguments straight and use a real, actual example of good improvisation and see if you can still reach the same conclusion.

Like, how is player agency denied in the example I gave, where the GM decides upfront that one cleric is evil and makes sure to leave hints to it when the players ask questions to the villagers?

[Darth Ultron]

Improv games have everything there without spending an eon preparing everything. So when a PC is making a choice the DM gave them, they are choosing between this over here or that over there. When the player is informed about this & that, and this & that are different from each other, then the Player is making a meaningful choice without it being a "Player Controlled game strawman".


Ok, so an improve game is one where the DM has done little prep, so the players have no agency as there is nothing to choose from other then whatever vague things the DM improvs in a second. That is what I though it was, so we are all good.

Like the map has 'the Dark Forest' and the DM has no information about it at all. The players say 'what is in the forest'? and the DM makes up random improve stuff on the spot, but only vaguely...like saying ''a green dragon lives there'' . So the players then happily make the choice to go kill the dragon. Then the DM stalls the players, and takes that eon of hard work and makes the dragons stat block and encounter...and on a whim makes it a ghost green dragon. Then the players are all shocked when they encounter the ''dragon'' as it is not what they were told...back when the dragon was a blank nothing.



But is there something specific about abnormality that makes such games lame?

Any time you have people IN a game that are Controlling and Abusing the game for their own personal benefits is bad.



The first big issue I have is that if you use a scenario example with two standard core races from D&D, everyone on a D&D forum will assume they function as written.

I'd point out that first of all even a glance at any campaign will show you that a great many DM alter the standard core races to fit their own idea. So if a player comes to a game blindly thinking everything is by-the-book, they are in big trouble.



If you meant a war between two sides who were morally and culturally very similar, you can always use humans. In standard D&D, HUMANS are portrayed as 50 shades of grey.

Again, this is simple vs complex. In the complex game, anything can be anything. Only in the simple game are things Always X. To say Race X must always be X is simple. Why can't any race be 50 shades of gray?



Anything can happen makes a game complex? What has made you come up with THAT idea?.

Well, in the simple game, only one thing can happen. The elves are always classic rated G like good...always.



If anything can happen, that makes a game a big random mess.

Well, it is not like anything/everything, the idea is the potential is there.



THAT is what anything can happen imply. And it is by far a more accurate description of a random game than anything you've ever described as such. Technically it is not random though, but rather completely nonsensical.

Except all those things could happen in a game....so?

Like the character goes to swing a sword...and a lightning blot comes down from the sky and kills the foe first. Very possible. Like say a storm giant with improved invisiblilty was hovering over the fight and threw the lighting bolt....now true, the player and character would not know that...but it is possible.



Yeah, if you by "complex game" really do mean "anything can happen based on the DM's whim", then you are right, Player Agency is only possible in a simple game. That's also the kind of game 99% of us wants to play, as your "anything can happen" is just a random mess. Why would I want that?

Why would I want to play a game where, one day my character suffers fatigue because eating food has the reverse function and the next day suffer fatigue again because I didn't eat food but today the GM decided food works as normal? And all this just so the GM can say "oh, but this is a COMPLEX game where anything can happen!".

Well, some people...but not all...like complex games as they are a lot more like Real Life. In more Fairly Tale Like Simple Games, everything works out for the characters and they live happily ever after. That is fun for some people, but not everyone.



Just take USA and compare it with Mexico. One has influence mainly from Bits and French whereas the other was settled almost exclusively by Spaniards. There are certainly more things that tell USA and Mexico apart than the names on their bars.

They are different in very cultural ways, from small things that are only visible in family structure up to national differences. Or, if you prefer, we can compare USA and Canada who are also very different culturally despite being very similar in industrialization degree.

They are different...but not radically so. Like the USA does not add in the tax on the display of an item for sale, other countries do: the display price includes the tax. This is different, but not exactly Earth shattering. In fact most (Western places) are a lot alike...houses, stores, coffee shops, cars, a money based economy and a lot of common basic laws like ''murder is illegal''.



One of the cultural differences that fascinates me the most is the concept of time.

So, cultures are different and they will affect soooooo much more than just the names of taverns. Or well, they will in a Complex game.

I like the time thing too. But again this is not a huge difference. Both Germany and Italy have companies, business, meetings and money....but sure if your a couple minutes late in Germany they will be like ''how dare you be late and keep us waiting!'' and in Italy they would be more like ''oh, whatever, you are here now, let us talk business."



I'm not at all saying there that the DM must do things that only the players will like. How did you reach that conclusion based on what I said? Explain the thought processes and logic to me.

Well, the example is picking between two things, like of the two local barons who do the characters want to work with? In the complex game, each baron could have *any* personality or type of character so it *is* possible that both of them might be typical greedy noble types that only care about themselves, for example...or anything else.

You are seeming to say that if the players are ever given a choice one *must always* be a good choice for the players *and* the DM has to tell the players the one that is the good choice, so the players will *automatically* always have the agency/control of the game to always make the good and right choice.



The "same outcome" might be very common in YOUR games. They certainly aren't in mine. And we weren't talking about two different crime groups here, can we get back to the comparing the two choices that were listed, that of a crime group and a good baron.

Having the majority of choices lead to the same outcome is a sign of the DM actively railroading and deliberately denying players the agency they could have. I think that is a much more simple game than the one where each choice will make things at least a little bit different (and some a lot different).

But the same outcome is very normal... If a character is robbed they will 99% of the time want their stuff back AND want the thief caught and punished and/or killed. So, even if the players can pick from like ten NPCs to rob...it is very likely each of the ten will act the very same way.

And the Good Baron might want to get rid of the PCs just like the Criminals do...and for the same reason: to keep everything that happened unknown and secret. And like I gave in my example..the criminals might go for the direct ''kill them'', but the Baron might take the good route of having the PCs arrested for a real crime (like operating in the kingdom without a chatter from a baron) and have the Pcs 'just ' thrown in prison(where they can't talk to anyone).

Either way...something might happen. Your way seems to be: Pick evil criminals and something bad will happen,; pick good baron and everything will be a sunshine and rainbows happy ending.



Except I think my game is much more complex than whatever you are talking about, so what does that give us? A more accurate thing to say is that I am talking about a "Black & White" game. But I'm not doing that either, I was merely providing examples from two different sides of the morality spectrum in order to highlight how player choice can affect the game. If you ONLY have stuff in the middle, or one one end or whatever, how can you claim that is complex? Seems very simple to me...

It is not the middle, it is *anything*.




If I choose to go to the university instead of taking a low-education job my life will look drastically different. If I go to the university, my life will look drastically different depending on which subject I choose to study. If I take a job, my life will look different depending on which job it is.

Well...maybe, but wait for it, Anything can happen.

You choose to go to school....and find it too hard and drop out and then get work as a street mime. That could happen. You stay in school and get an education and get a good job...again, could happen. And so on. You can't predict the future on just one action.


DM asks of it is a noble prince, whose fate will determine the future of the land, or a commom peasant (making the choice to help all that much more altruistic).

Either way, this improv game has allowed the player to create not only choices, but choices with meaning.

Well this is not just an improv game...this is a Player Controlled game. The game world is mostly blank, and the DM is improv/making/creating whatever the Player tells the DM to make for them.

The player here is not even really making a choice, they are just creating the world right in front of them.


I think we can safely conclude that you're referring to the misbegotten belief that railroading is a tool, rather than bad GM behavior.

Railroading is not a tool -- it is a misuse of tools, including, oddly enough, improvisation. That is, the GM making stuff up on the fly to make sure things turn out the way they (the GM) wanted things to work out.

Sorry anything the Dm uses in the game is a tool :)



And I suppose the GM is going to give the player zero opportunity to discern that one of the clerics is an agent of evil?

The DM is not going to drop the information...or a hint in the players lap no (note that would be Railroading...lol). This is all on the player: they are free to find out stuff and take actions.

[Max_Killjoy]

The responses are so divorced from what they're quoting and from reality, I'm starting to wonder...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatbot

[Frozen_Feet]

That example doesn't really cover what I was talking about though. Even if the GM runs a S&S game, which in this example I want, they can still set up the adventures in such a way that the course of the game is decided more by the GM than by me, even if there is agency (using your neutral definition). Basically, my complaint is that with a "neutral" measure of agency, one can adhere to the "word of the law" (in this case agency) but still violate the spirit of it. My concern is more with the spirit of agency than its strict definition.

I can get that. But a GM can adhere both to spirit and the letter of the law without the game giving you options which you desire.

I think one of the disconnects here is that you're looking at this from a player's perspective, where at least on player-character combination's (yours) traits are known. I'm looking at this from the perspective of a scenario designer to whom no player-character combinations might be known. Think of this way: suppose you're using the definion of agency which includes player preferences. So far, so good. But you don't know who your players will be nor what they prefer, so you will have to use a hypothetical player. As the variety and number of different hypothetical players you're willing to consider increases, the amount of "agency" revealed by this method steadily approaches the neutral definition where all possible choices are considered to be part of it.


A discussion about game difficulty seems like it could be quite interesting actually, especially if it leads to higher understanding of the psychology of decision making and how it interacts with RPGs.

It appears that I might be attracted to games with higher difficulty, but that assumption might not hold true if examined thoroughly.

Here is a version of the graph I referred to earlier. (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NLhIDdsd_II/UYwn5q1ldNI/AAAAAAAAAFo/xmD-knzXE7Q/s1600/472px-Challenge_vs_skill.svg.png) You're looking for a game where your skill as a player intersects with difficulty of the game, to provide an experience which feels arousing. Agency is involved only so far as high agency requires more skill to use.


Alright, so I successfully expanded the scenario to "forward", "slow death", "immediate death" and "humiliation". I would note that in this case I assumed both slow death and humiliation moved the game forward and not just back to the original point. It's just that at the next decision point, the same type of decision occurs again (although under a different guise as the adventure will be different).

If "take damage" and "suffer humiliation" also proceed the game in other ways, then the scenario structure will be divergent, at least initially, so it can lead to a high agency game if the outcomes for the options to proceed continue to be relevantly different


One could further extend these choices though, with options such as "commit a morally atrocious action" or "sacrifice a loved one". The point being that if there is a way forward without any cost and several ways forward with a very high cost, it's a no-brainer to pick the no cost one. It might still be a game with high agency according to your definition, but it isn't a very interesting one (unless you want to test how long it takes for people to be bored with the easy way forward).

This scenario is a bit different to the one I listed. In this scenario, the [forward] option has an increasing cost attached to it. A scenario such as this can be said to serve the question of what the character thinks is worse than humiliation or death. While it would be horrible to experience in real life, these type of choices do serve a purpose in an RPG. They let you explore the character's personality and find out what they value. Basically; what is worth dying for?

The point of the example game, "Eat this cake OR DIE", was to demonstrate that we can't assume option 1) is the most appealing option without specifying both a) the character and b) the contents of the variable "proceed". If "take damage" and "suffer humiliation" also proceed the game in other ways, the choices presented are made considerably less trivial than the version where "take damage" and "suffer humiliation" don't.

We can use the following notation to describe the choices:

Option 1: Go to Event X
Option 2: Go to Event Y + suffer consequence i.
Option 3: Go to Event Z + suffer consequence s.
Option 4: Suffer consequence d

Where X, Y and Z are variable, i is constant for injury, s is constant for humiliation and d is constant of death.

With this types of choices, we can no longer safely assume that Option 1 is without cost, nor can we assume Options 2 or 3 are of too high a cost, to all player-character combinations. The amount of available choices and factors to be considered just rose by a rather significant exponent.


It is correct that in many cases, I made the algorithm. For example, during character creation I choose my character's personality and skill set. As I am playing a roleplaying game, following my character's personality is part of playing it. So it is safe to assume that my algorithm is based on the character I created.

If the GM then creates a game where, at ever decision point, I can either go with an option in line with my character's personality or skill set or a number of other options, I will no doubt choose to go with the one in line with my character.

In this type of game, it appears to me that I only really have agency at character creation, where I can select which game I want from a list of paths. After that, the game will follow this path. I would rather have a game where I can influence it at more than one point, so that the game branches out from the first choice of character.

For example, if I am presented with options that all target my character's motivations or personality, but in different ways. Then the choice is not so obvious anymore and I have to decide which to go with. In some sense, this becomes an extension of character creation, or rather character development. Same goes for choices where I have to choose which of my proficient skills to use for solving a problem, or which of my non-proficient skills to use.

The joke here is that the GM doesn't need to be using your algorithm to create the scenarios.

They don't even need to be fully aware of your algorithm, yet they can still be presenting only scenarios which are obvious to you.

Again, there are (at least) two different things you could be talking about here. One is where the GM read your character notes and tailored the scenario so only one option at every branch suits you. The other is where you read the GM's campaign notes or otherwise came up with a powerfull enough (or restrictive enough) algorithm to narrow each choice down to one "obvious" option.

In the latter sort of cases, the GM didn't intentionally design the choices to be obvious (and might not consider them obvious), you did by introducing your algorithm. It is very much you who is exercising agency at each branch point, you just predetermined your choices by pregaming the game.


If my whole input lies at character creation, after which the GM creates scenarios in such a way that, given the character created, there is always one very obvious choice, I don't really see it as a high agency game anymore. Rather, it is a railroad disguised as a high agency game.

Maybe, but it's you railroading yourself. I know you're fundamentally approaching this from the viewpoint where the GM is intentionally crafting their scenario in this way, but again, the GM doesn't need to be doing that for what you describe to happen. Because of this, you don't get to abdicate responsibility of determinism you introduce to the game, on the GM. It can be your whole input lied in character creation only because you gave too much input.


Well, as I tried to explain above, if all choices are obvious given the created algorithm, then it is really the person that presents the choices that is determining the outcome of the game (i.e. the GM). Since the point of player agency is to let players have an impact on the outcome of the game, can this really be stated to go with the spirit of giving player's agency?

Basically my whole argument is "I do not think it is sufficient merely to supply options as a GM, they also need to be a specific type of options". The outcome should be determined by the person making the choice, not already decided by the presentation of options.

But it is you determining the outcome when it's your algorithm that makes the choices obvious. You are choosing in advance due to pregaming the game, but it's still you choosing. You don't get to abdicate responsibility of that on the GM, because again, the GM doesn't need to be violating either spirit or the letter of the game. The GM might have never known the choices will be obvious, because the GM didn't know beforehand which sort of character you were going to play, or which sort of player you are.


Unless we change the definition in such a way as to immediately reveal the dishonest and manipulative GMs. Why stick to a definition that dishonest people can hide behind, when we can have one which they can't?

There is no such thing as liar-proof semantics. What you ask for flat-out does not exist.

If you try to bake in player preferences into the definition of agency, you will just get manipulative GMs who will claim that you actually like something you hate. We know from elsewhere that this is actually a pretty standard manipulative strategy and you can make people second-guess their own preferences to a frightening extent.


1) Did you ever try to give them two options of equal weight for their given archetype, but only one was possible? For example, save the orphanage or save the Cleric of Good-and-Right?

Yes. It predictably leads to Trying to Take a Third Option: Eat your cake and save it too. Usually followed by failure due to overextension.

Like, this is where the barrier between your categories 2) and 3) breaks apart. At a glance, a choice between "equal goods" should be in category 3): choice between multiple desired things. However, based on the existing options, this kind of player will imagine a non-existent option with all desired traits of the other options. Compared to this non-existent option, all existing options feel less derieable, causing the decision to fall to category 2). Once again, Perfect is the enemy of Good.

My players don't have a history of complaining over the net, but I sure do see a lot of this sort of player from other groups crop up every single time when, say, moral dilemmas for Paladins are discussed, insisting the GM is a Bad Person if they don't allow the third option.


2) I understood the abstract just fine, and I can see the psychology behind it. In such instance though, I don't think it is the player's motivation to really have an impact on the outcome of the game, but rather experience a fantasy where they get to be the hero (or a villain since the same type of choice could be made in reverse).

"Experiencing a fantasy where they get to be the hero" is one possible outcome of a roleplaying game, so what you're saying doesn't really make sense to me.


This is a bit of a tangent, but do you know what drives these people to prefer jumping into lava over walking across a bridge?

1) They think it'd be funny.
2) They think the game has run its course, and terminating their character is fastest way to get out of the game. This can happen both out of satisfaction with the game or frustration with the game.
3) They think the character has run its course, and terminating their character is the fastest way to get back into the game. (This happens with savvy players who realize their character is in a deadlock, but that end of one character doesn't necessarily mean having to stop playing. So they figure out a reason for the character to self-terminate so they can continue with another. My favorite example was a cleric who got up to his knees in debt to an army officer. So, the cleric decided to go on a "date with a dragon". Seriously, they bought roses and everything. Well, the dragon predictably killed them. This had the consequence of freeing all the other player characters of that situation, since none of them had strong enough connection to the cleric for the debt to be moved on to them.)

If something was left unaddressed, it's because addressing those points would've lead to unneeded repetition.

[Pleh]

Well this is not just an improv game...this is a Player Controlled game. The game world is mostly blank, and the DM is improv/making/creating whatever the Player tells the DM to make for them.

But the point is that this principle is applied in every game as a variable to be scaled up or down.

Players deserve some more than minimal control of the game (or at least the option to have such control if they desire it). When admitting player control, it will require that the DM improv to facilitate the Player's agency.

If the DM only improvises ways to negate this control, that's railroading.

[Lorsa]

If something was left unaddressed, it's because addressing those points would've lead to unneeded repetition.

I think you covered most of the points, now I just have to contemplate for a while before replying. :smallsmile:

[Segev]

Darth Ultron, let's take your "capture D'rk" game from the other thread as an example.

Let's say the players want to ask around town about the kinds of forces that are in the region. I'm sure you've planned out a list of details to give them, as you've carefully planned your complex game to have all the forces that appear and where they show up.

Have you scripted exactly what every NPC the players' characters will ask will say? Have you planned for every question, every comment, every joke the PCs might make with these NPCs, and thus have a perfectly-scripted line to respond to anything they say? Or do you have only set things they can say, so they repeat themselves like video game characters who can only respond to a set list of questions, then repeat themselves verbatim when those questions are asked or with their parting/greeting line when the list of set questions is exhausted?

Because if you RP the NPCs as talking like normal real-world people, characters in a novel, etc. who respond sensibly to things the players' characters say, you're almost certainly improvising their lines.

Does "improvising their lines" mean that, if the players don't say something on-script, you randomly decide they'll speak lizard malcontent jibber clash?gibberish?

[OldTrees1]

Ok, so an improve game is one where the DM has done little prep, so the players have no agency as there is nothing to choose from other then whatever vague things the DM improvs in a second. That is what I though it was, so we are all good.

Like the map has 'the Dark Forest' and the DM has no information about it at all. The players say 'what is in the forest'? and the DM makes up random improve stuff on the spot, but only vaguely...like saying ''a green dragon lives there'' . So the players then happily make the choice to go kill the dragon. Then the DM stalls the players, and takes that eon of hard work and makes the dragons stat block and encounter...and on a whim makes it a ghost green dragon. Then the players are all shocked when they encounter the ''dragon'' as it is not what they were told...back when the dragon was a blank nothing.

Incorrect.

An improv game is one where the DM has done little prep and yet has more information than you could prep. Thus the players have more agency than normal.

So with all that information available, the DM can react in real time to accurately answer any question the Players come up with. With the informations PCs can gain through using their skills, the DM can create lots of meaningful choices. Which means lots of player agency.

But as long as you can't understand what an improv game is, you will be hopelessly mistaken about any claims you make about improv games.

[Thinker]

I believe that I've had a change of heart in how to properly run an RPG. Instead of describing a setting with an overarching threat that is broken down into situations and obstacles, I am going to start describing specific stories. I'll advertise my game to my regular group by telling them that I want to tell a tale of betrayal, sacrifice, and redemption. I'll vet the party by determining which of them want to be in it the most. I'm only going to allow 4 players this time so I'll need to thin the heard so to speak. I'll come up with a number between 1 and 1000. The four closest to the number are in. Any whiners are out. One of the PCs is going to have to betray the others, one of them is going to have to sacrifice him/herself to the cause, and the one that betrayed the others will have to make back up with them later (and the party will of course accept him/her back). I haven't decided which ones will be which yet, but they'll know its coming. I have it all planned out. Any problems with that will result in expulsion and I'll let one of my other friends into the group.

First, they'll save the village from orcs, then they'll quarrel with the local bandit king who has been harassing the duke's soldiers. This is where the betrayal will come in. One of the PCs has secretly been working with the bandit king and will lead the party into an ambush! After s/he gets to gloat, s/he won't be allowed to play for a session or two so that a good amount of time has passed before redemption. The party will beat the bandit king and find out that the money and valuables haven't been kept at the bandit king's place, but they'll also find out that the bandits kidnapped the duke's son and took him to the Dragon Cave. The PCs will have to fight the dragon to rescue the duke's son as a prisoner before it eats him. If the party doesn't rescue the son in time, the duke will be very angry with them and will imprison the party (note: it is impossible to save the son in time or else the next part won't work). The party will be in prison and will be broken out by the former traitor! It will be a cool twist. Once they get out, they'll find out that the duke has been pulling the strings all along - the orcs, the bandits, and the dragon all worked for the duke! - and he is trying to become king! The party will fight him in the throne room once they discover this after his monologue.

Afterwards, we'll have a party where the players will tell me how great I am at DMing and how I told such a great story. I'll even allow the players I rejected into the game to come congratulate me in case they want to try their luck for the next one.

[Darth Ultron]

But the point is that this principle is applied in every game as a variable to be scaled up or down.

Players deserve some more than minimal control of the game (or at least the option to have such control if they desire it). When admitting player control, it will require that the DM improv to facilitate the Player's agency.

If the DM only improvises ways to negate this control, that's railroading.

Most normal, classic games do not have any sort of direct player control of the game. All the control of the game is with the DM. Sure, a player can always ask for something to be added...but note that is ask, not tell, the DM.

I'm not sure why you think players ''deserve'' more control? I get that it is more fun, for some people like you, to control the game and exploit things to your benefit...but not everyone thinks that way.



Have you scripted exactly what every NPC the players' characters will ask will say? Have you planned for every question, every comment, every joke the PCs might make with these NPCs, and thus have a perfectly-scripted line to respond to anything they say? Or do you have only set things they can say, so they repeat themselves like video game characters who can only respond to a set list of questions, then repeat themselves verbatim when those questions are asked or with their parting/greeting line when the list of set questions is exhausted?

Because if you RP the NPCs as talking like normal real-world people, characters in a novel, etc. who respond sensibly to things the players' characters say, you're almost certainly improvising their lines.

Does "improvising their lines" mean that, if the players don't say something on-script, you randomly decide they'll speak lizard malcontent jibber clash?gibberish?

Well, if it is in an adventure I will have a good page or so about the group and the important NPCs. Generally I will cover anything about the adventure and things I know the players might ask or bring up.

So then using all that as a base, plus any actions taken by the characters I will create the NPC...but it feels odd to call this pure improve as it does have a lot of pre made stuff.

I have never written a script for an NPC. And I never said I did not improve...but I also change anything on a whim. I would never do the ''well back in 2016 I said NPC Zom had a dagger and As I can never, ever change anything...NPC Zom still has that same dagger."


An improv game is one where the DM has done little prep and yet has more information than you could prep. Thus the players have more agency than normal.

Wait, how does a DM do a little prep that is more then a lot of prep? Like the normal DM writes down a couple pages of Dark Forest notes. The causal DM jots down some stuff on a cocktail napkin. And your saying the casual DM has more stuff?



So with all that information available, the DM can react in real time to accurately answer any question the Players come up with. With the informations PCs can gain through using their skills, the DM can create lots of meaningful choices. Which means lots of player agency.

Well...your describing the prepared DM, not the casual improv one. I think your mixing the two up.


But you will still have the improv no agency problem: The DM improvs something at 5 pm, but then improvs something else at 6pm, and the players, unknowingly, make a choice based on the old 5pm knowledge.

[georgie_leech]

DU, improv isn't contradicting already established things. That's called contradicting established things.

[Max_Killjoy]

DU, improv isn't contradicting already established things. That's called contradicting established things.

I tied to point that out several posts ago.

One of the basic rules of improv acting and improv comedy is that the participants don't contradict or no-sell the starting premise or what's already been said on stage. Likewise for improvisation as a tool in an RPG, one of the basic expectations is that you don't contradict what's already been established in the campaign.

But as with so many other terms, DU is going to keep basing is arguments on a definition of "improv" that is retro-crafted to justify his position.

[OldTrees1]

Wait, how does a DM do a little prep that is more then a lot of prep? Like the normal DM writes down a couple pages of Dark Forest notes. The causal DM jots down some stuff on a cocktail napkin. And your saying the casual DM has more stuff?


Well...your describing the prepared DM, not the casual improv one. I think your mixing the two up.


But you will still have the improv no agency problem: The DM improvs something at 5 pm, but then improvs something else at 6pm, and the players, unknowingly, make a choice based on the old 5pm knowledge.

As I said before, until you understand how improv games work (especially how the less prep results in having more information) then you will be hopelessly mistaken about everything about improv games.

So how does the improv DM end up with more information despite doing less prep? The prep the improv DM does puts them in the situation such that they can accurately answer any question about unprepared material as if they had prepared it. As such they have more information than could have been prepared because they can accurately answer any question that could be asked.

Since the unprepared material can be learned about and interacted with as if it had been prepared, the players can have greater agency than in a game without improv.


Consider the time it takes to prepare the Dark Forest to a sufficient detail for the PCs to have an adventure about some villain that has a home/base/dungeon in the Dark Forest. You could write 20 pages of notes to handle all the information you expect to need. Or I could write 12 sentences and have all the information I could possibly need to run this adventure, and the next 3 adventures with a level of detail that exceeds your 20 pages (partially because I would be able to access the information neither of us prepared).

[Max_Killjoy]

As I said before, until you understand how improv games work (especially how the less prep results in having more information) then you will be hopelessly mistaken about everything about improv games.

So how does the improv DM end up with more information despite doing less prep? The prep the improv DM does puts them in the situation such that they can accurately answer any question about unprepared material as if they had prepared it. As such they have more information than could have been prepared because they can accurately answer any question that could be asked.

Since the unprepared material can be learned about and interacted with as if it had been prepared, the players can have greater agency than in a game without improv.


I would say that every GM has to do SOME improvisation, and it's a sliding scale.

What I spend my worldbuilding and prep work on is based on what will get me the most bang for my buck once we're at the table.

This is part of why I want robust, internally consistent worldbuilding, and rules that are in sync with the setting and feel -- once I have that framework, making consistent rulings and improvising coherent content becomes far easier, because I have a good starting point and something to base everything on as the game goes along.

In my experience, a GM who concentrates on what they think is going to happen instead of the underlying world and history and reasons, ends up creating from a vacuum when they go off their script... whereas a GM who doesn't prewrite a specific script is never asked to go off script.

[OldTrees1]

@Max_Killjoy

I would agree. It is a scale. Although technically CRPGs are examples of 0 improv.

Also good example of prep.

[kyoryu]

Well...your describing the prepared DM, not the casual improv one. I think your mixing the two up.

Improv does not equal not prepping. It does equal not deciding what the players will do. You can prep a ton as an improv GM. You just don't decide what the players do. That's their job.

[Segev]

Well, if it is in an adventure I will have a good page or so about the group and the important NPCs. Generally I will cover anything about the adventure and things I know the players might ask or bring up.

So then using all that as a base, plus any actions taken by the characters I will create the NPC...but it feels odd to call this pure improve as it does have a lot of pre made stuff.

I have never written a script for an NPC. And I never said I did not improve...but I also change anything on a whim. I would never do the ''well back in 2016 I said NPC Zom had a dagger and As I can never, ever change anything...NPC Zom still has that same dagger."

Wait. Given your definition of "improvise" and what you just said here, does that mean you run totally random games where nothing happens that makes any sense?

[dascarletm]

Anything a DM has said as an NPC that wasn't pre-written is improvisation. TTRPGs are very similar to doing an improv skit, that's what makes them good. The players come up with whatever actions they want to try and do, and the DM uses their brain as a processor to determine the reactions and effects on the world.

[Quertus]

Phyre, but yes. That's me.

And this (and autocorrect) are why I just say PP :smallredface:


*IC agency is what we do when we're actually on-camera playing. Do I go left or do I go right. What decisions, attitudes, and beliefs will my character portray at the table? How does he or she approach the problems at hand? What do they prioritize? What trade-offs are they willing to accept to get what they want? How much risk will the character take? These type of decisions characterize IC agency. In my opinion, IC agency should be maintained throughout at high levels. Only the player can choose to give up this agency, no one else can take it from them (at least not and be justified in doing so).

Interesting that this is almost all internal. I guess I missed this the first time. Is that intentional?

Also, I'm guessing you're not a fan of mind control?


IC agency does not extend to waving away consequences--if by the known consequences of the action you end up a pariah, you can't demand to be treated as royalty. You gave up that agency through prior choices. A level 1 fighter can't take the Cast a Spell action (in 5e D&D). That's a consequence of the OOC decision you made to play a fighter. You also can't demand things beyond the standard resolution mechanics. This comes up a lot with "But I hit them in the head, they should die!" exploits I see from new players. No, you aimed at the head, hit somehow, and did 1d8 + 3 damage. These limits are not reductions of agency--they're enforcement of foreseeable consequences. As they say (in a different context): "You're free to choose, but not free to choose the consequences."

So, in your opinion, does IC agency extend to getting to take the Attack action as a Fighter to deal the expected 1d8+3 damage and not some arbitrary effect, or to be able to take the cast action as a Wizard (assuming certain conditions such as available spells have been met) and have that have a predictable effect? Or is that not part of Agency, under your "not free to choose the consequences" bit?

[PhoenixPhyre]

And this (and autocorrect) are why I just say PP :smallredface:



Interesting that this is almost all internal. I guess I missed this the first time. Is that intentional?

Also, I'm guessing you're not a fan of mind control?



So, in your opinion, does IC agency extend to getting to take the Attack action as a Fighter to deal the expected 1d8+3 damage and not some arbitrary effect, or to be able to take the cast action as a Wizard (assuming certain conditions such as available spells have been met) and have that have a predictable effect? Or is that not part of Agency, under your "not free to choose the consequences" bit?

Agency is mostly internal because those are the only things you have direct control over as a player. Certainly external attempts are part of agency--you have the freedom to attempt anything not precluded by the consequences of previous choices made by your characters or by the actions of others.

Your second question (about predictable results) involves a couple of the parts of agency:

Choice: Is taking the Attack/Cast a Spell action an allowed thing at this time? That depends on the situation, but we'll assume yes, that there are no blocking conditions.
Consequences: Are there consequences for taking that action (as opposed to a different one, including inaction)? If no, or if all actions result in the same consequences, you have no agency.
Knowledge: Are the results of that predictable (within acceptable uncertainty). If not--if swinging a sword makes purple unicorns appear instead of dealing damage and that fact wasn't knowable (you may have failed your INT check to know about that, for example), as an extreme example--you don't have agency. The consequences are at someone else's whim so what you do isn't based (as far as it is possible to tell) on the action.

As a result, things with spelled-out mechanical effects should have those effects (nothing more and nothing less) as a general rule. Exceptions should be just that, exceptional and clearly telegraphed. This maximizes predictability, which is a component of knowledge.

But yes, that's IC agency, not OOC agency. The character is acting in the fiction and the consequences are also in-fiction.

[Jama7301]

There's just something about some of these definitions of player agency that aren't sitting right with me. I can't put my finger on it, but something feels off. Not sure if it's actually related to anything said, or if I'm being reflexively defensive and second guessing myself as a DM because of the thread.

This is a garbage feeling because I can't figure out exactly why I don't agree with these definitions. To me, they all seem reasonable on their face. They seem like workable, effective definitions, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why my gut is pushing back.

[Cluedrew]

As I said before, I'd like to see a discussion of common ways DMs or players violate other players' (or the DM's) agency, especially unintentional violations. But that could possibly be its own thread.Do we think we have enough to turn this into its own thread? It sounds kind of interesting but at the same time I'm not sure how much there is to say about it.

I mean you could do case studies and stuff, but I feel the basic loop of considering what the players- can do and how this would effect the story is pretty simple. Of course you have to add knowledge, so also consider what the players- know about the above as well.

To Jama7301: I get that feeling sometimes too, disagreeing but not knowing why. Out of curiosity, which definitions in particular are getting that reaction?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Do we think we have enough to turn this into its own thread? It sounds kind of interesting but at the same time I'm not sure how much there is to say about it.

I mean you could do case studies and stuff, but I feel the basic loop of considering what the players- can do and how this would effect the story is pretty simple. Of course you have to add knowledge, so also consider what the players- know about the above as well.

To Jama7301: I get that feeling sometimes too, disagreeing but not knowing why. Out of curiosity, which definitions in particular are getting that reaction?

That's why I specified the unintentional ones. Most of us (barring DU) know not to directly railroad (removing choice). But are there ways that we commonly deny knowledge or consequences without intending to? Patterns of thought or speech that lead to stepping on a player's toes? That's what I'd love to discuss so I can better avoid them.

[Jama7301]

To Jama7301: I get that feeling sometimes too, disagreeing but not knowing why. Out of curiosity, which definitions in particular are getting that reaction?

It may not even be a single definition but the premise that "Player Agency is always good and proper, and any encroachment on it is the single worst thing a DM could ever do."

Granted, this could very easily be me misrepresenting the thread, and it's more than likely being painted by personal experiences, but there is something I just can't shake that's keeping me from being 100% on board. Everything seems reasonable. And the argument that the players should have a lot of freedom is right. There's just a small feeling I can't shake that's keeping me from going wholeheartedly into "yes, this I agree with 100%".

[pwykersotz]

It may not even be a single definition but the premise that "Player Agency is always good and proper, and any encroachment on it is the single worst thing a DM could ever do."

Granted, this could very easily be me misrepresenting the thread, and it's more than likely being painted by personal experiences, but there is something I just can't shake that's keeping me from being 100% on board. Everything seems reasonable. And the argument that the players should have a lot of freedom is right. There's just a small feeling I can't shake that's keeping me from going wholeheartedly into "yes, this I agree with 100%".

In my opinion, you are correct. You can have too much of a good thing, in part because it can choke out other good things. We don't all game for the same reasons. For a very few, agency is the only point to a TRPG. It's preference though, not objective fact that that full agency is better. I like a more middle ground. I like it when the DM takes the loose collection of adventures that we generate with our actions, forms a meta-narrative that is sensible and dramatic, and funnels us toward that end. The funneling is a distinct lack of agency, but it's exactly what I want.

[Cluedrew]

Although I think you could catch some of those with that refection, I see your point.

I mentioned two before (requiring discovery and a path of least resistance). I think the big one, that leads to most of the innocent railroading, is guessing (or assuming you know) how the players will exert their agency. I just realized I have to go so I don't have time to explain it, but it can lead to some unintentional railroading.

To Jama7301: Just saw that and... short answer the amount can go up and down (For instance, during the consequences of their last bit of agency).

[Lorsa]

I'd point out that first of all even a glance at any campaign will show you that a great many DM alter the standard core races to fit their own idea. So if a player comes to a game blindly thinking everything is by-the-book, they are in big trouble.

Yes, and if they DO alter the core races to fit with their own setting idea, they will inform the players that stuff is changed and what their characters know about the world.

Similarly, if you are in a forum discussion using D&D races as examples, you either have to use them as written or specify how you want them different. Anything else is just dishonest.



Again, this is simple vs complex. In the complex game, anything can be anything. Only in the simple game are things Always X. To say Race X must always be X is simple. Why can't any race be 50 shades of gray?

They could, but I don't see how that makes games simple or complex. As long as all shades are present, it doesn't matter if one race mostly exist on one side of the spectrum or not.

However, your argument is a bit weird, you say "in simple game things are always X" whereas in a complex game anything can be anything. You must have failed to understand something at the beginning of this discussion.

If something in the setting is defined as X, that is what they will be unless circumstances show up that would change them. Change takes time though, especially if we talk about cultural change, so the players can safely assume that if something has been described as X, they will be X within a short period of time.

What you seem to imply when your argument is that in a complex game X can suddenly change to Y just because, without any reason for it. Isn't that exactly the thing you had a problem with in your long rant about improvisation GMs and how they suddenly change information that wasn't available at an earlier time?

Besides, even if a race as a whole contains all 50 shades of grey, individual people can be darker or lighter. That was what led us to this argument; I said that different people should be different, whereas you claimed that "no no, everyone must be equally evil and betray the PCs at the end as that is a complex game". If everyone is the same that sounds a lot simpler to me than if races, groups and individuals are different from each other.



Well, in the simple game, only one thing can happen. The elves are always classic rated G like good...always.

That elves are classic rated G like good has nothing to do with "only one thing can happen". That is setting creation and world building. Do not confuse world building with how a game is being run, which is what this discussion is about.

I was specifically, from the very beginning of this discussion, saying that PC choices should lead to different outcomes and that the game should be different depending on whom they choose to work for. YOU were saying that the game should be identical. How can you view the latter as being more complex? I don't get it? If every choice the players make is functionally identical to the other, then the game is really simple in my eyes.

What the hell does complexity mean to you really?




Well, it is not like anything/everything, the idea is the potential is there.

So in your games, if the characters throw a ball in the air, the potential is there for it to soar to the moon? If they cast "Cure Wounds" on themselves, there is the potential that they will take damage instead? If they walk on the road towards the City of X, there is the potential that they will end up with City Y instead? If the character says "Hello dear shopkeeper", there is the potential that what comes out of there mouth is instead "I am going to kill you and your family you evil scumbag"?

How does your games make any form of sense whatsoever?




Except all those things could happen in a game....so?

Could != Should



Like the character goes to swing a sword...and a lightning blot comes down from the sky and kills the foe first. Very possible. Like say a storm giant with improved invisiblilty was hovering over the fight and threw the lighting bolt....now true, the player and character would not know that...but it is possible.

So it is very possible that a storm giant with improved invisibility will throw lightning bolts at my enemies in your games? That's good to know, as I might as well not bother trying to attack myself then.

Basically what you are saying is that I might as well not attempt any action, as anything can happen anyway. I can just stand and look at the enemies, and since anything can happen, they could spontaneously disintegrate in front of me. Seriously, why bother taking any actions at all in your anything can happen nonsensical world?



Well, some people...but not all...like complex games as they are a lot more like Real Life. In more Fairly Tale Like Simple Games, everything works out for the characters and they live happily ever after. That is fun for some people, but not everyone.

The discussion has never ever been about everything works out for the characters and they live happily ever after. Not once. Stop throwing out random nonsense that was never part of the discussion. That is also intellectually dishonest and just makes you look like you can't comprehend what is being said.

I also like games that are a lot like real life. You know, where you can judge the outcome of actions quite reliably and thus work towards a specific goal. Where things are fairly consistent.



They are different...but not radically so. Like the USA does not add in the tax on the display of an item for sale, other countries do: the display price includes the tax. This is different, but not exactly Earth shattering. In fact most (Western places) are a lot alike...houses, stores, coffee shops, cars, a money based economy and a lot of common basic laws like ''murder is illegal''.

They are different in a whole lot more ways than your idea that "oh, only the names of the bars differ". They have different values, social habits etc. Just take one difference between USA and the rest of the industrialized world; public health care. In USA, public health care is a big sin and basically half the population thinks it is the worst evil ever and will lead to communism. In the rest of the industrialized world, it would be almost unthinkable to remove it.

This, according to you, "not a radical difference", DOES have radical difference in people's lives. In USA, people can actually die due to lack of ability to get health care, or alternatively end up with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt after a procedure that is necessary for them to live. In Sweden, that simply isn't possible. Going to the doctor costs about $22, and whatever else you need after that will be free. Even if if it involves expensive surgery or whatever (you do have to buy medicine though until you reach a certain value per year after which it is free). This difference will impact people's lives in radical ways, sometimes making the difference between life or death.




I like the time thing too. But again this is not a huge difference. Both Germany and Italy have companies, business, meetings and money....but sure if your a couple minutes late in Germany they will be like ''how dare you be late and keep us waiting!'' and in Italy they would be more like ''oh, whatever, you are here now, let us talk business."

Oh but it does create a difference. For example, if you compare countries on this time axis, I'm sure you can see that there is an economical difference (I think it will be tilted towards strict time = stronger economy). It is also quite likely that you will find a difference if you look at the view of time vs. stress related diseases. While correlation does not equal causation, it is nevertheless an indicator that countries can be very different depending on only one cultural norm.




Well, the example is picking between two things, like of the two local barons who do the characters want to work with? In the complex game, each baron could have *any* personality or type of character so it *is* possible that both of them might be typical greedy noble types that only care about themselves, for example...or anything else.

The example was between choosing to work for a good baron or a criminal gang. But alright, yes, you can choose between two local barons. They could have any personality, I agree with that.

What I was against from the start was to make both local barons have identical personalities. That working for one is identical to working for the other. They should be different, and this difference should influence the game . Even if they are both greedy, they can still be different from one another!



You are seeming to say that if the players are ever given a choice one *must always* be a good choice for the players *and* the DM has to tell the players the one that is the good choice, so the players will *automatically* always have the agency/control of the game to always make the good and right choice.

I've never said that. I merely use good baron vs. bad criminals as an example in order to highlight how choices will lead to different games.

I am much in favor of presenting two bad choices or two good choices for the players. What I am NOT in favor of is presenting two IDENTICAL choices to the players. This has been my whole point from the start.



But the same outcome is very normal... If a character is robbed they will 99% of the time want their stuff back AND want the thief caught and punished and/or killed. So, even if the players can pick from like ten NPCs to rob...it is very likely each of the ten will act the very same way.

What science do you base this on because I want to see the reference. I instead make the statement that people will act differently when robbed, so now we could perform psychological/sociological research to get the question answered.

I do think it is true that most people will want the stuff back and the thief caught. However, that doesn't mean they will act the same way. Some people get paranoid, increase the security of their home, feel generally anxious and violated etc. Other people will contact law enforcement, some in a rational way, others in an emotional way. A few people might try to take matters into their own hands and look to get their stuff back themselves. In addition, some people will let this incident affect their values and thus change voting pattern in democratic elections, whereas others will think it was just a single random act and not make a big deal of it.

Yes, most people will want their stuff back and the thief caught, but how they go about to make that happen will differ. In a roleplaying game this should also hold true. In addition, people have a varied amount of resources to put in getting the thieves caught. Stealing form a rich noble and a lowly baker should not impact the game in the same way, as one will have vast resources to spend in trying to catch the thieves whereas the other do not.



And the Good Baron might want to get rid of the PCs just like the Criminals do...and for the same reason: to keep everything that happened unknown and secret. And like I gave in my example..the criminals might go for the direct ''kill them'', but the Baron might take the good route of having the PCs arrested for a real crime (like operating in the kingdom without a chatter from a baron) and have the Pcs 'just ' thrown in prison(where they can't talk to anyone).

Except that is not good, that is Lawful Evil.

If the good baron has a motivation to get rid of the PCs, more likely they will talk to a friendly noble in another country and request a favor to have the PCs start working for them instead. That way, the baron gets the PCs away from the country without doing a morally wrong act (since they will still be alive and paid for their services).



Either way...something might happen. Your way seems to be: Pick evil criminals and something bad will happen,; pick good baron and everything will be a sunshine and rainbows happy ending.

No, my way is "pick the evil criminals and one thing will happen, pick the good baron and another thing will happen". Doesn't have to be sunshine and rainbows, but it will be different.

Your way seems to be: Whatever you pick, the result is the same. Then you call this complex for reasons I can't understand.



It is not the middle, it is *anything*.

If it's anything, then this anything should include good barons that generally behave like good people as well, shouldn't it?



Well...maybe, but wait for it, Anything can happen.

You choose to go to school....and find it too hard and drop out and then get work as a street mime. That could happen. You stay in school and get an education and get a good job...again, could happen. And so on. You can't predict the future on just one action.

Actually, I CAN predict the future on just one action. There are entire fields of study devoted to this, most notably Physics.

Anyway, I can also most definitely predict the "not future" based on one action. For example, if I don't go to the university, I won't end up with a university degree. Simple as that. Same way I know that I will never be President of the US of A, or a star football player.

In reality, anything CAN NOT happen. Some things can happen, and the future is uncertain to some degree, that is true. But it is not, and has never been anything can happen. If that was true, we wouldn't be able to function.

[Darth Ultron]

I tied to point that out several posts ago.

One of the basic rules of improv acting and improv comedy is that the participants don't contradict or no-sell the starting premise or what's already been said on stage. Likewise for improvisation as a tool in an RPG, one of the basic expectations is that you don't contradict what's already been established in the campaign.

But as with so many other terms, DU is going to keep basing is arguments on a definition of "improv" that is retro-crafted to justify his position.

But now your going way past improv in to silly group happy hug kidz stuff(sorry can't use the real words here). You want the idea where everyone follows YOUR rules, that you will say ''oh everyone else does, just be One Of Us."

The basic idea that ''once anyone improvs something it is forever set and no one can alter it'', is just dumb.


As I said before, until you understand how improv games work (especially how the less prep results in having more information) then you will be hopelessly mistaken about everything about improv games.

I'll admit I do not understand how the (Not)Everyone Collective Improv game works.

When I think Improv, I'm thinking: DM just makes up whatever they want on a whim. The DM is free to base whatever they make up on something, or not. The players 100% just sit back and do not suggest, ask or demand that the DM make up stuff for them.

So...some have said an Improv game is a Player Controlled game: Where the lazy casual DM just sits back an Improvs whatever the player wants: DM: "So Player, what is in the wooden chest" ; Player: "one million gold coins!" DM: "It is so."

Others seem to say an Improv game is a normal game...just as a normal game might have some improv in it? That does not make much sense to me.




So how does the improv DM end up with more information despite doing less prep? The prep the improv DM does puts them in the situation such that they can accurately answer any question about unprepared material as if they had prepared it. As such they have more information than could have been prepared because they can accurately answer any question that could be asked.

Since the unprepared material can be learned about and interacted with as if it had been prepared, the players can have greater agency than in a game without improv.

I guess your just so desperate to be right you will just say any nonsense?

If the Improv DM has prepared something like a Normal DM....then they are now a Normal DM. Seems simple enough.



Consider the time it takes to prepare the Dark Forest to a sufficient detail for the PCs to have an adventure about some villain that has a home/base/dungeon in the Dark Forest. You could write 20 pages of notes to handle all the information you expect to need. Or I could write 12 sentences and have all the information I could possibly need to run this adventure, and the next 3 adventures with a level of detail that exceeds your 20 pages (partially because I would be able to access the information neither of us prepared).

Maybe you should check your math. More information is better then less.

Like the Normal DM makes an encounter of three pages of a Deaths Head Tree with all the needed detail. The lazy improv Player called dm just scribbles on a Taco Bell napkin ''death tree is bad and coolz''. Gee, it is hard to see what will work out better in the game play.


Improv does not equal not prepping. It does equal not deciding what the players will do. You can prep a ton as an improv GM. You just don't decide what the players do. That's their job.

Ok, but this definition would mean all DMs are improve DMs...so it does not really work. It is like saying ''an Improv DM controls all the NPC's of the world'' or ''an Improv DM rolls dice''.


Wait. Given your definition of "improvise" and what you just said here, does that mean you run totally random games where nothing happens that makes any sense?

It would be fair to say my game would look like that, to you, yes.

I know the horror of your type of player well: At 5pm as DM I would say D'rk only has a dagger for a weapon. Then at 6pm, and three game days later, I would say D'rk has a dagger and a long bow and a quiver of arrows. Then the poor, bad, player that could not handle that random ''breaking the dumb Everyone Collective Rules of Improv" would be crying in the corner and between sobs saying "it's not right, the DM said he only had a dagger and that must be unchanged forever!"


Anything a DM has said as an NPC that wasn't pre-written is improvisation. TTRPGs are very similar to doing an improv skit, that's what makes them good. The players come up with whatever actions they want to try and do, and the DM uses their brain as a processor to determine the reactions and effects on the world.

Sounds good, and this is the way I do it in my games.....but the Everyone Collective does things differently.


That's why I specified the unintentional ones. Most of us (barring DU) know not to directly railroad (removing choice). But are there ways that we commonly deny knowledge or consequences without intending to? Patterns of thought or speech that lead to stepping on a player's toes? That's what I'd love to discuss so I can better avoid them.

I love mind control and forcing characters and players to do stuff.....sounds like a good thread.

[Cluedrew]

I love mind control and forcing characters and players to do stuff.....sounds like a good thread.You want a thread about not doing the things you love?

In other news: That's not what improvisation means. Standard answer number 3.

[Pleh]

"Player Agency is always good and proper, and any encroachment on it is the single worst thing a DM could ever do."

Let's back this up a few scales to wax philosophic:

"Freedom is always better than restriction."

In general, it is true (or at least I would agree with the statement). All things being equal, freedom is essentially preferable to limitation.

But we still don't actually like anarchy in our living society. Why? Because people do really nasty and mean things with freedom.

In that sense, DU is quite right that some players use their agency to hijack a game, but his problem is the active presumption that this is the ONLY thing that freedom (and player agency) is ever used for which is wildly and ridiculously incorrect.

Just because freedom does *sometimes* need to be limited for the sake of the general good, that doesn't mean that it always should be (much less that it should be taken away as much as possible and at every opportunity). In fact, it's rather better that freedom not be taken away to any degree greater than demonstrably necessary for the common good.

And it's this key word: "Demonstrably" where so much trouble arises. DU represents the inherent problem that demonstration involves perception and there is no cure for the fact that so many of us have wildly varying perceptions of reality. In discussions like this one, we can gradually remedy the schism in our differences of opinion and perspective, but we can never fully come to absolute parallel thinking (nor is that by itself a necessary or even desirable goal, since it is of no benefit to have absolute agreement in an incorrect idea).

That is, we can remedy the schism if we have any honest intention of actually making an attempt to change our own perspective on reality. We can easily just argue blindly without giving any thought to arguments that run contrary to our preconceptions.

My general rule of thumb is to trust my gut. What you're posting about is an admission that you are experiencing awareness of cognitive dissonance. You are having trouble reconciling reason with feeling. Reason seems to be telling you to be more open to your players and your feelings are saying don't do it. This tells me that you have trust issues with your players.

You know what? Maybe your games have given you more reason to be mistrustful than some of the other people here. Maybe the people you've played with are less worthy of the trust that comes with Player Agency. Trust should not be given out blindly. By agreeing to a Tabletop session with other people, there's a good amount of trust involved. If the people involved don't deserve the trust, then it may be proper to limit player agency to ensure the Gentleman's Agreement isn't exploited or violated. In case DU is reading this, it is a sliding scale of Player Agency, not an "on/off" switch as you seem to think.

By the point that player agency is totally unacceptable in any form, why are you bothering to play at all with such people? They're clearly too toxic a gamer to be trusted with the fundamental elements of play.

And no, DU, scaring them off with a statue of General Lee is not a good way to measure this kind of thing.


Most normal, classic games do not have any sort of direct player control of the game. All the control of the game is with the DM. Sure, a player can always ask for something to be added...but note that is ask, not tell, the DM.

I disagree with your definition of a "normal, classic" game. These terms imply a misconception. A statistically typical game involves an ample portion of player control of the game. Even a Conventional dungeon crawl has a good deal of player control.

"I tunnel through the walls."

"I withdraw from the fight using Teleport."

"Is there a Chandelier?"

"I use Diplomacy."

Each of these choices demonstrate "normal, classic" player control of the game. Sure, the DM could just veto these things, but they really shouldn't just always do this. They should always only veto player creative choices when it benefits the game (for the players moreso than the DM, because the DM's job is to entertain their players, not the other way around).


I'm not sure why you think players ''deserve'' more control?

Because Freedom is better than not having freedom.

The DM already has no restrictions at all (even the rules are subject to DM fiat) and can do literally whatever the players will tolerate. They not only don't need more freedom, but they literally can't have any more.

Your parents really never taught you why it's better to share your toys rather than just hoard them all to yourself?

If you tell a playmate that you wish to play with them, then by all means play WITH them. Being DM does not make you dictator of your game. The game belongs to the players as well as the DM. They should all have creative control of the flow of narrative. They deserve control of their own little corner of your universe.

[Lorsa]

I can get that. But a GM can adhere both to spirit and the letter of the law without the game giving you options which you desire.

I think one of the disconnects here is that you're looking at this from a player's perspective, where at least on player-character combination's (yours) traits are known. I'm looking at this from the perspective of a scenario designer to whom no player-character combinations might be known. Think of this way: suppose you're using the definion of agency which includes player preferences. So far, so good. But you don't know who your players will be nor what they prefer, so you will have to use a hypothetical player. As the variety and number of different hypothetical players you're willing to consider increases, the amount of "agency" revealed by this method steadily approaches the neutral definition where all possible choices are considered to be part of it.

That is indeed a disconnect. The reason why I am looking at it from a player's perspective despite being a GM in 95% of all my gaming history ought to be fairly obvious. The people that are mostly concerned with player agency (PA) is obviously the players themselves. Or well, maybe it isn't obvious or always true actually, but still I think it is somewhat natural to adopt a player perspective when talking about PA. And, in the end, the player is less concerned with there actually being agency as they are with their feeling of having agency.

Enough about that though. It is true that PA is different when looking at it from the view of a scenario designer, especially if no information on the players or their characters is available. In such a case, you do have to do your best to devise a scenario with as much PA as possible given the neutral definition provided. I do agree with that.

Most of the games I have played in have not been created in a vacuum though. The GM usually knows the players and after character creation, also the characters. In such a case, the scenario actually can be written with choices directed towards specific characters.



Here is a version of the graph I referred to earlier. (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NLhIDdsd_II/UYwn5q1ldNI/AAAAAAAAAFo/xmD-knzXE7Q/s1600/472px-Challenge_vs_skill.svg.png) You're looking for a game where your skill as a player intersects with difficulty of the game, to provide an experience which feels arousing. Agency is involved only so far as high agency requires more skill to use.


True enough. Interestingly, that is also what I am looking for as a GM, so when I have players for whom it is best to run simple adventure scenarios that I have created tons of already, I tend to feel bored. Having high PA in games where I am the GM also increases the game difficulty for me, as I know have to adapt and improvise more.



If "take damage" and "suffer humiliation" also proceed the game in other ways, then the scenario structure will be divergent, at least initially, so it can lead to a high agency game if the outcomes for the options to proceed continue to be relevantly different.

Well, first I was thinking that they advance the game in the same way as [forward], just with an added drawback. But let's forget about that silly example and proceed with your more detailed description.



The point of the example game, "Eat this cake OR DIE", was to demonstrate that we can't assume option 1) is the most appealing option without specifying both a) the character and b) the contents of the variable "proceed". If "take damage" and "suffer humiliation" also proceed the game in other ways, the choices presented are made considerably less trivial than the version where "take damage" and "suffer humiliation" don't.

We can use the following notation to describe the choices:

Option 1: Go to Event X
Option 2: Go to Event Y + suffer consequence i.
Option 3: Go to Event Z + suffer consequence s.
Option 4: Suffer consequence d

Where X, Y and Z are variable, i is constant for injury, s is constant for humiliation and d is constant of death.

With this types of choices, we can no longer safely assume that Option 1 is without cost, nor can we assume Options 2 or 3 are of too high a cost, to all player-character combinations. The amount of available choices and factors to be considered just rose by a rather significant exponent.

If we expand this example to something where i,s are no longer constant (and forget about option 4) then we can analyze different types of game scenarios in the light of our various agency definitions.

So the first choice that shows up is:

Option 1: Go to Event X
Option 2: Go to Event Y + suffer consequence i.
Option 3: Go to Event Z + suffer consequence s.

where the "optimal" choice is clearly character dependent, that we both agree on.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a character values X>Y>Z and would rather avoid s>i. This character will obviously choose option 1. Now, if the game proceeds by continually presenting options identical to the first (but with the Events having slightly different appearance), then the character will choose 1 on each and every intersection. It is thus a foregone conclusion where they will end up, even though they've been presented with 3 different choices 10 times in the game. Would you say that this was a high agency game?

My view is that in order to achieve real agency in the game, the events and consequences have to be scrambled so that the character will face any combination of them. For example, when the same character encounters:

Option 1: Go to Event X+ suffer consequence s.
Option 2: Go to Event Y + suffer consequence i.
Option 3: Go to Event Z

then suddenly the choice is not as obvious anymore. Now you have to value how much you actually want to avoid s compared with how much you want Event X and so on.

I guess that you would also think that a game which provides a larger variation in the choices have higher agency than the which only provides the same type of choice multiple times (though with different aesthetics). So it is possible that both definition ends up with the same end result.

However, my additional claim is that the first type of choice, where you value X>Y>Z and dislike both consequences is not much of a choice at all. A scenario designer will know that a character who values X highest will always end up at X, and a GM who knows a character is motivated by X knows what they will pick. My objection, as you know, is with GMs who insist on providing choices such as these where one option is always in line with the character's motivations without any additional dr



The joke here is that the GM doesn't need to be using your algorithm to create the scenarios.

They don't even need to be fully aware of your algorithm, yet they can still be presenting only scenarios which are obvious to you.

Most of the time, a GM tends to know what characters are playing in their campaign, at least after character creation.

I will obviously have different expectations on PA if I play a pre-made scenario at a convention compared to a campaign constructed for a group of players after character creation.



Again, there are (at least) two different things you could be talking about here. One is where the GM read your character notes and tailored the scenario so only one option at every branch suits you. The other is where you read the GM's campaign notes or otherwise came up with a powerfull enough (or restrictive enough) algorithm to narrow each choice down to one "obvious" option.

In the latter sort of cases, the GM didn't intentionally design the choices to be obvious (and might not consider them obvious), you did by introducing your algorithm. It is very much you who is exercising agency at each branch point, you just predetermined your choices by pregaming the game.

As must be evident at this point, I am talking mainly about the first thing. I am not in the habit of reading campaign notes unless they are my own.



Maybe, but it's you railroading yourself. I know you're fundamentally approaching this from the viewpoint where the GM is intentionally crafting their scenario in this way, but again, the GM doesn't need to be doing that for what you describe to happen. Because of this, you don't get to abdicate responsibility of determinism you introduce to the game, on the GM. It can be your whole input lied in character creation only because you gave too much input.

Fair enough, and ideally if such a thing happened, the issue could be solved by an OOC discussion. Like for example, I could say "I would like to be presented with more complex choices" or some such.

Nevertheless, I would note that I believe it is basic roleplaying to, you know, play the character in a believable, semi-consistent manner based on the personality described at the start. It seems rather odd to assume that in order to achieve true PA, one has to discard the character's personality and motivations and just pick any option when a choice is presented. I don't believe it is giving it "too much input", rather I am thinking of a normal amount of input combined with a rather simple scenario design.



But it is you determining the outcome when it's your algorithm that makes the choices obvious. You are choosing in advance due to pregaming the game, but it's still you choosing. You don't get to abdicate responsibility of that on the GM, because again, the GM doesn't need to be violating either spirit or the letter of the game. The GM might have never known the choices will be obvious, because the GM didn't know beforehand which sort of character you were going to play, or which sort of player you are.

I suppose this depends on the sequence of events in question. If approaching a set scenario, then yes, I am creating my own determinism. However, if the opposite is true, that my character is created first and the scenario later, then I do believe the responsibility lies with the GM. This is the basis for my argument, that I have created a character whom the GM then proceeds to create a scenario for where, given the character provided, the outcome is already a given. In such a case, my entire input on the game lies at the start. In the other case, where the GM creates a scenario that targets unspecified parts of the character's personality, or puts two motivations against each other, then my input will be continuous throughout the game.



There is no such thing as liar-proof semantics. What you ask for flat-out does not exist.

If you try to bake in player preferences into the definition of agency, you will just get manipulative GMs who will claim that you actually like something you hate. We know from elsewhere that this is actually a pretty standard manipulative strategy and you can make people second-guess their own preferences to a frightening extent.

Well, I am an idealist at heart. So, I would like to create a liar-proof semantics. Basically I am looking for the imagined "Third Option" here that is the enemy of Good. :smallsmile:



Yes. It predictably leads to Trying to Take a Third Option: Eat your cake and save it too. Usually followed by failure due to overextension.

Like, this is where the barrier between your categories 2) and 3) breaks apart. At a glance, a choice between "equal goods" should be in category 3): choice between multiple desired things. However, based on the existing options, this kind of player will imagine a non-existent option with all desired traits of the other options. Compared to this non-existent option, all existing options feel less derieable, causing the decision to fall to category 2). Once again, Perfect is the enemy of Good.

My players don't have a history of complaining over the net, but I sure do see a lot of this sort of player from other groups crop up every single time when, say, moral dilemmas for Paladins are discussed, insisting the GM is a Bad Person if they don't allow the third option.

Well, trying to take a third option is obviously also an option, even if it results in failure. All that means is that the player couldn't see that this was a futile road. Hopefully it was a learning experience, otherwise the character might continue to not do any good at all due to constant failure form overexertion. At least the GM presented complex options.



"Experiencing a fantasy where they get to be the hero" is one possible outcome of a roleplaying game, so what you're saying doesn't really make sense to me.

It is absolutely one possible outcome of a roleplaying game. All I said was that such a player with such a desire might not be overly concerned with whether or not PA is present. As long as they always get their highest desired choice of always doing good, they are happy.

Just by looking at the different aesthetics of play, "Fantasy" is a very different drive compared to "Expression".



1) They think it'd be funny.
2) They think the game has run its course, and terminating their character is fastest way to get out of the game. This can happen both out of satisfaction with the game or frustration with the game.
3) They think the character has run its course, and terminating their character is the fastest way to get back into the game. (This happens with savvy players who realize their character is in a deadlock, but that end of one character doesn't necessarily mean having to stop playing. So they figure out a reason for the character to self-terminate so they can continue with another. My favorite example was a cleric who got up to his knees in debt to an army officer. So, the cleric decided to go on a "date with a dragon". Seriously, they bought roses and everything. Well, the dragon predictably killed them. This had the consequence of freeing all the other player characters of that situation, since none of them had strong enough connection to the cleric for the debt to be moved on to them.)

I can certainly understand 1), although I would not want to GM for such a player.
I can sort of understand 2), although I don't understand why simply walking away from the table isn't possible.
I can't quite understand 3) though, nor would I approve of it in any game I ran. Other people might think differently though, and I don't object to their games in principle. However, I don't think it is a correct portrayal of the character, and a player who does that sort of thing just to get out of some minor negative consequences would not be allowed to make a new character (unless it was, say, a family member who had taken over the debt).

[Darth Ultron]

Similarly, if you are in a forum discussion using D&D races as examples, you either have to use them as written or specify how you want them different. Anything else is just dishonest.


I think you missed my point where the Core books have very little fluff race information. So just where are you looking for all of the information?



However, your argument is a bit weird, you say "in simple game things are always X" whereas in a complex game anything can be anything. You must have failed to understand something at the beginning of this discussion.

It is possible, any idea what that might be?

Maybe we can break it down to the two Cool Everyone Collective ways:

1.The Alignment Game: The game uses Alignment, as pre the rules. Good is good, evil is evil. Things are very black and white and direct.
2.The Gray Game: The game has no Alignment and does not use any such rules. Anything can be anything, or not. Things might be as they seem, or not.

(there is the #3 here, the one I use, but lets keep it simple and just talk about the above two)



If something in the setting is defined as X, that is what they will be unless circumstances show up that would change them. Change takes time though, especially if we talk about cultural change, so the players can safely assume that if something has been described as X, they will be X within a short period of time.

I agree, in general, about culture change. I put lots of culture in my games.



What you seem to imply when your argument is that in a complex game X can suddenly change to Y just because, without any reason for it. Isn't that exactly the thing you had a problem with in your long rant about improvisation GMs and how they suddenly change information that wasn't available at an earlier time?

Yes, that would both be wrong.



Besides, even if a race as a whole contains all 50 shades of grey, individual people can be darker or lighter. That was what led us to this argument; I said that different people should be different, whereas you claimed that "no no, everyone must be equally evil and betray the PCs at the end as that is a complex game". If everyone is the same that sounds a lot simpler to me than if races, groups and individuals are different from each other.

Odd, I said that in a gray world, any group is just as likely to betray the characters as any other group. Then you jumped to things must go the way the players want and there must all ways be that good escape option for the players to pick.

I never said ''equally evil'' , the example was a Evil Crime Lord and a Good Baron, that would both, in Evil or Good ways cause problems for the Characters.



I was specifically, from the very beginning of this discussion, saying that PC choices should lead to different outcomes and that the game should be different depending on whom they choose to work for. YOU were saying that the game should be identical. How can you view the latter as being more complex? I don't get it? If every choice the players make is functionally identical to the other, then the game is really simple in my eyes.

This is just the one example problem here.



What the hell does complexity mean to you really?

We will use the Everyone Collective WordSpeak: Gray Game(aka no alignment).



So in your games, if the characters throw a ball in the air, the potential is there for it to soar to the moon? If they cast "Cure Wounds" on themselves, there is the potential that they will take damage instead? If they walk on the road towards the City of X, there is the potential that they will end up with City Y instead? If the character says "Hello dear shopkeeper", there is the potential that what comes out of there mouth is instead "I am going to kill you and your family you evil scumbag"?

How does your games make any form of sense whatsoever?

The game makes an internal sense to just itself, but not to people on the outside. For the most part the example you give would never randomly just happen....but they could. It might be the biggest difference between My Game and Your Game: I let the players know anything can and might happen, your more of like ''we all agree to do things this One Way Forever Unchanging''.



So it is very possible that a storm giant with improved invisibility will throw lightning bolts at my enemies in your games? That's good to know, as I might as well not bother trying to attack myself then.

Yes.



Basically what you are saying is that I might as well not attempt any action, as anything can happen anyway. I can just stand and look at the enemies, and since anything can happen, they could spontaneously disintegrate in front of me. Seriously, why bother taking any actions at all in your anything can happen nonsensical world?

Just as anything might happen, does not say it will...or that it will in a timely fashion. A character might wait a life time for a bolt from the blue to do something...so they might want to just do an action themselves.



I also like games that are a lot like real life. You know, where you can judge the outcome of actions quite reliably and thus work towards a specific goal. Where things are fairly consistent.


I would note that Real Life is not like that. In Real Life, anything can happen.



They are different in a whole lot more ways than your idea that "oh, only the names of the bars differ". They have different values, social habits etc. Just take one difference between USA and the rest of the industrialized world; public health care. In USA, public health care is a big sin and basically half the population thinks it is the worst evil ever and will lead to communism. In the rest of the industrialized world, it would be almost unthinkable to remove it.

But my point is everywhere has Health Care, it is just the details that are different.



Yes, most people will want their stuff back and the thief caught, but how they go about to make that happen will differ. In a roleplaying game this should also hold true. In addition, people have a varied amount of resources to put in getting the thieves caught. Stealing form a rich noble and a lowly baker should not impact the game in the same way, as one will have vast resources to spend in trying to catch the thieves whereas the other do not.

My argument is most people will do ''something'' to get there stolen stuff back...and, yes, some won't. But most people will do ''something''. So rob two people, there is a very, very, very good chance that they will both ''do something''. So the players have two choices: rob person A or B, but both will ''do something'' if they are robbed.



If the good baron has a motivation to get rid of the PCs, more likely they will talk to a friendly noble in another country and request a favor to have the PCs start working for them instead. That way, the baron gets the PCs away from the country without doing a morally wrong act (since they will still be alive and paid for their services).

You can debate ''what ifs'', but arresting characters that commit crimes is a common thing good people do.


You want a thread about not doing the things you love?


Well, as always, I would be the Lone Voice of Another Option not given by the Everyone Collective.



I disagree with your definition of a "normal, classic" game. These terms imply a misconception. A statistically typical game involves an ample portion of player control of the game. Even a Conventional dungeon crawl has a good deal of player control.

Each of these choices demonstrate "normal, classic" player control of the game. Sure, the DM could just veto these things, but they really shouldn't just always do this. They should always only veto player creative choices when it benefits the game (for the players moreso than the DM, because the DM's job is to entertain their players, not the other way around).


But your talking about a Player having a character take actions within the game structure....there is no control. The players actions effect only the game play, not the game reality/meta reality.

Normal game- Player says to the DM who is in control of the game- "Zom will try and open the door". The DM, by themselves, decides what will happen based on the rules, game reality, whims or anything else they feel like and make a decision then tell the player something like "Zom finds the door is locked and he can't open it''. See, the only thing a player did here was (try) to do an action with their character in the game world reality.

Player Controlled game-The Player that has total control over the game says to the Figurehead DM with no control-"Zom will open the door and find a pile of one million gold coins in side the room''. The DM, that simply does whatever the Players say, then says "Yes, Zom opens the door and finds a pile of one million gold coins." So, here the Player is in total control.



Your parents really never taught you why it's better to share your toys rather than just hoard them all to yourself?

I had special ''share toys''

[OldTrees1]

I'll admit I do not understand how the (Not)Everyone Collective Improv game works.

When I think Improv, I'm thinking: DM just makes up whatever they want on a whim. The DM is free to base whatever they make up on something, or not. The players 100% just sit back and do not suggest, ask or demand that the DM make up stuff for them.

So...some have said an Improv game is a Player Controlled game: Where the lazy casual DM just sits back an Improvs whatever the player wants: DM: "So Player, what is in the wooden chest" ; Player: "one million gold coins!" DM: "It is so."

Others seem to say an Improv game is a normal game...just as a normal game might have some improv in it? That does not make much sense to me.

As expected you have no idea at all what an improv game is. You keep trying to cast it as a Random game or a Tyrant Player game. When you don't know what you are talking about, it discredits everything you say on the topic.





I guess your just so desperate to be right you will just say any nonsense?

If the Improv DM has prepared something like a Normal DM....then they are now a Normal DM. Seems simple enough.

Maybe you should check your math. More information is better then less.

Like the Normal DM makes an encounter of three pages of a Deaths Head Tree with all the needed detail. The lazy improv Player called dm just scribbles on a Taco Bell napkin ''death tree is bad and coolz''. Gee, it is hard to see what will work out better in the game play.

The prep one does for improv DMing is different than the prep one does for normal DMing. That is why the improv DM can fit more information into less prep than the normal DM can. More information is usually better than less, but less prep results in more information.

You would write 3 pages on a Deaths Head Tree encounter. With just 2-3 sentences the improv DM has access to more information about the Death's Head Trees, the other encounters in the forest (including location, movement, and development), and a head start on information about the villian & their lair.

If you wish to understand the world, you need to step outside of your strawmen. Only then will you have a chance at curing your ignorance.

[Quertus]

It may not even be a single definition but the premise that "Player Agency is always good and proper, and any encroachment on it is the single worst thing a DM could ever do."

Granted, this could very easily be me misrepresenting the thread, and it's more than likely being painted by personal experiences, but there is something I just can't shake that's keeping me from being 100% on board. Everything seems reasonable. And the argument that the players should have a lot of freedom is right. There's just a small feeling I can't shake that's keeping me from going wholeheartedly into "yes, this I agree with 100%".

Personally, I believe that the GM should have full Agency to create the world. If a player wants to belong to an order of Paladin Ninjas led by the disposed rightful ruler of the land, it's up to the GM to determine whether that fits into their world or not.

On the other hand, when the GM restricts the players, there has best be good reason. Suppose the pitch went like this:

Everyone must play an elf, with +3 LA in templates. You must take your first 5 levels in one of these base class: Ninja, Swashbuckler, Binder, Warlock, or Shugenja. Then you must prestige out into one prestige class for 4 levels, then to another for the remainder of the character's career. One of these prestige classes must be chosen from the GM's homebrew. WBL will be twice normal, but restricted to (MMORPG-style) random availability.

Most GM restrictions I've encountered either came with no payoff, or were based on idiot misunderstandings of game balance ("core only, for balance").


But now your going way past improv in to silly group happy hug kidz stuff(sorry can't use the real words here). You want the idea where everyone follows YOUR rules, that you will say ''oh everyone else does, just be One Of Us."

The basic idea that ''once anyone improvs something it is forever set and no one can alter it'', is just dumb.

Reality changing with no firm footing is just dumb.

Why do I say that? Well, because there is no intellect involved. You don't have to remember facts, you neither have to nor can plan based on known facts, etc. One can be mind-numbingly dumb and manage inconsistency; consistency requires (some form of) intellect.

So that's my "why" on the counterargument. Why do you say keeping facts consistent is dumb?


That is indeed a disconnect. The reason why I am looking at it from a player's perspective despite being a GM in 95% of all my gaming history ought to be fairly obvious. The people that are mostly concerned with player agency (PA) is obviously the players themselves. Or well, maybe it isn't obvious or always true actually, but still I think it is somewhat natural to adopt a player perspective when talking about PA. And, in the end, the player is less concerned with there actually being agency as they are with their feeling of having agency.

My original definition of Player Agency was flawed for much the same reason: because I created my definition based on which forms of Player Agency I valued.

So, I suppose, the question is, is there a way to optimize the experience to produce the maximum feeling of Agency?

The part of Agency I care about is that the PCs be able to do everything their characters are capable of doing. This is why I have a strong desire for good rules, and/or, on the flip side, a GM who is open to creative solutions, and who makes good rulings. I've played under dozens (perhaps 100+?) GMs, and I've only met one whose rulings were consistently acceptable.


If we expand this example to something where i,s are no longer constant (and forget about option 4) then we can analyze different types of game scenarios in the light of our various agency definitions.

So the first choice that shows up is:

Option 1: Go to Event X
Option 2: Go to Event Y + suffer consequence i.
Option 3: Go to Event Z + suffer consequence s.

where the "optimal" choice is clearly character dependent, that we both agree on.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a character values X>Y>Z and would rather avoid s>i. This character will obviously choose option 1. Now, if the game proceeds by continually presenting options identical to the first (but with the Events having slightly different appearance), then the character will choose 1 on each and every intersection. It is thus a foregone conclusion where they will end up, even though they've been presented with 3 different choices 10 times in the game. Would you say that this was a high agency game?

My view is that in order to achieve real agency in the game, the events and consequences have to be scrambled so that the character will face any combination of them. For example, when the same character encounters:

Option 1: Go to Event X+ suffer consequence s.
Option 2: Go to Event Y + suffer consequence i.
Option 3: Go to Event Z

then suddenly the choice is not as obvious anymore. Now you have to value how much you actually want to avoid s compared with how much you want Event X and so on.

I guess that you would also think that a game which provides a larger variation in the choices have higher agency than the which only provides the same type of choice multiple times (though with different aesthetics). So it is possible that both definition ends up with the same end result.

However, my additional claim is that the first type of choice, where you value X>Y>Z and dislike both consequences is not much of a choice at all. A scenario designer will know that a character who values X highest will always end up at X, and a GM who knows a character is motivated by X knows what they will pick. My objection, as you know, is with GMs who insist on providing choices such as these where one option is always in line with the character's motivations without any additional dr

IMO, this is an issue of GM skills, to make sure the adventure is varied in terms of what types of options / solutions that have what types of consequences attached. Of course, then again, usually, legal options don't have "go to jail" as a potential consequence. But I'm not sure to what extent it's related to Player Agency - and, certainly, if the module is written before the character is selected or created, it would be difficult for the GM to intentionally limit Agency without appearing either a skilless amateur or a railroading ****.


Most of the time, a GM tends to know what characters are playing in their campaign, at least after character creation.

Yeah, I'd rather the GM not know the character even then. That removes any bias the GM might place into writing the campaign.

If there is a problem (say, the GM has included nothing but constructs and undead for several sessions for a sneak-attack Rogue build), we'll address it live.

[Segev]

It would be fair to say my game would look like that, to you, yes.

I know the horror of your type of player well: At 5pm as DM I would say D'rk only has a dagger for a weapon. Then at 6pm, and three game days later, I would say D'rk has a dagger and a long bow and a quiver of arrows. Then the poor, bad, player that could not handle that random ''breaking the dumb Everyone Collective Rules of Improv" would be crying in the corner and between sobs saying "it's not right, the DM said he only had a dagger and that must be unchanged forever!"

Tut, tut. You have said, repeatedly, that any game that has randomness is totally random and can't have a plot.

You didn't just describe randomness, here. You described normal improvisation.

Once again, when nailed down to having to give examples of what you'd actually do in a game, you reveal that you not only do know what the terms the rest of us are using mean, but that you use them correctly when cornered on actual examples. What I don't get is your need to insult everybody by calling them horror-inducing bad gamers for trying to nail you down, and then projecting this phantom evil player who can't stand a DM having reasonable things happen in his world when you had previously been insisting that reasonable things couldn't happen unless they were strictly plotted.

Just because YOU have shifted your position doesn't mean you have to shove everybody who agrees with the new position you're taking off onto some other, outlandish position in order to maintain an argument. It is okay to agree on something!

[kyoryu]

I was specifically, from the very beginning of this discussion, saying that PC choices should lead to different outcomes and that the game should be different depending on whom they choose to work for. YOU were saying that the game should be identical. How can you view the latter as being more complex? I don't get it? If every choice the players make is functionally identical to the other, then the game is really simple in my eyes.

What the hell does complexity mean to you really?

Constraining player choice means the GM has freedom to write more complex things, as they know that it won't all get thrown out as soon as the players make an actual, meaningful choice.

You're looking at complexity/simplicity from the view of D_U's players, and presuming that he is as well. This may not be productive.


The prep one does for improv DMing is different than the prep one does for normal DMing. That is why the improv DM can fit more information into less prep than the normal DM can. More information is usually better than less, but less prep results in more information.

You would write 3 pages on a Deaths Head Tree encounter. With just 2-3 sentences the improv DM has access to more information about the Death's Head Trees, the other encounters in the forest (including location, movement, and development), and a head start on information about the villian & their lair.

If you wish to understand the world, you need to step outside of your strawmen. Only then will you have a chance at curing your ignorance.

Prepping for a railroad allows you to concentrate on the few encounters you'll have per session, and include lots of detail about those encounters. However, it doesn't require any detail *beyond* those encounters.

Prepping for a sandbox has nothing as detailed as any of the railroad encounters, but requires a greater depth of preparation. You know far more about the things that haven't shown up (yet), so that you have a basis for how the game goes.

Think of it as a Hollywood set of a town (very good looking facade with nothing behind it) versus actually starting a town. The "actual" town won't look nearly as good at first (though it may in the long run), however, it is completely functional even with just a few fairly drab buildings. The Hollywood town set, on the other hand, looks great and like a huge city, but unless you go to the only prepared areas, the whole thing is just backdrop and non-functional.

[Quertus]

The one time DU came close to defining "complex" and "simple" (really, just giving an example), it was about motives and character. An epic battle of good vs evil is simple, whereas more grey adventures are more complex.

[kyoryu]

The one time DU came close to defining "complex" and "simple" (really, just giving an example), it was about motives and character. An epic battle of good vs evil is simple, whereas more grey adventures are more complex.

But he has consistently said that improv requires a "simple" game. Either that's typical D_U strawman, or he means something else beyond that. There's nothing about improv that precludes a morally grey game.

On the other hand, an improv-based game *does* limit what the GM can prepare and plan. You can't write a huge pre-planned, complex, intricate story if your players can derail it at any moment.

[Jama7301]

My general rule of thumb is to trust my gut. What you're posting about is an admission that you are experiencing awareness of cognitive dissonance. You are having trouble reconciling reason with feeling. Reason seems to be telling you to be more open to your players and your feelings are saying don't do it. This tells me that you have trust issues with your players.

You know what? Maybe your games have given you more reason to be mistrustful than some of the other people here. Maybe the people you've played with are less worthy of the trust that comes with Player Agency. Trust should not be given out blindly. By agreeing to a Tabletop session with other people, there's a good amount of trust involved. If the people involved don't deserve the trust, then it may be proper to limit player agency to ensure the Gentleman's Agreement isn't exploited or violated. In case DU is reading this, it is a sliding scale of Player Agency, not an "on/off" switch as you seem to think.


It very well might be a trust issue that I'm not realizing consciously. I'd like to think I give my players enough rope, but now I may be second guessing myself.

Part of my unease may be coming from a relative lack of experience, relatively speaking, in both playing and running games. This is a bit of a heady subject, and it may be one that I'm wrestling with because I haven't figured it out fully or found an acceptable definition. The words and concepts are there, but the shape of it isn't right.

It's an interesting discussion, regardless. Getting these different views on what should and should not be done is a fascinating look into how people think, play, and run their games.

[Cozzer]

Even assuming that more agency = better, there's another dangerous trap: the "either my game is perfect, or it's rubbish" one.

If you feel like you can't handle more than X amount of agency, because of personal tastes, lack of experience, or any reason, it's better to create a game with X agency while being open about it, rather than overextending yourself and biting more than you can chew (or simply not having fun). It might be as simple as saying "look, all the interesting things are in this kingdom, I haven't really thought about adventuring outside and I'm not really interested in that, so please don't create characters whose goal is 'I want to travel to the ends of the world', and possibly make them invested in things that are related to this kingdom".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Even assuming that more agency = better, there's another dangerous trap: the "either my game is perfect, or it's rubbish" one.

If you feel like you can't handle more than X amount of agency, because of personal tastes, lack of experience, or any reason, it's better to create a game with X agency while being open about it, rather than overextending yourself and biting more than you can chew (or simply not having fun). It might be as simple as saying "look, all the interesting things are in this kingdom, I haven't really thought about adventuring outside and I'm not really interested in that, so please don't create characters whose goal is 'I want to travel to the ends of the world', and possibly make them invested in things that are related to this kingdom".

I agree with the policy of being open up-front. That transforms a restriction of agency (letting the players believe that they can go anywhere) into an exercise of OOC agency (they've chosen to accept that restriction, with the consequences that follow). Many DMing flaws can be fixed by being open and honest about them and getting buy-in.

For example, I won't run a graphically evil campaign; I'm also squeamish about graphic gore or sexual things. I'm open about that up front so that players who choose to play with me have already accepted that and will choose to play elsewhere if that's what they really want. This isn't an agency violation in my opinion, because they accepted this up front and must thus accept the consequences. Same with picking a setting/game system.

[Tinkerer]

On the other hand, an improv-based game *does* limit what the GM can prepare and plan. You can't write a huge pre-planned, complex, intricate story if your players can derail it at any moment.

I wouldn't say that. You can definitely write it, you just need to be prepared to abandon it. Any plot line which I write doesn't need to be followed in order for it to be useful for my world. Of any sort of elaborate plan which I might write I would have to say about... 10-15% is the actual plan. The rest of the prep time is spent working on NPCs, building layouts, cities, abilities, environments, and all the other pieces necessary for the plan. If I wind up not needing it then the preparations aren't wasted since they still help to fill out my world.

If my current group winds up at New Ozlo I've got tons of material for them even if the last group didn't wind up going there. And because the last group didn't go there and run into the vampire sect just outside of town I have to decide what the consequences of leaving those creatures which were supposed to be killed are. It's a pretty subtle group of vampires so I imagine the town has gotten slightly crappier, the leadership has probably fallen even more under their control, and they've probably gained 1-4 new vampires from the population. Although since they don't know their accomplices from outside of town were exterminated they are trying to contact the accomplices which could tip the vampires hand.

... Damn, I kinda want to finish that Ozlo plot line now.

[kyoryu]

Even assuming that more agency = better, there's another dangerous trap: the "either my game is perfect, or it's rubbish" one.

If you feel like you can't handle more than X amount of agency, because of personal tastes, lack of experience, or any reason, it's better to create a game with X agency while being open about it, rather than overextending yourself and biting more than you can chew (or simply not having fun). It might be as simple as saying "look, all the interesting things are in this kingdom, I haven't really thought about adventuring outside and I'm not really interested in that, so please don't create characters whose goal is 'I want to travel to the ends of the world', and possibly make them invested in things that are related to this kingdom".

Well, yes. I'm a fan of people doing what they like. Lots of people clearly like low agency games, as evidenced by sales of Adventure Paths and module series going all the way back to DragonLance.

The only issue I see is dishonesty about it.


I wouldn't say that. You can definitely write it, you just need to be prepared to abandon it. Any plot line which I write doesn't need to be followed in order for it to be useful for my world. Of any sort of elaborate plan which I might write I would have to say about... 10-15% is the actual plan. The rest of the prep time is spent working on NPCs, building layouts, cities, abilities, environments, and all the other pieces necessary for the plan. If I wind up not needing it then the preparations aren't wasted since they still help to fill out my world.

Which means you're primarily prepping a world/situation, with some ideas for a plot. Compare that to something like Dragonlance again, where you've got a series of encounters and not a ton of stuff outside of that linear path. It also depends on how far ahead you write your "plot".

What I've found in many times, both in my own playing and with others, is that it seems like people are less willing to abandon their prep than they often think, and so will subtly guide people towards it, even if not consciously so. If a player asks if a certain thing is possible, and it's not what you planned, and there's even a semi-legitimate reason to say no, it's really easy to say "yeah, that won't work" (or the equivalent) even without thinking "oh, I have to railroad them towards what I planned".

[Tinkerer]

Which means you're primarily prepping a world/situation, with some ideas for a plot. Compare that to something like Dragonlance again, where you've got a series of encounters and not a ton of stuff outside of that linear path. It also depends on how far ahead you write your "plot".

I wouldn't quite say that. I plan similar to Dragonlance (with a little bit more outside planning), but then if/when things move beyond what is planned you go with improvisation. Rather than waste my time planning around every single contingency or going slack with complete improv I plan based around the most likely course of events within the plot and then if things go sideways from that then I use other methods including sandboxing (which is greatly helped by previous plots which went sideways) and improvisation (which is greatly helped by having a defined and consistent world). I write a plot not because characters have to stick to it but rather because it helps provide a defined starting point to base the other aspects on. I love adventure paths not because they restrict the amount of agency but rather because they provide an alternate universe version of what would have happened if you hadn't taken that agency, if everything had gone according to plan. It's rather rare that things stick with them but it provides more fuel for the creative fires.

But that's just the way I do things, I don't expect it to work for everyone.

[OldTrees1]

Prepping for a railroad allows you to concentrate on the few encounters you'll have per session, and include lots of detail about those encounters. However, it doesn't require any detail *beyond* those encounters.

Prepping for a sandbox has nothing as detailed as any of the railroad encounters, but requires a greater depth of preparation. You know far more about the things that haven't shown up (yet), so that you have a basis for how the game goes.

Think of it as a Hollywood set of a town (very good looking facade with nothing behind it) versus actually starting a town. The "actual" town won't look nearly as good at first (though it may in the long run), however, it is completely functional even with just a few fairly drab buildings. The Hollywood town set, on the other hand, looks great and like a huge city, but unless you go to the only prepared areas, the whole thing is just backdrop and non-functional.

Very true, albeit orthogonal to what I was talking about.

I was instructing Darth Ultron on why Improv DMing is not "random" and does have the potential for player agency (his ignorant contention was that Improv had no information). Whether it is a railroad, a standard campaign, or a sandbox, improv DMing allows the DM to have access to more information despite having less in the way of written notes. Consider the difference between a written list of the first 20 fibonacci numbers, and a written formula for the fibonacci function.

[kyoryu]

Very true, albeit orthogonal to what I was talking about.

I was instructing Darth Ultron on why Improv DMing is not "random" and does have the potential for player agency (his ignorant contention was that Improv had no information). Whether it is a railroad, a standard campaign, or a sandbox, improv DMing allows the DM to have access to more information despite having less in the way of written notes. Consider the difference between a written list of the first 20 fibonacci numbers, and a written formula for the fibonacci function.

I was expanding on what you were saying, not disagreeing with it :)

[Max_Killjoy]

Very true, albeit orthogonal to what I was talking about.

I was instructing Darth Ultron on why Improv DMing is not "random" and does have the potential for player agency (his ignorant contention was that Improv had no information). Whether it is a railroad, a standard campaign, or a sandbox, improv DMing allows the DM to have access to more information despite having less in the way of written notes. Consider the difference between a written list of the first 20 fibonacci numbers, and a written formula for the fibonacci function.

That is a great analogy.

[georgie_leech]

Mind you, nothing says that the prepwork for "regular" DMing can't be that sort of rules-of-the-world based prep. Improv is distinct because it requires you to have a good grasp of said rules to be coherent, whereas "regular" DMing can be coherent ecen of saod rules aren't made clear. See also: Adventure Paths that have a clear structure and logical progression that don't offer significant guidance for what happens if the players do something unexpected.

[Socratov]

As a player I consider player agency sacred. As a player it is my right to affect the world around me as I see fit.

What this means is:


I make my own in character decisions
Once I use a feature or use an action, I expect the feature or action, when used again, to have a consistent and similar effect (or in short: magic A = magic A)
metagaming will happen considering in universe logical knowledge. Example: myths about monsters do exist: vampires suck blood, werewolves change on a full moon, witches be bitches.


As a player, player agency is what separates a TTRPG from a live reading from a novel, and IMO the very core of playing a game. It. Is. ESSENTIAL!

However,

none of the above rules are absolutes (only a Sith deals in absolutes)
For instance, if my character is being mind controlled, I should be expected to follow the DM's guidelines
the fact that I am not limited in my actions to take, does not excuse me from its consequences
I expect logic to be followed. this is best expressed in the subject of verisimilitude. Realism has no place whatsoever in a game with flying giant fire breathing lizards and frail robe wearing squishies throwing balls of fire around.


As a DM, however, my chief goal is to tell a story. This story is told in a collaborating fashion, but with me controlling not the tiny speck of dust that is a PeeCee, but all of those motes of dust that make up the entire game world I expect my players to at the very least work with me.

This means:


Thou shalt not break the story so that it cannot be told anymore. Thou shalt act reasonable.
What is fair and what is not is my domain
ANYTHING used or done by the players is fair game to be used by me. Turnabout IS fair play.


Player agency, according to my inner DM, is the player's illusion that they are laying the railroad you are leading them on. When you DM right your players shouldn't notice the tracks at all, even if they are only following the script.

with the following caveats:

[list]
I will share details on the story in advance. This will not only allow you the player to see what s/he can expect form me, but also make clear (as much as possible) what I will be expecting from him/her
if I will adjust things to make them more fair, please trust me on doing so with caution and after talking to you.
If you as a player feel you are being treated unfairly by me, tell me and we will work it out. Act like a grown-up and don't go whining on some forum looking for a build to wreck my **** to 'show me what is what'

The above views may seem highly paradoxical, but imo, when done right by both sides, make for a great game.

[Frozen_Feet]

The people that are mostly concerned with player agency (PA) is obviously the players themselves.

Which may or may not be true, but it's not a very fruitfull observation, because it is the scenario designer and the game holder who actually provide any and all player agency in the game.


Most of the games I have played in have not been created in a vacuum though. The GM usually knows the players and after character creation, also the characters. In such a case, the scenario actually can be written with choices directed towards specific characters.

I, on the other hand, run games at conventions, where I rarely know the players beforehand and typically do not have enough information to actually do the sort of algorithmic response we're talking about. (Even when I use premades, they are not designed to sufficient depth that I could reliably predict how unknown players will play them.)

So I have taken to crafting my games in a vacuum. The thing is that while I've been doing this, I've noticed it's significantly improved my game holding skills. Why? Because by minimizing assumptions of player preference I'm forced to consider wider range of possible actions and design elements.

Tailoring a game to your audience isn't a bad idea, but a lot of GMs plainly do it wrong. That is, they have laser-like focus on their one group and get increasingly trapped in that one box. To the point that they can't deal with any other group or sort of players.

Hence, I hold that the ability to design and evaluate things "in a vacuum" is not just usefull, it is vital for long-term success as a GM and for long-term health of the hobby.



So the first choice that shows up is:

Option 1: Go to Event X
Option 2: Go to Event Y + suffer consequence i.
Option 3: Go to Event Z + suffer consequence s.

where the "optimal" choice is clearly character dependent, that we both agree on.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a character values X>Y>Z and would rather avoid s>i. This character will obviously choose option 1. Now, if the game proceeds by continually presenting options identical to the first (but with the Events having slightly different appearance), then the character will choose 1 on each and every intersection. It is thus a foregone conclusion where they will end up, even though they've been presented with 3 different choices 10 times in the game. Would you say that this was a high agency game?

If events X, Y and Z vary in appearance only, then we can consider them converging options. So what we're seeing is not actually 10 different choices with 3 options each, it's a single choice of 3 options repeated 10 times. This is as low agency as the earlier example where the options were "proceed, die or be humiliated endlessly".

Note that even if X, Y and Z vary in more than appearance, causing a diverging scenario structure, the game still counts as "low agency" under my rule of thumb where "a game is low agency if valid moves at each turn can be counted on one hand".

The character created still does not factor into this. A player creating a character in such a way as to make a scenario foregone conclusion is not them eliminating their agency, it's them exercising it.

Once again: if it's you who makes it and you who enforces it, based on your preferences, then it is you who is the acting agent. You leaving yourself a choice is not the same as there being no choice.


My view is that in order to achieve real agency in the game, the events and consequences have to be scrambled so that the character will face any combination of them. For example, when the same character encounters:

Option 1: Go to Event X+ suffer consequence s.
Option 2: Go to Event Y + suffer consequence i.
Option 3: Go to Event Z

then suddenly the choice is not as obvious anymore. Now you have to value how much you actually want to avoid s compared with how much you want Event X and so on.

Yes, you increased variety of choices and difficulty of the game via combinational design decision. I could see it increasing agency also from the prior model, once we start counting possible end states and a player thinking few turns into the future. But that doesn't mean the prior models had no real agency, they just had less.


I guess that you would also think that a game which provides a larger variation in the choices have higher agency than the which only provides the same type of choice multiple times (though with different aesthetics). So it is possible that both definition ends up with the same end result.

You are correct.


However, my additional claim is that the first type of choice, where you value X>Y>Z and dislike both consequences is not much of a choice at all. A scenario designer will know that a character who values X highest will always end up at X, and a GM who knows a character is motivated by X knows what they will pick. My objection, as you know, is with GMs who insist on providing choices such as these where one option is always in line with the character's motivations without any additional dr

And I could make a similar claim that "for every imaginable scenario, there it at least one character that will go through it in a wholly predictable way".

But this useless race to the bottom when counting player agency, because I don't need to force any player to play such a character. Again, if the player chooses to do so, they're not eliminating their agency, they are exercising it. If they feel railroaded because of their own way of making choices, that's a "stop hitting yourself" scenario.



Nevertheless, I would note that I believe it is basic roleplaying to, you know, play the character in a believable, semi-consistent manner based on the personality described at the start. It seems rather odd to assume that in order to achieve true PA, one has to discard the character's personality and motivations and just pick any option when a choice is presented.

You don't need to discard anything. That's not the suggestion here. I'm saying that agency is measured in number of choices, where as making in-character choices is exercising it.


I don't believe it is giving it "too much input", rather I am thinking of a normal amount of input combined with a rather simple scenario design.

It's a sliding scale. "For every imaginable scenario, there it at least one character that will go through it in a wholly predictable way." Your "normal" input is calibrated to some level of complexity, so it's "too much" for scenarios of less complexity. Whether the scenario is simple or complex in an absolute sense can't be determined with this knowledge alone.


I suppose this depends on the sequence of events in question. If approaching a set scenario, then yes, I am creating my own determinism. However, if the opposite is true, that my character is created first and the scenario later, then I do believe the responsibility lies with the GM.

The error here is seeing responsibility as being solely here or solely there. What I meant with "you can't abdicate that responsibility to the GM" is that since we can show that the situation could happen regardless of whether the scenario is created before or after, you will always be responsible for your own choices. This doesn't mean the GM isn't responsible for theirs. It means that if the scenario is crafted as reaction to your character, it would be a lie to say you had no influence on the outcome. Hence, you share the responsibility.


Well, I am an idealist at heart. So, I would like to create a liar-proof semantics. Basically I am looking for the imagined "Third Option" here that is the enemy of Good. :smallsmile:

Keep dreaming.


Well, trying to take a third option is obviously also an option, even if it results in failure. All that means is that the player couldn't see that this was a futile road. Hopefully it was a learning experience, otherwise the character might continue to not do any good at all due to constant failure form overexertion. At least the GM presented complex options.

It is really hit and miss if any lesson is learned, even if the choice is explicitly meant as a learning experience. Often, the wrong lesson is learned, such as "GM is presenting difficult choices" = "GM is trying to screw me over" = "GM is a jerk". Ironically, it is often more intelligent players who are the best at rationalizing their dissatisfaction as someone else's fault and hence engage most in blame-shifting games.


It is absolutely one possible outcome of a roleplaying game. All I said was that such a player with such a desire might not be overly concerned with whether or not PA is present. As long as they always get their highest desired choice of always doing good, they are happy.

In my experience, they very much are concerned with their agency. Yes, they want their highest desired choice to be available. But if they learn that there was no other option nor chance of failure, this diminishes their sense of accomplishment and makes them upset again. So they also want the other choices to be present despite it being obvious that they will not take them.

This, too, is a form of trying to eat your cake and save it too. It's a common trait in humans, for them to make a rope out of conflicting desires and feelings and then hang themselves on it. Which is actually a prime reason why I try to keep player feelings and desires out of the definition of player agency, and many other terms.


I can certainly understand 1), although I would not want to GM for such a player.
I can sort of understand 2), although I don't understand why simply walking away from the table isn't possible.
I can't quite understand 3) though, nor would I approve of it in any game I ran. Other people might think differently though, and I don't object to their games in principle. However, I don't think it is a correct portrayal of the character, and a player who does that sort of thing just to get out of some minor negative consequences would not be allowed to make a new character (unless it was, say, a family member who had taken over the debt).

For 1), what's your issue?

For 2), leaving the table is always possible, but it's not an equivalent action. Think of the difference of killing your character in a roguelike computer game, versus just taking off and leaving the program running there. One of these acts ends the game, another only ends player's involvement in the game. The player doesn't actually feel they're out untill their play piece, in tabletop roleplaying games a character, is also out.

For 3), you need to unpack your assumptions of what is "correct portrayal of a character" and "minor consequences". For example, the cleric's suicide was perfectly character appropriate: they had just suffered a string of humiliating defeats, lost a fortune and got into massive debt. The consequences of said debt cast a shadow over all their immediate associates. This is the sort of stuff which drives people into murder-suicides in real life; that's what made it so brilliant.

Just because I also happen to know the player's metagame motive doesn't make the character action any less valid.

[jayem]

That is a great analogy.
And taken from there when you have the formula, not only can you extent it onwards, but if you can get a general form you can also theoretically fill in the gaps.
I don't know if there's any use for the Fibs (other than finding that after 19.37 years you have 5000 rabbits)*.
But for Factorials as you expand what you know into new regions there are some very interesting consequences (which I don't understand, if I did I'd be a millionaire)

*
There are multiple ways you could extend it the Fibonacci, that allow it to deal with unexpected questions.

E.g. with a step shape (representing a breeding season)
total population collapse (going to seed/bulbs over the winter)
smoothly and analytic
a combination of the above
overshooting then being brought down

In theory "Anything can happen", between the gaps. However somethings are more sensible than others and make much better choices. And that seems familiar...

[Darth Ultron]

If you wish to understand the world, you need to step outside of your strawmen. Only then will you have a chance at curing your ignorance.

Guess I'll never understand the random stuff you put out.

A Lazy Casual DM scribes some random stuff down and your like in Awe and say ''Best Adventure 4-Ever!", but I guess you just have very low standards.

But a DM that takes like an ''Eon'' of time as you would say to prepare something is all ways ''wrong'' in your odd view. Maybe your just jealous or envious of a DM that can take time to do anything as you yourself can't?


So that's my "why" on the counterargument. Why do you say keeping facts consistent is dumb?


Because it is Railroading the Game. And Worse, it is the Jerk Players Railroading the DM.

Like really, say NPC Zom only had a dagger on Monday...then when the player characters see npc Zom on Firday he has a swrod and dagger. You'd go all crazy and say ''he can't have a sword, keep the FACTS consistent DM, he has a dagger 4EVER!".

See, that makes no sense.



The above views may seem highly paradoxical, but imo, when done right by both sides, make for a great game.

Looks good to me.

[OldTrees1]

Guess I'll never understand the random stuff you put out.

A Lazy Casual DM scribes some random stuff down and your like in Awe and say ''Best Adventure 4-Ever!", but I guess you just have very low standards.

But a DM that takes like an ''Eon'' of time as you would say to prepare something is all ways ''wrong'' in your odd view. Maybe your just jealous or envious of a DM that can take time to do anything as you yourself can't?

Bwahaha

Since I have not put out any "random" stuff, you are admitting you will never understand anything of importance in these threads. I am glad to hear to recognizing that. But if you recognize you will never understand these topics, why do you keep coming back to display your ignorance?

Each time you throw together some strawman (like "A Lazy Casual DM") it just continues to discredit you in front of everyone. But I guess my standards for intelligent discussion must simply be too high for you to reach.

As for the "Eon DMs" (Really? Another strawman?). You are the only one that criticized them. I was merely pointing out games run by improv DMs do have enough information for player agency. Pointing out where you are wrong is not the same as agreeing with you.


Because it is Railroading the Game. And Worse, it is the Jerk Players Railroading the DM.

Like really, say NPC Zom only had a dagger on Monday...then when the player characters see npc Zom on Firday he has a swrod and dagger. You'd go all crazy and say ''he can't have a sword, keep the FACTS consistent DM, he has a dagger 4EVER!".

See, that makes no sense.

Ah Ah Ah! You don't get to misrepresent the situation. :smalltongue:

Are you defending the DM randomly, on a whim, for no reason, changing the dagger mid combat into a sword?
Or are you defending the DM deciding, that based on the situation, Zom would have started carrying a sword?
Are you suggesting Darth Ultron likes Random Nonsense OR are you agreeing with the majority in that things change based upon reason?

[Segev]

I believe I have figured out how to properly understand Darth Ultron's posts. I shall respond to them with that new understandnig.

Guess I'll never understand the random stuff you put out.

A Lazy Casual DM scribes some random stuff down and your like in Awe and say ''Best Adventure 4-Ever!", but I guess you just have very low standards.

But a DM that takes like an ''Eon'' of time as you would say to prepare something is all ways ''wrong'' in your odd view. Maybe your just jealous or envious of a DM that can take time to do anything as you yourself can't?Ah, I'm glad that you agree that your described method of Railroad DMing is incorrect, and that you actually don't create random junk, but instead listen to your players and allow them to have impact on your setting.


Because it is Railroading the Game. And Worse, it is the Jerk Players Railroading the DM.Good, we're making progress! Since you understand now that players are not jerks, but rather cooperating to form the game with you, it's clear that you are an excellent improv DM who does not railroad.


Like really, say NPC Zom only had a dagger on Monday...then when the player characters see npc Zom on Firday he has a swrod and dagger. You'd go all crazy and say ''he can't have a sword, keep the FACTS consistent DM, he has a dagger 4EVER!".

See, that makes no sense.I'm not sure why you're limiting yourself to Zom only having a dagger, since you could definitely have him go to a store and buy a sword, but since you are afraid of being inconsistent lest you engage in randomness, that's your prerogative. We do need to work on your notion of an evolving setting.


Looks good to me.I'm glad you agree with my points.

[kyoryu]

Because it is Railroading the Game. And Worse, it is the Jerk Players Railroading the DM.

Like really, say NPC Zom only had a dagger on Monday...then when the player characters see npc Zom on Firday he has a swrod and dagger. You'd go all crazy and say ''he can't have a sword, keep the FACTS consistent DM, he has a dagger 4EVER!".

I've never heard anyone argue that.

Facts being consistent means that if Zom had a dagger on Monday, then he had a dagger on Monday, and you don't get to say "no, actually he had a sword on Monday."

[Pleh]

But your talking about a Player having a character take actions within the game structure....there is no control. The players actions effect only the game play, not the game reality/meta reality.

Control of the game play vs control of the game reality is just a pair of sets on the Player Agency Spectrum, though. Just as Red and Blue are sets on the color spectrum.

Agency is agency, however it is used and to whatever degree.


Normal Conventional game- Player says to the DM who is in control of the game- "Zom will try and open the door". The DM, by themselves, decides what will happen based on the rules, game reality, whims or anything else they feel like and make a decision then tell the player something like "Zom finds the door is locked and he can't open it''. See, the only thing a player did here was (try) to do an action with their character in the game world reality.

Player Controlled game-The Player that has total control over the game says to the Figurehead DM with no control-"Zom will open the door and find a pile of one million gold coins in side the room''. The DM, that simply does whatever the Players say, then says "Yes, Zom opens the door and finds a pile of one million gold coins." So, here the Player is in total control.

Again, your definitions are of poor quality because they preclude the existence of any sort of middle ground between these extremes. There can be shared control of game reality, especially when the "jurisdictions" are well defined.

For example, in a recent game I was running, I had a player request that they be allowed to invent NPCs that their character had a pre-existing with whom their character would have a pre-existing relationship as described by the player upon the introduction of the character. The specific purpose of these NPCs was explicitly to exploit their assistance, but there was a strong implication that the intent was never to disavow any sense of reason (these NPCs still maintained their own personal aspirations and agenda they would not sacrifice for the PC). Rather, it was a request to grant them marginal control of Game Reality on the argument that "meeting the old friend" is a common narrative trope the players wished to exploit, yet there was no mechanical provision to allow it (these were not Cohorts or Followers).

I decided to allow the behavior while making clear to them that I was retaining my right to alter or veto any requested NPC contacts as I felt necessary, and I also made clear that I would be playing the roles of these NPCs to reign in any conflict of interest the players might have OOC.

There is no randomness here, the players had a very profound meaning and intent behind their Agency. I haven't had to deny their requests up to this point (they haven't even used it very much so far) and they haven't exploited it beyond the semblance of reason. If anything, it has helped them make reaching their goals simply more logical, practical, and attainable. They created a tool to apply to the game, asked for permission to use it, and have done so quite responsibly.

Because most players don't want to break their game. Even when they have the power to turn cheat codes on, they prefer not to do so.

[Quertus]

I, on the other hand, run games at conventions, where I rarely know the players beforehand and typically do not have enough information to actually do the sort of algorithmic response we're talking about. (Even when I use premades, they are not designed to sufficient depth that I could reliably predict how unknown players will play them.)

So I have taken to crafting my games in a vacuum. The thing is that while I've been doing this, I've noticed it's significantly improved my game holding skills. Why? Because by minimizing assumptions of player preference I'm forced to consider wider range of possible actions and design elements.

Tailoring a game to your audience isn't a bad idea, but a lot of GMs plainly do it wrong. That is, they have laser-like focus on their one group and get increasingly trapped in that one box. To the point that they can't deal with any other group or sort of players.

Hence, I hold that the ability to design and evaluate things "in a vacuum" is not just usefull, it is vital for long-term success as a GM and for long-term health of the hobby.

Strongly agree. As you get more experience with more players, you can evaluate your scenarios "in a vacuum" based on players and characters you know and can imagine.

And this is a good thing.


It's a sliding scale. "For every imaginable scenario, there it at least one character that will go through it in a wholly predictable way." Your "normal" input is calibrated to some level of complexity, so it's "too much" for scenarios of less complexity. Whether the scenario is simple or complex in an absolute sense can't be determined with this knowledge alone.

Probably because of my original school of role-playing, I usually consider it a success of understanding the character when I can easily make such choices and see the one "obvious" path.


I believe I have figured out how to properly understand Darth Ultron's posts. I shall respond to them with that new understandnig.

I'm glad you agree with my points.

Dear <Deity>, the room is spinning. I think I'm going to be sick.

[Mordaedil]

I told people not to engage him, but people just keep doing it.

We're really making no headway talking to DU.

That said, I'm confused at why he thinks giving the players some agency means that the DM surrenders his role as a DM. That is not at all what happens. The players still have their actions narrated at them. They still have to attempt to succeed things. They are just allowed a little more variety in ways they can approach problems, sometimes taking on situations you weren't ready for as a DM. That is when the improv must start and if you can't pull it off the game isn't going to be very satisfying.

Players having agency doesn't change the dynamic of the game, it just changes how you approach problem solving. They don't get to do things and declare to the DM what happens. That is the DM's job. That isn't something that changes. They can chose to take a different path, but they can't declare what content the game has. Like, the role of the dungeon master as the story-teller doesn't change, but they can declare what their personas do and that can affect your story in ways.

And you must let that happen otherwise you are not playing a game, you are taking people through a series of set-pieces and just having some boardgame attached to it.

Also, making orcs that are sometimes good isn't any more interesting than orcs that are always evil.

[Cozzer]

For me, the interesting issues arise from trade-offs. It's obvious to everyone that, generally speaking, player agency is a good thing. The question is, what to do when it gets in the way of another good thing?

For example, I can't stand the kind of wish-fulfillment typical Evil campaigns are about, so I just make that clear from the beginning. I'm OK with an Evil character, as long as he accepts he will have to find his reason to work with the rest of the party or become an NPC. For me, having fun as a DM is more important than that particular kind of agency. As a player, I'd be completely OK with being denied that particular agency since I find these stories not interesting.

Similarly, I don't really like "travel and explore" stories. I'd rather introduce a geographically limited setting (a city, a kindgom, a continent), which the characters can explore pretty easily, and then create a story that's about people and factions inside that setting, rather than about exploring and discovering new parts of the world. Again, I'm perfectly aware that means I'm taking away a piece of agency from the players, but I'm also aware that it means I can provide a game with way more agency within the limits I set: once the players get to know the important people and factions, they can choose which side they want to support, they can manipulate, change or break balances...

My point is, you can't have infinite agency. To provide the biggest amount of agency you can provide, you need to make choices, which might include taking away other pieces of agency. That's where the interesting choices arise. Maybe a player is OK with having limits during character creation, as long as he's free to act within the game. Another player might be OK with being railroaded a bit towards the main plot, as long as that means he's free to create the character he wants. Another player might be OK with a sandboxy game with a weaker plot, as long as that means he can create whatever character he wants and have him pursue his personal goals.

The only illusion, in my opinion, is the idea that a perfect solution with no drawbacks for anyone exists.

[Pleh]

My point is, you can't have infinite agency.

You can, but it strips away the idea of a game for most purposes. When everyone is the DM, no one is, and you aren't so much roleplaying as you are performing creative exercizes. Nothing wrong with this, but it does more or less gut the fundamental concept of game.

[Lorsa]

Which may or may not be true, but it's not a very fruitfull observation, because it is the scenario designer and the game holder who actually provide any and all player agency in the game.

I guess it is only fruitful then insofar as it helps us understand that while one side is the one providing PA, the other side is the one who will be most bothered by its absence.



I, on the other hand, run games at conventions, where I rarely know the players beforehand and typically do not have enough information to actually do the sort of algorithmic response we're talking about. (Even when I use premades, they are not designed to sufficient depth that I could reliably predict how unknown players will play them.)

So I have taken to crafting my games in a vacuum. The thing is that while I've been doing this, I've noticed it's significantly improved my game holding skills. Why? Because by minimizing assumptions of player preference I'm forced to consider wider range of possible actions and design elements.

Tailoring a game to your audience isn't a bad idea, but a lot of GMs plainly do it wrong. That is, they have laser-like focus on their one group and get increasingly trapped in that one box. To the point that they can't deal with any other group or sort of players.

Hence, I hold that the ability to design and evaluate things "in a vacuum" is not just usefull, it is vital for long-term success as a GM and for long-term health of the hobby.

I must admit I have never run a convention game. Actually, going to conventions have always frightened me to some degree so I have largely avoided it, even if a part of me would have liked to go there and be a player.

I have hosted game for different players though, so I certainly understand the pitfall of only ever running games for the same people.

Evaluating things in a vacuum is definitely useful. I can't argue with that. But I could make a similar argument for being able to evaluate and design things for a specific group is also vital. They are both skills a GM should have, or so I believe.



If events X, Y and Z vary in appearance only, then we can consider them converging options. So what we're seeing is not actually 10 different choices with 3 options each, it's a single choice of 3 options repeated 10 times. This is as low agency as the earlier example where the options were "proceed, die or be humiliated endlessly".

Note that even if X, Y and Z vary in more than appearance, causing a diverging scenario structure, the game still counts as "low agency" under my rule of thumb where "a game is low agency if valid moves at each turn can be counted on one hand".

The character created still does not factor into this. A player creating a character in such a way as to make a scenario foregone conclusion is not them eliminating their agency, it's them exercising it.

Once again: if it's you who makes it and you who enforces it, based on your preferences, then it is you who is the acting agent. You leaving yourself a choice is not the same as there being no choice.



Yes, you increased variety of choices and difficulty of the game via combinational design decision. I could see it increasing agency also from the prior model, once we start counting possible end states and a player thinking few turns into the future. But that doesn't mean the prior models had no real agency, they just had less.

So at this point it is perhaps safe to say that I am looking for both the ability to influence the outcome of the game by making choices, with a preference for very high agency, as well as complexity in the choices presented (high game difficulty)?



And I could make a similar claim that "for every imaginable scenario, there it at least one character that will go through it in a wholly predictable way".

But this useless race to the bottom when counting player agency, because I don't need to force any player to play such a character. Again, if the player chooses to do so, they're not eliminating their agency, they are exercising it. If they feel railroaded because of their own way of making choices, that's a "stop hitting yourself" scenario.

Well, as we've established we are approaching this from a different set of sequences. You are correct that for every possible scenario, there is at least one character that will go through it in a predictable way.

Obviously if you have created the scenario first then it is not the fault of the scenario designer.

However, I still posit that if a GM looks at the character and then creates just that scenario, where the character will go through it predictably (quite possibly with the intent of railroading under the guise of providing agency), then the fault should not be with the player. This can be evaluated over multiple games, where at the start of the next game, the player makes a very different character but the GM again constructs a scenario with a foregone conclusion based on the character in question.

I know you might think I am trying to shift blame, but if this happens on multiple occasions, can the fault really lie with the player?



You don't need to discard anything. That's not the suggestion here. I'm saying that agency is measured in number of choices, where as making in-character choices is exercising it.

Which leads us back then to that only measuring player agency is not sufficient to find out if a game would be to my preference. In some sense, I sound like a high-maintenance player (and probably might be which is why I tend to be the GM instead).



It's a sliding scale. "For every imaginable scenario, there it at least one character that will go through it in a wholly predictable way." Your "normal" input is calibrated to some level of complexity, so it's "too much" for scenarios of less complexity. Whether the scenario is simple or complex in an absolute sense can't be determined with this knowledge alone.

Fair enough. Again, I might be a high-maintenance player (I don't know as I've never GMed for myself), even though I consider myself fairly easy-going and rarely complain much (though there is a difference between being satisfied and not complaining).



The error here is seeing responsibility as being solely here or solely there. What I meant with "you can't abdicate that responsibility to the GM" is that since we can show that the situation could happen regardless of whether the scenario is created before or after, you will always be responsible for your own choices. This doesn't mean the GM isn't responsible for theirs. It means that if the scenario is crafted as reaction to your character, it would be a lie to say you had no influence on the outcome. Hence, you share the responsibility.

True enough. The responsibility is shared. That's a general truth for most roleplaying games. However, there is a sliding scale here too, so that even if I did have an influence on the outcome in the case of post-character scenario design, I still believe the GM has more. And, as I am apparently a hard player to please, I would like to be on the higher end of the player influence spectrum.



Keep dreaming.

Oh, I am. Although I've heard that disillusioned idealists make the hardest cynics, so we'll see what the future holds.



It is really hit and miss if any lesson is learned, even if the choice is explicitly meant as a learning experience. Often, the wrong lesson is learned, such as "GM is presenting difficult choices" = "GM is trying to screw me over" = "GM is a jerk". Ironically, it is often more intelligent players who are the best at rationalizing their dissatisfaction as someone else's fault and hence engage most in blame-shifting games.

Unfortunately for me, we can not make the conclusion as I too engage in a blame-shifting game towards the GM for my perceived lack of agency, I must be intelligent.



In my experience, they very much are concerned with their agency. Yes, they want their highest desired choice to be available. But if they learn that there was no other option nor chance of failure, this diminishes their sense of accomplishment and makes them upset again. So they also want the other choices to be present despite it being obvious that they will not take them.

This, too, is a form of trying to eat your cake and save it too. It's a common trait in humans, for them to make a rope out of conflicting desires and feelings and then hang themselves on it. Which is actually a prime reason why I try to keep player feelings and desires out of the definition of player agency, and many other terms.

Ok so, these people achieve a feeling of having affected the game if there are multiple choices, with one of them being their "preferred perfect choice", even if it should be evident to any third party observer that the GM would have known far in advance that this is exactly where the game would end up? Basically, they will happily follow a railroad, as long as it is directed correctly and have the illusion of alternative choices?

Whereas I achieve a feeling of having affected the game if there are multiple choices which are preferred (or none are preferred), and as such the GM wouldn't be able to predict my answer. Basically, I can be dissatisfied even with the presence of real choices and upset even if I am technically railroading myself.



For 1), what's your issue?

The way I view the player, which may be an unfair characterization mind you, is that their behavior will lead to a lack of challenge in running the game for them. All I have to do, seemingly at least, is to describe a surrounding and then wait for them to follow their instinct for "what would be fun" and let them suffer the consequences thereof. It seems as though there wouldn't really be much for me to do as a GM, and I could run the whole game on pure improvisation alone. Even as a GM I like to be challenged, and this seems like it wouldn't be.



For 2), leaving the table is always possible, but it's not an equivalent action. Think of the difference of killing your character in a roguelike computer game, versus just taking off and leaving the program running there. One of these acts ends the game, another only ends player's involvement in the game. The player doesn't actually feel they're out untill their play piece, in tabletop roleplaying games a character, is also out.

Alright, I get it. I had one player once who felt that the best ending for the campaign was to have his character die in a blaze of glory. I suppose it gives a better feeling of closure.



For 3), you need to unpack your assumptions of what is "correct portrayal of a character" and "minor consequences". For example, the cleric's suicide was perfectly character appropriate: they had just suffered a string of humiliating defeats, lost a fortune and got into massive debt. The consequences of said debt cast a shadow over all their immediate associates. This is the sort of stuff which drives people into murder-suicides in real life; that's what made it so brilliant.

Just because I also happen to know the player's metagame motive doesn't make the character action any less valid.

You are correct and as I was writing my response I was thinking if I should include a point that there do exist strings of circumstances which may lead people to commit suicide. That much we know from psychology and sociology.

My assumption was based on that the player merely wanted to find an easy meta-game out for unwanted consequences they had caused themselves, and used the suicide as an excuse for that. It is hard to evaluate properly without the full game history.

[NichG]

One thing that seems to always go hand-in-hand with agency trade-offs is the idea of decision paralysis. That is to say, there's some component of agency which is made available to a player but in such a way that rather than feeling like it empowers them, it creates the opposite sensation of actually removing power by giving too much. A silly example is, e.g., 'the king suddenly abdicates leaving you in charge, what do you do?'. A player who is faced with that out of the blue has the difficulty that maybe up until that point they've mostly thought of what they want or what their character wants in very different terms - 'I want to get rich (by acquiring wealth bit by bit)' or 'I want to fight injustice (by reforming the system one corrupt person at a time)'. So when the scale suddenly changes, the power that becomes available doesn't actually feel like it belongs to that character properly.

So an interesting question then is, how much agency can you actually load into someone under the constraint that they always should feel like it actually belongs to them, and what techniques can be used to push that limit? Or to put it another way, how do you make players feel comfortable controlling things which are significantly larger in scope than what they're used to?

[Pleh]

One thing that seems to always go hand-in-hand with agency trade-offs is the idea of decision paralysis. That is to say, there's some component of agency which is made available to a player but in such a way that rather than feeling like it empowers them, it creates the opposite sensation of actually removing power by giving too much. A silly example is, e.g., 'the king suddenly abdicates leaving you in charge, what do you do?'. A player who is faced with that out of the blue has the difficulty that maybe up until that point they've mostly thought of what they want or what their character wants in very different terms - 'I want to get rich (by acquiring wealth bit by bit)' or 'I want to fight injustice (by reforming the system one corrupt person at a time)'. So when the scale suddenly changes, the power that becomes available doesn't actually feel like it belongs to that character properly.

So an interesting question then is, how much agency can you actually load into someone under the constraint that they always should feel like it actually belongs to them, and what techniques can be used to push that limit? Or to put it another way, how do you make players feel comfortable controlling things which are significantly larger in scope than what they're used to?

Excellent point, and of course it depends on what the player wanted to do in their game and with their character. If they made it part of their backstory that they were in line for the throne and were pursuing succession to the throne as a long term objective, then this is just advancing their timeline.

But if I were caught in this scenario, my instinct would be to organically scale back the agency. "Phenomenal cosmic power, itty bitty living space." Being King is not necessarily easy or full of agency. I view Agency like currency. Having a lot of it often means having to do a lot more work managing it.

For example, the very first night as King, say some two-bit assassin tries to kill the PC, hinting at the fact that there are countless, nameless, faceless individuals who will try to kill you just because it would could perpetuate the process of replacing the King, which paralyzes the state as it tries to make the necessary adjustments to the change in leadership, causing it to overlook conduct that it might otherwise arrest. Or maybe the assassin was hired by a noble or royal counselor who wants to keep the head of state changing because they function as ruler while the royal line is busy playing musical thrones.

In a less direct threat upon the crown, have all the neighboring countries insist upon meeting and familiarizing themselves with this new head of state. Make sure their demands are reasonable enough to believe, but totally unacceptable (hopefully to every other country involved). Make sure there is a visceral threat of a loss of trade relations, an increase in cost, an iron wall border preventing travel through neighboring lands, or even outright war if the newly minted King doesn't play ball.

Mix these first two recommendations to throw in international subterfuge with foreign spies, saboteurs, and assassins who might target the King's few trustworthy and loyal serfs just to undermine their bargaining position against foreign diplomats.

Besides the assassination attempts, include also the internal threats of the nobles, knights, and other local lords and peasants who sincerely beseech the King for aid, both the individuals with valid and invalid claims and frivolous suits. The King holds the country's treasury and people will constantly be seeking subsidies to support themselves. Even if everyone in the Kingdom has a valid claim to aid, the treasury can't afford to help everyone as they need.

[Darth Ultron]

Since I have not put out any "random" stuff, you are admitting you will never understand anything of importance in these threads. I am glad to hear to recognizing that. But if you recognize you will never understand these topics, why do you keep coming back to display your ignorance?

Each time you throw together some strawman (like "A Lazy Casual DM") it just continues to discredit you in front of everyone. But I guess my standards for intelligent discussion must simply be too high for you to reach.

As for the "Eon DMs" (Really? Another strawman?). You are the only one that criticized them. I was merely pointing out games run by improv DMs do have enough information for player agency. Pointing out where you are wrong is not the same as agreeing with you.

Sadly, I do understand you...I just don't like you.

You all ways toss out ''strawman'' or your other Everyone Words in every post, guess it is just your Defense Mechanism: You say your special word and retreat to a safe place.

And, I know you might not remember, as it was ''an eon'' ago (or to us normal adult folks like ''one page'') that you yourself was the one complaining that you can't take an ''eon to prep for a game''...




Ah Ah Ah! You don't get to misrepresent the situation. :smalltongue:

Are you defending the DM randomly, on a whim, for no reason, changing the dagger mid combat into a sword?
Or are you defending the DM deciding, that based on the situation, Zom would have started carrying a sword?
Are you suggesting Darth Ultron likes Random Nonsense OR are you agreeing with the majority in that things change based upon reason?

The above questions misrepresent themselves.


I believe I have figured out how to properly understand Darth Ultron's posts. I shall respond to them with that new understandnig.
Ah, I'm glad that you agree that your described method of Railroad DMing is incorrect, and that you actually don't create random junk, but instead listen to your players and allow them to have impact on your setting.

Well, this is true...except the Railraoad part, as I definitely do that. I'd say it is DM Agency, but all in the Everyone Collective would cry Railroading.



Good, we're making progress! Since you understand now that players are not jerks, but rather cooperating to form the game with you, it's clear that you are an excellent improv DM who does not railroad.

Never said all players are jerks...there are good and bad and neutral players. I am a excellent improv DM that can make an adventure out of nothing at all.....though I'm also improving them along a railroad too.



I'm not sure why you're limiting yourself to Zom only having a dagger, since you could definitely have him go to a store and buy a sword, but since you are afraid of being inconsistent lest you engage in randomness, that's your prerogative. We do need to work on your notion of an evolving setting.


The Everyone Collective has put forth the idea that ''once a DM establishes a fact, it can never be changed''. This is an example of how utterly stupid that idea is.

But lets try another one: On June 1st the DM says ''King Bom has one son: Prince Humperdink". Now the Everyone Collective will pound their little feet and say THAT can never be changed. But the rest of us normal people can accept the ''sudden'' idea of ''oh, King Bom has a unknown daughter too that he previously kept hidden."


I've never heard anyone argue that.

Facts being consistent means that if Zom had a dagger on Monday, then he had a dagger on Monday, and you don't get to say "no, actually he had a sword on Monday."

But did you not just say exactly what I'm talking about?

Say the players have their characters watch Zom for a whole ''game hour'' as he drinks in a tavern on Monday. And they see he only has a dagger. So the stupid game controlling whining players will say ''hehe, lets rob Zom as he only has a dagger''. Then on Tuesday they break into Zom's house...and Zom fights them off with a long sword. And this is when the players break down and cry about how the DM changed things and denied them their player agency.


Control of the game play vs control of the game reality is just a pair of sets on the Player Agency Spectrum, though. Just as Red and Blue are sets on the color spectrum.

Except in the normal game players only effect the game play, they do not control it.



Again, your definitions are of poor quality because they preclude the existence of any sort of middle ground between these extremes. There can be shared control of game reality, especially when the "jurisdictions" are well defined.

I decided to allow the behavior while making clear to them that I was retaining my right to alter or veto any requested NPC contacts as I felt necessary, and I also made clear that I would be playing the roles of these NPCs to reign in any conflict of interest the players might have OOC.

There is no randomness here, the players had a very profound meaning and intent behind their Agency. I haven't had to deny their requests up to this point (they haven't even used it very much so far) and they haven't exploited it beyond the semblance of reason. If anything, it has helped them make reaching their goals simply more logical, practical, and attainable. They created a tool to apply to the game, asked for permission to use it, and have done so quite responsibly.

Ok, well this is all Game Zero stuff....so it does not really count during the game. And your doing it the normal way anyway: the player is asking for something and your saying ''yes, but'' AND keeping full control.



Because most players don't want to break their game. Even when they have the power to turn cheat codes on, they prefer not to do so.

Odd, guess you must only know a very small circle of saints. At least half of normal people can and will cheat to varying degrees if they can get away with it. Even good people can get Tempted By the Dark Side. And this is why society has laws and games have rules.



That said, I'm confused at why he thinks giving the players some agency means that the DM surrenders his role as a DM. That is not at all what happens. The players still have their actions narrated at them. They still have to attempt to succeed things. They are just allowed a little more variety in ways they can approach problems, sometimes taking on situations you weren't ready for as a DM. That is when the improv must start and if you can't pull it off the game isn't going to be very satisfying.

So your saying that having Player Agency is exactly like a normal game....so, in other words, it does not exist? Like when any game has just normal game play...the players have player agency. Seems like a bit of a run around...but ok.

But then you toss in the classic DM hate of doing things the poor DM was not ready for....and really that just seems like a jerk move. So now your saying player agency is when the players go out of their way to show their hatred for the DM by doing something they don't expect and going ''ha, take that stupid DM''. So now your saying that Player Agency is being a Jerk.

Like every time any event happen in the game, the players just sit on the edge of their seat and say ''hehe, how can we mess with and upset the stupid DM"? What kind of game is that? When the player is all ways coming up with a stupid third option only to attack the DM with it, then that player is a Jerk.



Also, making orcs that are sometimes good isn't any more interesting than orcs that are always evil.

Not everything is interesting to everyone.

[Cozzer]

A silly example is, e.g., 'the king suddenly abdicates leaving you in charge, what do you do?'.

Well, this ties into my other big point about agency: every story has an "estabilishing conflicts" phase, and a "resolving conflicts" phase. It's normal for characters/players to have less agency during the first phase, but they definitely need lots of it during the second phase. This example is basically skipping the first phase altogether; if no big conflict has been previously introduced, the players won't know what to do with the sudden big-scale agency they have.

(Obiviously, you don't want the players to feel like they're being railroaded during the first half of a campaign, which is why you give them agency to solve smaller-scale conflicts while you estabilish bigger-scale conflicts they can't solve yet, which ties nicely into the way PCs get stronger).

So yeah, a "the king suddenly abdicates" moment can definitely occur, but it needs to occur after the players have learned of, like, the three biggest menaces to the kingdom and have a few ideas on how they could be dealt with.

[Lorsa]

My original definition of Player Agency was flawed for much the same reason: because I created my definition based on which forms of Player Agency I valued.

So, I suppose, the question is, is there a way to optimize the experience to produce the maximum feeling of Agency?

The part of Agency I care about is that the PCs be able to do everything their characters are capable of doing. This is why I have a strong desire for good rules, and/or, on the flip side, a GM who is open to creative solutions, and who makes good rulings. I've played under dozens (perhaps 100+?) GMs, and I've only met one whose rulings were consistently acceptable.

I guess that is an issue which complicates what might otherwise seem as such an easy thing; that we value different forms of PA.

I guess you will know what my answer to your questions is already; you tailor the game to the players in a way that grants them the type of agency they are interested in.

So for you, I will simply make an adventure with a clearly defined problem without any thought as to what character you will have. Then it is up to you to interact and try to solve this problem in which ever way you desire based on your character's capabilities and the given game rules. Did I understand your preferences correctly?



IMO, this is an issue of GM skills, to make sure the adventure is varied in terms of what types of options / solutions that have what types of consequences attached. Of course, then again, usually, legal options don't have "go to jail" as a potential consequence. But I'm not sure to what extent it's related to Player Agency - and, certainly, if the module is written before the character is selected or created, it would be difficult for the GM to intentionally limit Agency without appearing either a skilless amateur or a railroading ****.

I believe it is difficult if not to write but to run a module without railroading. At least that has been the case for the modules I've read. There are just too many points where I think "hmmm, if the characters do this instead, the whole module ends here".

You are right though, I think, that GM skill factors heavily into this equation.



Yeah, I'd rather the GM not know the character even then. That removes any bias the GM might place into writing the campaign.

If there is a problem (say, the GM has included nothing but constructs and undead for several sessions for a sneak-attack Rogue build), we'll address it live.

You don't think it is too easy to end up with the problem of the GM writing a campaign based primarily on adventure hooks a Good character would be attracted to only to find you bringing an Evil character into it and thus invalidating all the hard work?

[Mordaedil]

So your saying that having Player Agency is exactly like a normal game....so, in other words, it does not exist? Like when any game has just normal game play...the players have player agency. Seems like a bit of a run around...but ok.

But then you toss in the classic DM hate of doing things the poor DM was not ready for....and really that just seems like a jerk move. So now your saying player agency is when the players go out of their way to show their hatred for the DM by doing something they don't expect and going ''ha, take that stupid DM''. So now your saying that Player Agency is being a Jerk.

Like every time any event happen in the game, the players just sit on the edge of their seat and say ''hehe, how can we mess with and upset the stupid DM"? What kind of game is that? When the player is all ways coming up with a stupid third option only to attack the DM with it, then that player is a Jerk.
You're not far off here, but the idea is that the DM in most games don't have their plots frigid and easily upset by the players. The idea is that the DM prepares his scenarios with the players input in mind, so that you can more easily adapt to having wrenches thrown into the plot and build on what they've done to upset it. They aren't being jerk players by doing this, they are trying to test the extent of what their "Choices & Consequences" reach to impact your game.

This can be pretty huge.



Not everything is interesting to everyone.
Don't worry, I meant it isn't inherently more interesting, either one can be made interesting, but usually it takes more than just changing one aspect of something.

[Max_Killjoy]

I told people not to engage him, but people just keep doing it.

We're really making no headway talking to DU.

That said, I'm confused at why he thinks giving the players some agency means that the DM surrenders his role as a DM.


As far as I can tell, he thinks only in binaries and absolutes -- EITHER the GM is "in control", OR the players are "in control".

Or course the whole obsession over "control" and power also reveals some rather disturbing possibilities.




And you must let that happen otherwise you are not playing a game, you are taking people through a series of set-pieces and just having some boardgame attached to it.



That's actually a bit how some video game "RPGs" work, sadly -- fight, cutscene, fight, cutscene, etc.

[Lorsa]

I think you missed my point where the Core books have very little fluff race information. So just where are you looking for all of the information?

The Monster's Manual.



It is possible, any idea what that might be?

Maybe we can break it down to the two Cool Everyone Collective ways:

1.The Alignment Game: The game uses Alignment, as pre the rules. Good is good, evil is evil. Things are very black and white and direct.
2.The Gray Game: The game has no Alignment and does not use any such rules. Anything can be anything, or not. Things might be as they seem, or not.

(there is the #3 here, the one I use, but lets keep it simple and just talk about the above two)

What you've missed is that this alignment discussion is completely pointless and has nothing at all to do with the original arguments or their points.

It is at best a failure of understand by you how it is not important, and at worst an obfuscation attempt in order to avoid the real issue.

The argument I was making was that you should (or could), make two sides different from each other, so that working for one will provide different adventures and different a different game than the other.

You seem to be arguing from a side of "no, the two sides the players choose from should always be identical and give the exact same outcome because I really want to deny my players any chance of having an impact on their game".

Hell, even two normal equally moral grey human nobles could (or would probably) have different types of land and different types of economy. So working for one side would involve protecting valuable mines from intruders whereas the other would involve protecting farms. Or whatever difference you want. Two sides being absolutely equal except for the color of their tabards is just cartoonish.

Forget the moral stuff and focus on the discussion we are having; there is no reason at all why two sides should be identical and that working for them would result in identical adventures.



I agree, in general, about culture change. I put lots of culture in my games.

Except, apparently, that everyone has the same culture.



Yes, that would both be wrong.

Glad we established that.



Odd, I said that in a gray world, any group is just as likely to betray the characters as any other group. Then you jumped to things must go the way the players want and there must all ways be that good escape option for the players to pick.

Unless your world is just One shade of grey, even in a grey world, no group is just as likely to betray the characters as any other group. People are DIFFERENT, some are more loyal than others. That's the thing with shades of grey. Some people are more loyal than others. And if the players happen to work for a more loyal person, the outcome in the game should be different compared to if they worked for someone who is disloyal.

Do you agree with that or do you think that both all people are equally likely to do any action always?



I never said ''equally evil'' , the example was a Evil Crime Lord and a Good Baron, that would both, in Evil or Good ways cause problems for the Characters.

Except your example has a problem in that it is not, in fact, good to imprison someone whom have acted on your orders just because you intentionally didn't give them a writ only so that you could later imprison them. It's not a good act by any measure.



This is just the one example problem here.

Using one example to highlight how a game could be different depending on the choices made is perfectly valid as it invalidates the argument that "no the game is always identical no matter what the players choose". The only counter argument is "I don't care about established NPC personality or verisimilitude or anything, I would never let the players make any choices that turn out to have meaning and the whole game is solely run based on my whim".



We will use the Everyone Collective WordSpeak: Gray Game(aka no alignment).

Sure, but this Grey Game discussion is really not the point of the Agency discussion. It's an unimportant sidetrack.



The game makes an internal sense to just itself, but not to people on the outside. For the most part the example you give would never randomly just happen....but they could. It might be the biggest difference between My Game and Your Game: I let the players know anything can and might happen, your more of like ''we all agree to do things this One Way Forever Unchanging''.

Either something is very possible and does randomly just happen OR it is rather unlikely and would never randomly just happen. You can't both have your cake and eat it. Choose what you want to argue for.



Yes.

So how often has it happened in your games that a Storm Giant with Greater invisibility has cast Lightning bolt on the enemies of your players? Ten times? A hundred? Exactly how common is this? Since you say it is "very possible", it must have happened more than once and certainly along the lines of 10% of the time.



Just as anything might happen, does not say it will...or that it will in a timely fashion. A character might wait a life time for a bolt from the blue to do something...so they might want to just do an action themselves.

Yeah, but which action? How can I select which action to take if I have no possibility to judge which is most likely to lead to success? Based on your "anything might happen" argument, I could either 1) Hit with my weapon, 2) Whistle a lovely tune or 3) Do the Hokey-Pokey and regardless of which way I go, anything might happen. So my enemy might take damage or they may not.

Either actions are divorced from their consequences or there is a link. Which way do you run your games?

In my games, hitting an enemy with a weapon is more likely to kill them than whistling. Your preferences can be different, but then you really shouldn't be in a discussion about player agency because your whole premiss is "I don't allow it".



I would note that Real Life is not like that. In Real Life, anything can happen.

No it can't. I can't be the president of USA, I can't survive standing in the middle of nuclear bomb explosion, I can't upload my consciousness to a computer. There are plenty of things that can't happen. It has never been, nor ever will be, "anything can happen". That's not how Real Life works.



But my point is everywhere has Health Care, it is just the details that are different.

Except that those details are really important, and can make the difference between life or death.



My argument is most people will do ''something'' to get there stolen stuff back...and, yes, some won't. But most people will do ''something''. So rob two people, there is a very, very, very good chance that they will both ''do something''. So the players have two choices: rob person A or B, but both will ''do something'' if they are robbed.

But they will do different something.



You can debate ''what ifs'', but arresting characters that commit crimes is a common thing good people do.

As I said above, it's not a thing they do if the crimes are ones they've ordered themselves! That's not part of the idea of "good", even if it is a Grey Game without an alignment system. But this is a tangent also and we should drop this discussion as it has very little to do with the point that players making choices can affect the game in meaningful ways.



Well, as always, I would be the Lone Voice of Another Option not given by the Everyone Collective.

Does that mean that if all of us suddenly started to agree with you, you would change your opinion?

[Frozen_Feet]

I guess it is only fruitful then insofar as it helps us understand that while one side is the one providing PA, the other side is the one who will be most bothered by its absence.

Maybe, maybe not, but the scenario designer and game holder being bothered tends to have better returns.


So at this point it is perhaps safe to say that I am looking for both the ability to influence the outcome of the game by making choices, with a preference for very high agency, as well as complexity in the choices presented (high game difficulty)?

Sounds about right.


Well, as we've established we are approaching this from a different set of sequences. You are correct that for every possible scenario, there is at least one character that will go through it in a predictable way.

To be honest, I'm not sure if I am correct. "For every imaginable scenario, there it at least one character that will go through it in a wholly predictable way" sounds right, but I'm not sure if it actually holds up to rigorous examination. However, the reasons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem) for my (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem) skepticism lie in pretty deep waters that are pretty far removed from the topic of this thread.


However, I still posit that if a GM looks at the character and then creates just that scenario, where the character will go through it predictably (quite possibly with the intent of railroading under the guise of providing agency), then the fault should not be with the player. This can be evaluated over multiple games, where at the start of the next game, the player makes a very different character but the GM again constructs a scenario with a foregone conclusion based on the character in question.

I know you might think I am trying to shift blame, but if this happens on multiple occasions, can the fault really lie with the player?

Yes. As I said earlier, the responsibility and hence share of the fault/blame always lies on the player in these kind of scenarios. It also lies on the GM, but it takes a minimum of two people to dance this tango.

It's actually fairly easy to start dancing it accidentally if the GM takes the concept of tailoring their scenarios to their players too close to heart and implements it dumbly. That is, the GM creates these scenarios which are a foregone conclusions given the character, out of the goodness of their heart, because they believe that's what it means to make your scenario based on the character, and they believe that's what the player wants. (Darth_Ultron is sort of a perverse inversion of this mindset; what I'm describing is more or less what Darth_Ultron defines as "player controlled" game.)


True enough. The responsibility is shared. That's a general truth for most roleplaying games. However, there is a sliding scale here too, so that even if I did have an influence on the outcome in the case of post-character scenario design, I still believe the GM has more. And, as I am apparently a hard player to please, I would like to be on the higher end of the player influence spectrum.

Generally speaking, the scenario designer and the game holder have more agency, more influence and just plain more everything as pertains to the game, than your average player. Not arguing against you on that point.


Unfortunately for me, we can not make the conclusion as I too engage in a blame-shifting game towards the GM for my perceived lack of agency, I must be intelligent.

Correlation sadly does not equal causation. :smalltongue:


Ok so, these people achieve a feeling of having affected the game if there are multiple choices, with one of them being their "preferred perfect choice", even if it should be evident to any third party observer that the GM would have known far in advance that this is exactly where the game would end up? Basically, they will happily follow a railroad, as long as it is directed correctly and have the illusion of alternative choices?

Yes, in the same dubious way a person who wants to get to Town X by walking might be happy to get to town X via train if you somehow can fool them into thinking they walked. What I'm trying to get to here is that for most of these players, real agency must be present for them to feel like they have it, despite the fact that they use it in a wholly predictable way. It's the married guy grooming himself to look good before all the single ladies because "they like to keep their options open", despite the fact that every night he goes back to his wife like the dog he is and never explores any of them. :smalltongue:

If they ever find the alternatives were illusory, such as the married guy finding out all the single ladies were just pretending to laugh on his expense, they will be sad. A little rational Devil in your head will keep telling you that it shouldn't matter, but it does anyway.


Whereas I achieve a feeling of having affected the game if there are multiple choices which are preferred (or none are preferred), and as such the GM wouldn't be able to predict my answer. Basically, I can be dissatisfied even with the presence of real choices and upset even if I am technically railroading myself.

That seems to be the case, yes.


The way I view the player, which may be an unfair characterization mind you, is that their behavior will lead to a lack of challenge in running the game for them. All I have to do, seemingly at least, is to describe a surrounding and then wait for them to follow their instinct for "what would be fun" and let them suffer the consequences thereof. It seems as though there wouldn't really be much for me to do as a GM, and I could run the whole game on pure improvisation alone. Even as a GM I like to be challenged, and this seems like it wouldn't be.

That's actually a pretty fair description of how a game with these sorts of players tends to go. The GM can often play reactive, or even remain as a fairly neutral spectator, as the Happy Fun Ball bounces up, down, up, down. So if your enjoyment of the game as GM is reliant on you having a lot of things to do, it is not a surprise if it isn't your cup of tea.



My assumption was based on that the player merely wanted to find an easy meta-game out for unwanted consequences they had caused themselves, and used the suicide as an excuse for that. It is hard to evaluate properly without the full game history.

It's usually fairly easy to evaluate on the spot, though. The important thing is that if a player can pursue an out-of-character goal via in-character action without breaking character or rules of the game, that's not a problem. If anything, it's sign of player skill. (I wouldn't even call it metagaming in all cases, as I consider pursuit of player goals for the game to just be part of the game, even if player goals differ from their character's goals.)

Character suicide is just one of many possible game moves that can be used as a "metagame out" of a tricky situation. All of these make me narrow my eyes in a wordless "I see what you did there" (https://i.pinimg.com/736x/8c/3a/8c/8c3a8c91e5ee54b920f5065ed1f04b75--wonderland-alice-disney-addict.jpg), but not all of them are something to work against either as a player or as a Gm.

[Pleh]

Except in the normal conventional game players only effect the game play, they do not control it.

In my game they do control it. By proxy through my DMing, to be sure, but that's what I mean by "sharing creative control." It's not just handing it over without retaining some measure of veto power. That would be an interestingly different style of play to actually have to adapt to literally anything the other players introduced into the story.

But that wasn't what I was suggesting ought to be done at all to begin with. What I mean is that when a Player asks for something to happen in the game and the DM acquiesces, that is the function of Player Agency, both the kind that occurs In Character and Out Of Character. They are using creative liberties to alter the course of the game.

I don't think ANY player should be considered to possess the right to operate unilaterally on creative liberties. Even the DM is supposed to be trying to help everyone have the maximum amount of corporate fun.


Ok, well this is all Game Zero stuff....

You're doing that thing again where you utilize meaningless (and usually misleading) definitions. "Game Zero" has no definition in this context and the statement doesn't really express anything.

But I suppose the best I could do is suggest to you that Game Zero "stuff" can and should be able to alter the live game scenario at any moment as necessary. That is part of DM and Player Agency.


so it does not really count during the game. And your doing it the normal way anyway: the player is asking for something and your saying ''yes, but'' AND keeping full control.

I am saying "yes, but" because THAT is the definition of Improv. I can release a portion of my control to the player without losing all control of the entire game. That is the spectrum you have been ignoring in favor of a strange bias to binary "tyrannical dictatorship or meaningless anarchy."


Odd, guess you must only know a very small circle of saints. At least half of normal people can and will cheat to varying degrees if they can get away with it. Even good people can get Tempted By the Dark Side. And this is why society has laws and games have rules.

Well, I certainly don't normally play with strangers, that is true. I typically don't play with people I don't trust, or at least I don't play any games where I actually care much about the game. I would happily play a stupid dungeon crawl with even the world's biggest munchkins, because who cares if they crap all over it? It was unlikely to matter outside the play session anyway and I save my game time for games that I can care about even in my off hours, thinking about it at work and developing more content for those games as a side hobby.

I just don't normally bother even playing at all with people I don't have a decent amount of trust with, and the few times I do I just reduce my expectations where it really doesn't waste much if the whole thing does go sideways.

So yeah, when my groups ask for more Player Agency than normally allowed, I will trust and verify, checking why they want it, what they want it for, and whether I feel like I can honor the use of that agency later in good spirit. I also try to construct rules and limitations for these bonuses to Agency to close loopholes and help the player disincentivize abuses of the newly granted power so they can cooperate in good faith as well.


So your saying that having Player Agency is exactly like a normal game....so, in other words, it does not exist? Like when any game has just normal game play...the players have player agency.

So close, yet so far.

"Having Player Agency is exactly like a normal conventional game....so, in other words, player agency is an essential component of 'normal, classic' games. Like when any game has just normal game play...the players have player agency."

This is why Railroading tends to be badwrongfun. It denies Player Agency, which is *supposed* to be there, taking something out of the game that was both intended by the game creators and expected by the game players. Player Agency is intrinsic to "normal" games and it lives on a sliding scale to be turned up or down to suit group preference. No one in the group should be adjusting the scale unilaterally in direct opposition to cooperative fun.

When the Players ratchet up the Player Agency without permission, they are hijacking the story. Not inherently wrong to do, but more than likely at least a little rude to not convince the DM to cooperate first. When the DM ratchets down the Player Agency without permission, they are Railroading the party (to some degree). Having the technical authority to take Player Agency away does not make it any less wrong to do this without permission from the players.

[NichG]

But if I were caught in this scenario, my instinct would be to organically scale back the agency. "Phenomenal cosmic power, itty bitty living space." Being King is not necessarily easy or full of agency. I view Agency like currency. Having a lot of it often means having to do a lot more work managing it.



Well, this ties into my other big point about agency: every story has an "estabilishing conflicts" phase, and a "resolving conflicts" phase. It's normal for characters/players to have less agency during the first phase, but they definitely need lots of it during the second phase. This example is basically skipping the first phase altogether; if no big conflict has been previously introduced, the players won't know what to do with the sudden big-scale agency they have.


So if we start to collect a list of things to enable higher agency tolerance:

- Keep them busy/distract them
- Ease them into it

I think another major group of techniques involves appropriate use of abstraction. That is to say, if you have a bunch of kingdom building rules you can muck around with that turn things into numbers, that gives a way to understand what exactly your newfound power actually means. If the abstraction layer is something that can be removed or fuzzed out once running things at that level feels normal, even better.

[Cozzer]

Another kind of abstraction, in that case, would be having advisors (or something like that) that give the players a few high-level plans. The players can then choose or, if they think they can do better, create their own plan, reaching the level of detail they want.

Example: the war advisors tells the new kings that the orcs are pushing from the northern border. Do they want to concentrate the troops' efforts towards protecting the towns, or do they mount a counteroffensive? If the players are interested enough in this matter, they might go into more detail. Maybe they propose to evacuate some towns to have less weak points to defend, freeing part of the troops to mount a counteroffensive. Maybe they ask about orc leadership, learn about how the orcs have become more dangerous because of the keen instincts and charisma of one particular chieftain and want to assassinate him. If they choose to go along with the assassination plan, then they go into even more detail. Who do you send? Can they go themselves? In that case, who will rule in the meantime? And so on.

On the other hand, if they don't care that much about this part of kinging, they can choose one of the few "default" plans and let their generals worry about the details. They're still having agency, since their choice will have long-term consequences (if they defend the towns they're going to have an open front forever, if they mount a counteroffensive they manage to push back the orcs and have a big victory, at a great cost in terms of civilian lives).

[Segev]

Sadly, I do understand you...I just don't like you. You really shouldn't say such mean things about yourself. I'm sorry your self-esteem is so low.


You all ways toss out ''strawman'' or your other Everyone Words in every post, guess it is just your Defense Mechanism: You say your special word and retreat to a safe place.

And, I know you might not remember, as it was ''an eon'' ago (or to us normal adult folks like ''one page'') that you yourself was the one complaining that you can't take an ''eon to prep for a game''...Well, of course, if you want to spend all your time fine-tuning your plot and telling the players what their characters do, the players will consider themselves an audience. But since you're taking so long writing it that you never get to run, I feel bad for your audience who are awaiting your work. You really should consider running these games you've worked so hard on.


The above questions misrepresent themselves.Okay, so since you run random games with no prep and where the DM has no agency, Zom has a random weapon every time he shows up. That explains a lot about your games.


Well, this is true...except the Railraoad part, as I definitely do that. I'd say it is DM Agency, but all in the Everyone Collective would cry Railroading.Oh, my mistake. I'm sorry that railroading makes you cry, but you really need to get over that. In a normal game, there are players, after all. And good DMs will be able to handle them following their plots.


Never said all players are jerks...there are good and bad and neutral players. I am a excellent improv DM that can make an adventure out of nothing at all.....though I'm also improving them along a railroad too.No need to get defensive. If you like running games with no plot and where anything can happen because of rule of cool, that's great for you and your group who are into that.


The Everyone Collective has put forth the idea that ''once a DM establishes a fact, it can never be changed''. This is an example of how utterly stupid that idea is.

But lets try another one: On June 1st the DM says ''King Bom has one son: Prince Humperdink". Now the Everyone Collective will pound their little feet and say THAT can never be changed. But the rest of us normal people can accept the ''sudden'' idea of ''oh, King Bom has a unknown daughter too that he previously kept hidden." If you feel so constrained not to have any secrets from your players, I don't know how you maintain a sense of mystery, but having the unknown daughter of the dwarf king be an elf is possible. I do suggest that you have a plot explanation for how that happened, though.


But did you not just say exactly what I'm talking about?

Say the players have their characters watch Zom for a whole ''game hour'' as he drinks in a tavern on Monday. And they see he only has a dagger. So the stupid game controlling whining players will say ''hehe, lets rob Zom as he only has a dagger''. Then on Tuesday they break into Zom's house...and Zom fights them off with a long sword. And this is when the players break down and cry about how the DM changed things and denied them their player agency. No, sorry, Darth Ultron, I have to disagree with you there. When the players jump Zom as he's leaving that bar on Monday, if you say "nope, that dagger was actually a sword and you just didn't realize because I changed it with my DM Agency as he walked through the door," that's bad DMing.


Except in the normal game players only effect the game play, they do not control it.Glad you agree. I don't know why you've been insisting otherwise up until now.

[Quertus]

I guess that is an issue which complicates what might otherwise seem as such an easy thing; that we value different forms of PA.

I guess you will know what my answer to your questions is already; you tailor the game to the players in a way that grants them the type of agency they are interested in.

So for you, I will simply make an adventure with a clearly defined problem without any thought as to what character you will have. Then it is up to you to interact and try to solve this problem in which ever way you desire based on your character's capabilities and the given game rules. Did I understand your preferences correctly?

Well, yes, that would be perfect for me. And, IME, the GM just creating problems and scenarios, and not planning or railroading solutions, is the optimal base point for all games I've seen. I say "base point", because, sometimes, you can get a mismatch like a sneak attack rogue in an all undead game, and need to consider fixing something (making the encounters more varied, giving the player the ability to make an informed decision about running that character, etc).

But... Your answer seems at once too simple and too complex for where I was aiming.

Too simple in that, in order to custom tailor content the way you describe, you usually have to do it for each and every player, sometimes with (seemingly or actually) contradicting styles. And, when writing a module, you don't necessarily have players in front of you to customize to.

Too complex in that I was actually just using myself as an example to facilitate a discussion about which types of Agency you felt were responsible for your feeling of Agency in a game.

It sounds like your desire for Agency is actually, at its core, a desire for intellectual simulation and, hey, I'm not going to argue with that. In fact, that's why I love consistency and Discovery so much. But is there a good way to generalize which subset of Agency is most likely to produce such intellectual simulation, similar to how we have an IC / OOC divide (PP), or a "within capabilities" / "outside capabilities" divide (me)?


I believe it is difficult if not to write but to run a module without railroading. At least that has been the case for the modules I've read. There are just too many points where I think "hmmm, if the characters do this instead, the whole module ends here".

You are right though, I think, that GM skill factors heavily into this equation.

I guess it depends on how you define running the module, and the contents of the module.

Modules with "taking path X ends the module" is only good if that's something the players would desire; otherwise, it is indicative of a poorly written module.

Running something like an Adventure Path, it's its own separate minigame: can we possibly play through the module in such a way that, when the next step comes out, we haven't gone so far off the rails that we've lost the game? It's entirely on the players to choose whether to railroad themselves, or to lose the game (and, possibly, play the next piece with entirely different characters who "remember" going through the previous module(s) differently than the previous party did.

One module I ran, well, the original GM bailed. I had been looking forward to running my signature character, Quertus, for whom this account is named, through said module. Then I decided, you know what, I'm not going to let a little thing like the GM bailing stop me. So I decided that I would run the module with Quertus as a DMPC. I read through the module several times, but, the first time, I constantly asked myself, WWQD?

The thing is, the way the module was written, what Quertus would do was tick off one of the NPCs (specifically, the Quest Giver), and get himself kicked out. So, true to both my character and the module, when the time came, I had Quertus start the dialog that would get him in trouble. The other players, who had already commented on what ****s the NPCs in this module were, did nothing to stop Quertus, and jaws dropped when they got to see that the Quest Giver was just as big a **** as the rest of the NPCs had been, and kicked Quertus out.


You don't think it is too easy to end up with the problem of the GM writing a campaign based primarily on adventure hooks a Good character would be attracted to only to find you bringing an Evil character into it and thus invalidating all the hard work?

One (unpublished) module I've run many times had the following character requirements: the characters must meet experience requirement X, be in city Y, their presence and capabilities must not be a secret, they must be findable, and they must be either noble of character or motivated by money. Translation: the rulers of the city are going to be finding the PCs to hire them for a noble quest. Now, sure, it's technically possible to manage to follow my guidelines yet still build a character who is actually incompatible with the Quest, but I've never seen it happen. It's a rather durable module if the players follow the session 0 guidelines.

Personally, unlike many (most?) Playgrounders, I don't actually have a problem with a well-run bait-and-switch. A group of competent adventurers and explorers... suddenly finds themselves with a murder mystery? Sure, that can happen. And if the GM explicitly wants that "these are the people who were here" / "you fight with the army you have" feel, and doesn't want a group custom-tailored to the particulars of the module, that's totally legit.

But, unless "fight with the army you have" is the point of the module, and it's done well, the pitch should telegraph everything the players need to know in order to have an enjoyable experience. Or, falling that, the GM should say, "you know, I really don't think you'll get full mileage out of a sneak attack DPS Rogue, or an Illusionist, or a Diplomancer, when going through 'Necrophilia on Bone Hill'."

But adventure hooks? IMO, those are easy. Well, easy, in that they're a negotiation between player and GM, not something the GM has to do alone. Sadly, despite that, I've seen a lot of GMs fail at this step. Like, fall to hook over half the party in a group with double-digit players.

Heck, I just watched four teams of two compete against each other IRL. It was obvious from the start which people had what kinds of skills working with others. And, therefore, quite obvious to me which team would win, even before things began.

Sadly, most GMs really aren't team players, IME. And so they fail at even simple team exercises like plot hooks. And, yes, I say "they fail", because that most accurately expresses exactly how bad at teamwork most GMs I've played with are.

So, no, I don't see that as likely, unless the GM has failed at module building, failed to telegraph the module, or failed at teamwork 101.

[Darth Ultron]

You really shouldn't say such mean things about yourself. I'm sorry your self-esteem is so low.

I take comfort in knowing that as I have hit rock bottom the only direction for me to go is....sideways.



Well, of course, if you want to spend all your time fine-tuning your plot and telling the players what their characters do, the players will consider themselves an audience. But since you're taking so long writing it that you never get to run, I feel bad for your audience who are awaiting your work. You really should consider running these games you've worked so hard on.

Luckily, I can type at a good speed, so getting things down on text is easy.



Okay, so since you run random games with no prep and where the DM has no agency, Zom has a random weapon every time he shows up. That explains a lot about your games.


Well, of course the DM has no ''agency'', that silly illusion is just for players.



No need to get defensive. If you like running games with no plot and where anything can happen because of rule of cool, that's great for you and your group who are into that.

I do love the Rule of Cool.

[Lorsa]

Alright, Frozen_Feet, it appears that you have successfully broken apart my definition and that there is little more use discussing it. As I understand we have reached the conclusion that while my attempt was largely motivated by good intentions, the result was unsatisfactory. What I am really looking for is additional qualifiers to player agency, or a feeling of affecting the game in a way that the simple presence of agency doesn't describe.

I will however reply to a few small things.



To be honest, I'm not sure if I am correct. "For every imaginable scenario, there it at least one character that will go through it in a wholly predictable way" sounds right, but I'm not sure if it actually holds up to rigorous examination. However, the reasons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem) for my (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem) skepticism lie in pretty deep waters that are pretty far removed from the topic of this thread.

Interesting read. Although you are right that your statement is true enough for the sake of this discussion. We don't need absolute truths, just a "mostly true" will suffice.



Yes. As I said earlier, the responsibility and hence share of the fault/blame always lies on the player in these kind of scenarios. It also lies on the GM, but it takes a minimum of two people to dance this tango.

It's actually fairly easy to start dancing it accidentally if the GM takes the concept of tailoring their scenarios to their players too close to heart and implements it dumbly. That is, the GM creates these scenarios which are a foregone conclusions given the character, out of the goodness of their heart, because they believe that's what it means to make your scenario based on the character, and they believe that's what the player wants. (Darth_Ultron is sort of a perverse inversion of this mindset; what I'm describing is more or less what Darth_Ultron defines as "player controlled" game.)

Which means that there is an interesting effect that even in a "player controlled" game, I, the player, could feel as though I was not in control?

You are right that it can occur accidentally, but after the first time the GM should notice that the player was not altogether satisfied and change or improve things.

In any case, I think my problem might also lie in the fact that most GMs I've played with have been less experienced than me. My own experience allows me to sort of "peek behind the curtain" of the GM's thinking more easily. When I can see that, while they would allow me to do any action, they HAVE designed their adventure with a clear linear road in mind, I get a bit itchy. Even if it makes sense for my character to follow that road, the fact that I can see that this is how the GM wanted the game to go bothers me.



Correlation sadly does not equal causation. :smalltongue:

Sucks to be me.



Yes, in the same dubious way a person who wants to get to Town X by walking might be happy to get to town X via train if you somehow can fool them into thinking they walked. What I'm trying to get to here is that for most of these players, real agency must be present for them to feel like they have it, despite the fact that they use it in a wholly predictable way. It's the married guy grooming himself to look good before all the single ladies because "they like to keep their options open", despite the fact that every night he goes back to his wife like the dog he is and never explores any of them. :smalltongue:

If they ever find the alternatives were illusory, such as the married guy finding out all the single ladies were just pretending to laugh on his expense, they will be sad. A little rational Devil in your head will keep telling you that it shouldn't matter, but it does anyway.

So they want to feel as though it is them who made the choice to be this "better person" (e.g. being faithful) rather than the world choosing for them (on account of no other women being interested)? While I can understand it on an intellectual level, they seem to be after something quite different than what I want.



That seems to be the case, yes.

I am also looking for some additional things I think. Such as the ability to explore and develop my character during play (which is partly dependent on being faced with tough choices). To be honest, I have been a player so little that I am not 100% sure what I actually AM looking for. I just know that I don't like to feel as though I'm being led by the nose (i.e. railroaded) through the scenario. It is possible it is a symptom of being the GM so much.



That's actually a pretty fair description of how a game with these sorts of players tends to go. The GM can often play reactive, or even remain as a fairly neutral spectator, as the Happy Fun Ball bounces up, down, up, down. So if your enjoyment of the game as GM is reliant on you having a lot of things to do, it is not a surprise if it isn't your cup of tea.

Well, I tend to like challenges both as a player and as a GM. The type of "challenge" a Happy Fun Ball player is typically seen to be is only really a challenge if you as GM want the game to go in a certain direction. Otherwise, as you say, it is possible to mostly remain a neutral reactive spectator. Which isn't that difficult.



It's usually fairly easy to evaluate on the spot, though. The important thing is that if a player can pursue an out-of-character goal via in-character action without breaking character or rules of the game, that's not a problem. If anything, it's sign of player skill. (I wouldn't even call it metagaming in all cases, as I consider pursuit of player goals for the game to just be part of the game, even if player goals differ from their character's goals.)

Character suicide is just one of many possible game moves that can be used as a "metagame out" of a tricky situation. All of these make me narrow my eyes in a wordless "I see what you did there" (https://i.pinimg.com/736x/8c/3a/8c/8c3a8c91e5ee54b920f5065ed1f04b75--wonderland-alice-disney-addict.jpg), but not all of them are something to work against either as a player or as a Gm.

As a matter of fact, I had a character once who were probably quite close to this point. For some reason though, I am a stubborn player and tried to hang in there.

[Frozen_Feet]

@Lorsa: you may want to consider starting a thread on what kind of choices are challenging in an arousing way to different sorts of players. I'd start with identifying different elements of player skill and how they influence this.



Which means that there is an interesting effect that even in a "player controlled" game, I, the player, could feel as though I was not in control?

Yes. A little rational devil on your shoulder may tell you that this shouldn't happen, but it does anyway.


So they want to feel as though it is them who made the choice to be this "better person" (e.g. being faithful) rather than the world choosing for them (on account of no other women being interested)? While I can understand it on an intellectual level, they seem to be after something quite different than what I want.

That is one way to put it, yes. See also: million arguments about free will and how you can't be good if you don't have the option to commit evil. (Or the reverse: how you can't be evil if you are unable to do good.)

How did Nietzche put it again? "Of all evil I deem you capable: Therefore I want good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

[PhoenixPhyre]

That is one way to put it, yes. See also: million arguments about free will and how you can't be good if you don't have the option to commit evil. (Or the reverse: how you can't be evil if you are unable to do good.)

How did Nietzche put it again? "Of all evil I deem you capable: Therefore I want good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

Exactly. If there wasn't a choice, there was no agency. Agency requires the possibility of failure, of using it "wrong" (for some definition of wrong).

[Lorsa]

It sounds like your desire for Agency is actually, at its core, a desire for intellectual simulation and, hey, I'm not going to argue with that. In fact, that's why I love consistency and Discovery so much. But is there a good way to generalize which subset of Agency is most likely to produce such intellectual simulation, similar to how we have an IC / OOC divide (PP), or a "within capabilities" / "outside capabilities" divide (me)?

That would indeed be an interesting quest, unfortunately I am not sure we can generalize for it as I imagine people find vastly different things intellectually stimulating. It is definitely worth a try... do you want to start?

And I think you are right, I am probably more concerned with intellectual stimulation than the actual agency itself. I think the presence of agency is a pre-requisite for such stimulation though, but maybe it isn't. It might be equally interesting to explore what types of intellectual stimulation that might be present in the absence of agency.



I guess it depends on how you define running the module, and the contents of the module.

Modules with "taking path X ends the module" is only good if that's something the players would desire; otherwise, it is indicative of a poorly written module.

So if I am to extrapolate from this I would say that you think Dungeon modules are better than Adventure path modules? Or am I using my own bias again?



Running something like an Adventure Path, it's its own separate minigame: can we possibly play through the module in such a way that, when the next step comes out, we haven't gone so far off the rails that we've lost the game? It's entirely on the players to choose whether to railroad themselves, or to lose the game (and, possibly, play the next piece with entirely different characters who "remember" going through the previous module(s) differently than the previous party did.

Unfortunately, playing "can I railroad myself" isn't really a minigame I am interested in. On the other side of the screen, GMing an adventure path seems to be like both a complete lack of intellectual and creative challenge AND an anxiety inducing incident. Since I don't know the thoughts that lie behind or beyond the AP, it is much more difficult to improvise content should the players go off the rails, compared with if I had created the material myself. As such, there is a constant anxiety that they will diverge from the path and if they don't, there is very little for me (the GM) to do (as the AP has done most of the work).

Can you tell I've never liked to run APs?



One module I ran, well, the original GM bailed. I had been looking forward to running my signature character, Quertus, for whom this account is named, through said module. Then I decided, you know what, I'm not going to let a little thing like the GM bailing stop me. So I decided that I would run the module with Quertus as a DMPC. I read through the module several times, but, the first time, I constantly asked myself, WWQD?

The thing is, the way the module was written, what Quertus would do was tick off one of the NPCs (specifically, the Quest Giver), and get himself kicked out. So, true to both my character and the module, when the time came, I had Quertus start the dialog that would get him in trouble. The other players, who had already commented on what ****s the NPCs in this module were, did nothing to stop Quertus, and jaws dropped when they got to see that the Quest Giver was just as big a **** as the rest of the NPCs had been, and kicked Quertus out.

That is a very interesting story. What happened later? Did the other players receive the quest and such?



But, unless "fight with the army you have" is the point of the module, and it's done well, the pitch should telegraph everything the players need to know in order to have an enjoyable experience. Or, falling that, the GM should say, "you know, I really don't think you'll get full mileage out of a sneak attack DPS Rogue, or an Illusionist, or a Diplomancer, when going through 'Necrophilia on Bone Hill'."

I think this goes for most kinds of games. I've had one GM who told us roughly what type of characters we should make, and we made characters that fit the description, only to find that they really didn't work for the adventure / campaign he had in mind. It's very important, for any type of game, to be explicit in what type of characters the players should make (unless the situation is as you described before, where the point is to do try and succeed with what you have).



But adventure hooks? IMO, those are easy. Well, easy, in that they're a negotiation between player and GM, not something the GM has to do alone. Sadly, despite that, I've seen a lot of GMs fail at this step. Like, fall to hook over half the party in a group with double-digit players.

Heck, I just watched four teams of two compete against each other IRL. It was obvious from the start which people had what kinds of skills working with others. And, therefore, quite obvious to me which team would win, even before things began.

Sadly, most GMs really aren't team players, IME. And so they fail at even simple team exercises like plot hooks. And, yes, I say "they fail", because that most accurately expresses exactly how bad at teamwork most GMs I've played with are.

So, no, I don't see that as likely, unless the GM has failed at module building, failed to telegraph the module, or failed at teamwork 101.

In which ways do you see GMs as not being team players? What types of skills are they lacking, specifically, or how do you notice this lack of teamwork? Are there ways a GM can become a better team player? Any specific exercises you would recommend or is it only in the personality?

I can't think of any time when I had a problem getting players to take an adventure hook. On the other hand, I tend to throw a bunch of hooks at the players and usually at least one of them sticks. Maybe I've been lucky with my players, so it would be hard for me to give advice in this department. The only real complaint I can remember is that one player said there was too much adventure in a too short in-game time so they got too much XP and wanted slower character progression. I found that was an interesting comment, and it highlighted the fact that this particular game system's XP award system didn't really fit with my (then usual) habit of sprinkling adventure around like faerie dust. That was like 14-15 years ago now though.

[kyoryu]

In which ways do you see GMs as not being team players? What types of skills are they lacking, specifically, or how do you notice this lack of teamwork? Are there ways a GM can become a better team player? Any specific exercises you would recommend or is it only in the personality?

GMs are not bad team players. Some GMs are bad team players, and there does seem to be an attraction to the GM role for at least some people that aren't good team players - I mean, come on. You create the world, are in charge, have the final say. That's like ambrosia to certain toxic personalities.

[georgie_leech]

GMs are not bad team players. Some GMs are bad team players, and there does seem to be an attraction to the GM role for at least some people that aren't good team players - I mean, come on. You create the world, are in charge, have the final say. That's like ambrosia to certain toxic personalities.

That is, one flavor of Bad Player is the Controlling Player,, and Controlling Players are attracted to the GM role.

[Lorsa]

@Lorsa: you may want to consider starting a thread on what kind of choices are challenging in an arousing way to different sorts of players. I'd start with identifying different elements of player skill and how they influence this.

That does seem like it would be an interesting thread. I am not used to creating threads though, so I would have to think about how to formulate myself.



GMs are not bad team players. Some GMs are bad team players, and there does seem to be an attraction to the GM role for at least some people that aren't good team players - I mean, come on. You create the world, are in charge, have the final say. That's like ambrosia to certain toxic personalities.

Technically, Quertus said most GMs. With that premise, it is safe to assume it also includes me (as it is bad form to assume you are somehow in the "good minority").

I can certainly see how certain types of control freaks could be attracted to being GMs. What I can't understand is why anyone would play with them. I mean, RPG as a whole is a team game so everyone would benefit from being a team player.

[Quertus]

GMs are not bad team players. Some GMs are bad team players, and there does seem to be an attraction to the GM role for at least some people that aren't good team players - I mean, come on. You create the world, are in charge, have the final say. That's like ambrosia to certain toxic personalities.


That is, one flavor of Bad Player is the Controlling Player,, and Controlling Players are attracted to the GM role.

Well, yes, but it's not just controlling players who will be attracted to the GM role. D&D, like most RPGs, is inherently a team activity. Anyone who has difficulty with teamwork - for whatever reason - may well find the GM chair highly attractive. For example, a doormat who never gets to shine as a player may well aim to be GM, as might an attention hog or, yes, a control freak.


That would indeed be an interesting quest, unfortunately I am not sure we can generalize for it as I imagine people find vastly different things intellectually stimulating. It is definitely worth a try... do you want to start?

Honestly, no. I understand the part of Player Agency I care about better than I do the part you care about. As such, I'm better suited to discussing the "within capabilities / outside capabilities" divide - and probably should do so soon, now that I perceive it.

That having been said, I suspect that you are on the correct track, looking at consequences. I'm not sure that "high-consequence Agency" maps exactly to what you desire, but it sounds like a good starting point to me.


So if I am to extrapolate from this I would say that you think Dungeon modules are better than Adventure path modules? Or am I using my own bias again?

That's probably a fair bet.


That is a very interesting story. What happened later? Did the other players receive the quest and such?

Yes, they did. One could even argue that, because Quertus set off that particular "landmine", the other PCs knew what to avoid.


I think this goes for most kinds of games. I've had one GM who told us roughly what type of characters we should make, and we made characters that fit the description, only to find that they really didn't work for the adventure / campaign he had in mind. It's very important, for any type of game, to be explicit in what type of characters the players should make (unless the situation is as you described before, where the point is to do try and succeed with what you have).

Definitely. This is an important GM skill, and an important communication skill.

However, one should also strive to create modules which are as broadly suitable to as diverse a range of characters as possible.


In which ways do you see GMs as not being team players? What types of skills are they lacking, specifically, or how do you notice this lack of teamwork? Are there ways a GM can become a better team player? Any specific exercises you would recommend or is it only in the personality?

In D&D, as in most RPGs, the players are explicitly part of a team (the GM only implicitly so - and, thanks to especially bad advice in the DMG etc, often quite the opposite). Maybe I've just had rotten luck, but, given what I've said above, I find it not terribly surprising that the GM seat generally attracts the player with the least teamwork skills.

I'd say Googling a definition of teamwork would probably answer the question better than I would, but... I'd say I've seen lack of both ability to listen to others and to communicate ideas, especially coupled with blaming rather than working together to fix problems, and general inability to distribute tasks as traits that were all too common in GMs. On top, of course, of spotlight hog GMs, control freak GMs, and even doormat GMs.

As to fixing things... most problem GMs are human, with stupid human "it's not my fault" defense mechanisms that prevent them from getting better. If you find a GM who can get past that, awesome! What would help them? Um, best guess: small group projects (like, say, working together to create plot hooks), reading better systems advice than D&D, or, in some cases, being a player for a bit, to help them see things from others perspectives. Aikido supposedly helps, too.


I can't think of any time when I had a problem getting players to take an adventure hook. On the other hand, I tend to throw a bunch of hooks at the players and usually at least one of them sticks. Maybe I've been lucky with my players, so it would be hard for me to give advice in this department. The only real complaint I can remember is that one player said there was too much adventure in a too short in-game time so they got too much XP and wanted slower character progression. I found that was an interesting comment, and it highlighted the fact that this particular game system's XP award system didn't really fit with my (then usual) habit of sprinkling adventure around like faerie dust. That was like 14-15 years ago now though.

Hmmm... I don't see a way to connect it to this thread at this time, but, at some point, I may try an experiment with this...

EDIT:
Technically, Quertus said most GMs. With that premise, it is safe to assume it also includes me (as it is bad form to assume you are somehow in the "good minority").

I can certainly see how certain types of control freaks could be attracted to being GMs. What I can't understand is why anyone would play with them. I mean, RPG as a whole is a team game so everyone would benefit from being a team player.

I did also qualify it with "IME", rather than make it a universal statement. So, technically, you'd only have to follow your "good form" if you knew me IRL.

My experience is also why my bias is to start with the assumption that the problem is in the GM's chair.

As to why a group traditionally known for lacking social skills would accept the least team-oriented of their friends being in the ostensibly least team oriented position, and one that, on the surface at least, best suits their personality and inclinations, and makes them happy? As to why a group traditionally known for lacking social skills might not be able to accurately recognize the source of the problem when the GM being GM creates a toxic environment, especially when said GM is an authority figure blaming everyone else for their failures to read their mind understand their perfectly reasonable statements? This is left as an exercise to the reader.

[Delicious Taffy]

I had to stop reading these walls around Page 8, so if I've missed something, feel free to let me know.

It seems like this thread turned into a multi-layered battle of paranoia, hypotheticals, paranoid hypotheticals, and reductive language, and I won't pretend I understand what's being said anymore. I noticed faction choices being reduced to their base component (flavor), and then essentially dismissed as unimportant "because either way, the players will be getting quests and rewards". Well... No ****. Congratulations, the code has been cracked. I've seen this sort of thing a lot on this forum, recently, and it's a little tiresome. Of course if you break things down into their most simplified forms, you're going to unearth the long-hidden secret that games tend to have a rhythm and level of progression.

If I really wanted to define player agency, I'd say something like "Player agency is the player's ability to make a choice within the parameters set by the DM, other players, and game setting, and for that choice to have a noticeable effect on the campaign, whether large or small."

I've never had one of my players claim I wasn't letting them make any meaningful choices (outside of whining that they quickly realised was whining), because my players have never been stupid enough not to realise that there were already game rules, a particular setting, and a basic premise for their quest, before they even made their characters. If you establish these things, and the players understand that there will be certain limitations on what they can do in a given situation, the question of agency fades into the background, because it's taken as granted that everyone is on the same page.

For example, let's say my players are in front of a locked door. At first glance, they don't know the door is locked. They could attempt to open it conventionally, find out it's locked, and work from there. They could assume it's locked from the start, and find out how to unlock it. They could light the door on fire, because what the hell do they care about some punk-ass door, that door isn't the boss around here. So long as their character sheets, the setting, or common sense don't prevent it, they have full agency, and nobody is robbed of anything.

Or, they could try to flash-step through the door, even though none of them are capable of flash-stepping. One of the players could have the key to the door in their hand, with it being very obvious that all they need to do next is insert the key into the lock, turn it, and open the door. If that player then suffers from a sudden fit on insanity and decides, unprompted, that the door will only open if a specific tune is yodeled backwards, is it railroading, tyranny, or the removal of agency for me to then inform them that the door remains locked?

Point being: If the rules, regulations, boundaries, and other parameters are set, player agency is the player being able to make a choice and have it affect the game within those parameters. Otherwise, what's the point of even having rules?

[Quertus]

@Delicious Taffy: it sounds like you define Player Agency approximately the way I did when I started this thread.

The issue with this definition is that some games give the Player agency that the Character does not have - and some players are very concerned with this "OOC Agency". Then there's things that straddle the line, like Hero Points / Fate Points / rerolls.

Personally, I'm generally only concerned with "within capabilities" Agency, but do you find it somehow wrong to include other forms of ability to affect the game under the heading Player Agency?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Player agency is not the same as character agency (at least to me). There are ways that a DM can impose on a player unjustly without the character being aware of it, but still impacting the player's knowledge, choices, or consequences. Unannounced (or arbitrarily changing) houserules, for example. Often, those affect how the character would have been built (which is by its nature outside of the character's direct scope).

For example, I was in a game where the fact that we were using 5e's encumbrance variant wasn't mentioned until we were in a position where the difference mattered, several months after I joined. I had built a 10-strength dwarven knowledge cleric--medium armor was fine and int mattered more to me than str for that character. The encumbrance rules are particularly punishing to clerics--their default kit is medium encumbering unless they have 15+ STR (which means dumping WIS). For dwarves, that kicks them down to half the speed of anyone else at best.

If I'd have known about the encumbrance rules up front, I would have built a different character entirely. That lack of knowledge incurred consequences for the character (lower AC, lower speed, not being able to carry all the books the concept demanded, etc) that I normally wouldn't have been willing to accept. It left a very sour taste in my mouth.

[Delicious Taffy]

The issue with this definition is that some games give the Player agency that the Character does not have - and some players are very concerned with this "OOC Agency". Then there's things that straddle the line, like Hero Points / Fate Points / rerolls.

I'm not sure what the real difference is between "what the player can have their character do" and "what the character can do". If there is one, I'd love to know it, because I've been under the assumption that if a player can have their character do something, their character is able to do it.


Personally, I'm generally only concerned with "within capabilities" Agency, but do you find it somehow wrong to include other forms of ability to affect the game under the heading Player Agency?

Have I given the impression that I would?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not sure what the real difference is between "what the player can have their character do" and "what the character can do". If there is one, I'd love to know it, because I've been under the assumption that if a player can have their character do something, their character is able to do it.


But there are things the players can do that aren't directly about what the characters do. There's choice of goals, there's choice of characters (building/leveling/etc), there's choice of game systems. All of those are components of player agency that seem to go missing in your definition.

[Darth Ultron]

I can't think of any time when I had a problem getting players to take an adventure hook.

Sadly it is a bit common.

The Dm tosses out hooks, and the players just ignore them.
Then the Dm will be like "Um, don't you players want to do anything?"
And the Players will be like-"Yea"
And the DM will be like "Um, then why not take one of them 25 adventure hooks?"
And the Players will be alike "They all sounded dumb"
And the DM will be like "Er, ok, then give me an adventure hook to make."
And the Players will be like "Um, we don't know"



I can certainly see how certain types of control freaks could be attracted to being GMs. What I can't understand is why anyone would play with them. I mean, RPG as a whole is a team game so everyone would benefit from being a team player.

Because a Control Freak is also often a good leader...and they are a Good Leader as they have the Control.

Even teams have Captains. The idea that you can just randomly put a couple of random people together and they will just somehow be beyond amazing at whatever they do if they just ''say they are a team'' is fantasy. It's not like each random person is somehow a perfect puzzle piece that just randomly fits together with a couple random other people to make a perfect thing.

And it would be wonderful if say everyone on a team was perfect, and had exactly the perfect percentage of everything all ways equal to the number of people on the team. Like if the team has five people everyone automatically has 20% of everything. Though this is next to impossible, of course, as everyone just has a set number of everything. And while it is easy for a high percentage person to go low, it is hard (often impossible) for a low percentage person to step up. And most people can't...or more likely won't...do it on their own.

And this is why teams have Captains. Someone who is in charge and does things that are right for the whole team. They keep the aggressive ones in check, and support the shy ones and so forth.

@Delicious Taffy: it sounds like you define Player Agency approximately the way I did when I started this thread.

The issue with this definition is that some games give the Player agency that the Character does not have - and some players are very concerned with this "OOC Agency". Then there's things that straddle the line, like Hero Points / Fate Points / rerolls.

Personally, I'm generally only concerned with "within capabilities" Agency, but do you find it somehow wrong to include other forms of ability to affect the game under the heading Player Agency?

Wait, are we agreeing too?




Point being: If the rules, regulations, boundaries, and other parameters are set, player agency is the player being able to make a choice and have it affect the game within those parameters. Otherwise, what's the point of even having rules?

I made this point back a couple pages and Everyone hated it...as it was too much of The Truth.

[Delicious Taffy]

But there are things the players can do that aren't directly about what the characters do. There's choice of goals, there's choice of characters (building/leveling/etc), there's choice of game systems.

...Okay, and? This stuff falls squarely into my previously-mentioned "other parameters" category. I didn't think I'd have to list out every individual factor that comes bundled with playing D&D. I thought it was assumed that if a player's already got a character, they've probably already established what game is being played, what goals their character has, what goals the party as a whole has, etc.. What I'm saying is, once all of that has been accounted for, player agency is the degree to which the player is able to make decisions of varying impact. If everyone has agreed to a game with binary choices, they have full agency at every decision point.


I made this point back a couple pages and Everyone hated it...as it was too much of The Truth.

Is it really that controversial to say that, once the rules of the game and campaign have been settled on, player agency is the ability to act within those parameters? That seems like the easiest conclusion to reach, from my end.

[Pleh]

Point being: If the rules, regulations, boundaries, and other parameters are set, player agency is the player being able to make a choice and have it affect the game within those parameters. Otherwise, what's the point of even having rules?

Are the rules "hard" set or "soft" set? I mean, are they absolutely unchangeable during play or are they subject to alteration as necessary? This is a spectrum analysis, as there can be a middle ground of: "unchanging unless absolutely necessary" but despite the sliding scale of possible Agency States, the principle is my point.

Why do rules have to be set at all before entering play? If the entire group truly wants the same experience, they shouldn't need any rules enforced upon them to willfully construct the same result. What is the purpose of instituting rules in the first place if players would construct the same game experience without them?

If the players are not seeking the same game experience and the rules are enforcing this game experience to coerce cooperation from unwilling players, how in the world is that any fun (except to people who indulge in the power trip of manipulating other people)?

Do note that there is a different set of parameters defined for the Player as the parameters defined for their Character. What rules should be enforced upon the Player? What rules should be enforced upon the Character?

Note the difference between rules designed to constrain a player so they can't do what they want and rules designed to present a challenge for a player to solve.


Is it really that controversial to say that, once the rules of the game and campaign have been settled on, player agency is the ability to act within those parameters? That seems like the easiest conclusion to reach, from my end.

No, what you are saying is not that controversial. It seems your thoughts are correct within the limitations of the scope of Player Agency your points are taking into consideration (hence my words above asking questions to highlight the distinctions that expand the scope of the topic).

Darth Ultron has received resistance for failing or refusing to recognize anything other people have really been trying to say in reply, instead substituting all kinds of weird misinterpretations of what they were trying to argue.

[Max_Killjoy]

Is it really that controversial to say that, once the rules of the game and campaign have been settled on, player agency is the ability to act within those parameters? That seems like the easiest conclusion to reach, from my end.


Before you get sucked into a pointless "discussion", check that poster's record on the subject -- that poster refers to player agency as "vile" and "tyrannical". However much that posterl deny this, its previous posts say as much.

Its idea of "If the rules, regulations, boundaries, and other parameters are set, player agency is the player being able to make a choice and have it affect the game within those parameters. Otherwise, what's the point of even having rules" is that the GM imposes their vision, anything besides what the GM planned is "silly" and "stupid", any objection from the players is "whining" or "tyrany" and the players can either go along with it or try to take over the game and make the GM powerless.

Here's a small sample of its "gems":



1.Very True. Railroading does counter the vile and selfish act of player agency, and this is a very good thing.



I get that you agree with the idea of Mob Rule and Popular Votes, but neither of them is ''right'' just as ''everyone(you know in your small, small, small circle)'' says they are. Just not how things work.



So, Player Agency: The vile, selfish act of a player to take control of the game for their own selfish whims and wishes. Not like it is a bad thing to limit, or even just do away with that.



I do understand giving the players the illusion of choice.



it is better to simply not give the players choices....lol.



Yes, and I agreed with this right from the start: this is Bad Railroading and now lets move on from this to Neutral and Good(DM Agency) Railroading.


Any time it says "everyone says" or "other people keep saying" or similar, you can assume with almost 100% certainty no one on that thread has actually ever said anything even resembling what it's claiming they said.

Its definition of "railroading" is anything the GM decides or puts planing into, set up as a false dichotomy with the opposed pole being "random" or "the players get to do whatever they want with no limits".

[Scripten]

Is it really that controversial to say that, once the rules of the game and campaign have been settled on, player agency is the ability to act within those parameters? That seems like the easiest conclusion to reach, from my end.

It's only controversial because Darth Ultron constantly misrepresents people who disagree with him and argues exclusively with strawmen. That's essentially the basis of this thread: DU's insistence that players do not, and should not, have any agency whatsoever.

No surprise that this is happening, though. Several of us have predicted this outcome.

[Pleh]

That's essentially the basis of this thread: DU's insistence that players do not, and should not, have any agency whatsoever.

And indeed, it seems if we were all to define Player Agency the way DU does, we would probably agree that it's toxic to games and should be exterminated at every opportunity.

But DU has a very warped idea about what Player Agency is, partly because they will not recognize any arguments to provide a more accurate definition.

"Because it's only Hatred for The Truth."

[Delicious Taffy]

Are the rules "hard" set or "soft" set? I mean, are they absolutely unchangeable during play or are they subject to alteration as necessary? This is a spectrum analysis, as there can be a middle ground of: "unchanging unless absolutely necessary" but despite the sliding scale of possible Agency States, the principle is my point.
I don't know if your rules are hard or soft. Either way, if you're able to act within them, you have agency.


Why do rules have to be set at all before entering play? If the entire group truly wants the same experience, they shouldn't need any rules enforced upon them to willfully construct the same result. What is the purpose of instituting rules in the first place if players would construct the same game experience without them?
I'm not saying rules have to be forced on anyone. But, if you're playing (just as an example) D&D, then there are absolutely going to be rules. I'm assuming for my definition that all involved players have agreed to play the same game. If they haven't, it's all up in the air anyway.


If the players are not seeking the same game experience and the rules are enforcing this game experience to coerce cooperation from unwilling players, how in the world is that any fun (except to people who indulge in the power trip of manipulating other people)?
What the **** is this question? I never said anything about power trips or coercing players into a game they don't want to play. Please stick to things I've actually said, please.


What rules should be enforced upon the Player? What rules should be enforced upon the Character?
Yeah, these are really good questions to ask, before you start the game up. I totally agree on that point.


Note the difference between rules designed to constrain a player so they can't do what they want and rules designed to present a challenge for a player to solve.
And that's a really important thing to take into account, when you're coming to a consensus on what game you'll be playing and how you'll be playing it.



No, what you are saying is not that controversial.
Good, I was starting to worry it might be, which would get annoying quickly.


[Snip]
I'll take that under advisement.


I guess I need to make this a little more explicit, but I've been defining player agency by how much the players can do within the set parameters, after the parameters have already been set. That means things like "What game are we playing? Who's the DM? What setting are we playing? Are there any additional table rules we should all agree on? What characters will we play? What classes? What are our motivations? What's our quest?" and so on.

[OldTrees1]

I don't know if your rules are hard or soft. Either way, if you're able to act within them, you have agency.

Sidenote: This thread has also been talking about agency as if there was an amount of agency rather than merely a boolean yes/no. Thus yes, if you are able to make meaningful choices within the rules, then you do have agency. If you can make more, then you have more. Thus you can talk about different amounts of agency (one of the nuance discussions in this thread was about the implications of the language we use when we include mention of there being a point of enough agency for the game in question).

Additionally, the nuance difference between your definition and the expanded definition of player agency are important but neither is technically wrong. Yours is more useful in discussions checking to see if the characters receive meaningful choices. The expanded definition includes some of the outliers yours does not and thus can be more useful when discussing those outliers.

For example: If I were talking about a DM that railroaded heavily, I would use your definition to discuss the almost complete lack of meaningful choices for the characters. Using the expanded definition would only let the DM try to confuse things by claiming some of the pregame player choices imply there was more than zero agency. On the other hand, if I were talking about a DM playing an RPG like fate but was trying to railroad the fate dice, then I would use the expanded definition to point out that fate dice normally are a meaningful choice the Player (albeit not the Character) makes and that railroading them is a decrease in player agency.


Is it really that controversial to say that, once the rules of the game and campaign have been settled on, player agency is the ability to act within those parameters? That seems like the easiest conclusion to reach, from my end.

No, it is not controversial. Darth just likes lying. His most recent definition of Player Agency was (paraphrasing) "When a Player tries to derail like a jerk, but they will fail because the DM will railroad." His definition before that was (paraphrasing) "Player Agency is when a Player is deluded into thinking they have meaningful choices, but they don't have meaningful choices because the choices are identical, uninformed, or will be subject to random retcon."

In contrast at the high level everyone else in this thread have been agreeing that Players being able to make meaningful choices within the rules of the game is Player Agency. Some have talked about Meaningful choices a Player has but their Character does not as an expanded definition, but everyone(minus Darth) is agreeing on the basic definition.

Although this thread has had some brief discussions about nuances. For example one of the definitions for Player Agency required that all facts be knowable (even if only OOC after the fact), which was challenged by asking if a hybrid choice (Ex: a choice entangling a blind choice and a meaningful choice) weakened the meaning of the meaningful choice component if the DM never revealed the other side of the blind choice (even if only OOC after the fact). I believe that discussion ended with "meaningful choices required being informed of the contained relevant details" rather "meaningful choices require all facts be knowable".

In conclusion, no it is not controversial. Darth just likes lying.

[Frozen_Feet]

But there are things the players can do that aren't directly about what the characters do. There's choice of goals, there's choice of characters (building/leveling/etc), there's choice of game systems. All of those are components of player agency that seem to go missing in your definition.

Nah. Delicious Taffy's definition reduces to the same one I've been using (=the ability to make choicea of impact). A simpler formulation of what you're saying, PhoenixPhyre, is that "character agency is subset of player agency". I think that should clear the confusion, as I don'r actually see a vital disagreement between your and Delicious Taffy's statements.

[Talakeal]

Sadly it is a bit common.

The Dm tosses out hooks, and the players just ignore them.
Then the Dm will be like "Um, don't you players want to do anything?"
And the Players will be like-"Yea"
And the DM will be like "Um, then why not take one of them 25 adventure hooks?"
And the Players will be alike "They all sounded dumb"
And the DM will be like "Er, ok, then give me an adventure hook to make."
And the Players will be like "Um, we don't know"


I think this is actually the most accurate thing DU has ever said.

[Delicious Taffy]

I think this is actually the most accurate thing DU has ever said.

True. I've occasionally wondered if my players even wanted to be at the table. The weird part is when they also don't want to stop playing, even though the last half-hour has been spent hem-hawing over what may or may not be an interesting action to make.

[Frozen_Feet]

I think this is actually the most accurate thing DU has ever said.

Even broken clock seems right twice a day. The phenomenom he describes is sadly common in other hobbies as well. I've been in that position as a scout leader, with me putting a serious effort in providing kids opportunities for different activities, only for them to neglect all of them. And when asked what they would like to do, all you get is a shrug.

[kyoryu]

In conclusion, no it is not controversial. Darth just likes lying.

Nah. I think he'll just say whatever he needs to defend his statements (and thus himself). Truth or lack thereof is of secondary importance.

[Pleh]

True. I've occasionally wondered if my players even wanted to be at the table. The weird part is when they also don't want to stop playing, even though the last half-hour has been spent hem-hawing over what may or may not be an interesting action to make.

It's easy enough to fix. Have the plot move on without them. Choosing to do nothing with their agency is another meaningful choice that deserves consequences. And if the other plot hooks are meant to have value, then this choice of neglegence ought to have less than desirable consequences.

You think a small raid on a goblin village is boring and stupid? Ok, they attack the town that evening, slaughter the townspeople, and take your characters prisoner while they slept.

You awake in a goblin prison.

[Max_Killjoy]

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." -- Rush

[Frozen_Feet]

Moving a game forward is easy, arousing interest in apatheic and passive players often is not. Worst case scenario, they become even more passive in response to an active GM, or get hostile.

[Tinkerer]

I don't think that I've seen an example of players not picking up any adventure hoods that wasn't due to poor GMing. If you generate 25 different adventure hooks and the players don't pick one because they all seem lame then there is probably a good chance that you made 25 lame adventure hooks (at least lame to the players at this particular table). If they are all passive hooks then perhaps they need a more direct hook like someone stealing something from the party, or a Mother****ing T-Rex stampeding through the market square.

There is a reason why my cardinal rule of GMing is always "Know your players". I've gotten pretty good at being able to size up a group of players within about half an hour of sitting down with them. Get them to tell you some stories about gaming in the past. See what parts of character creation they get excited about. Then when the game play hits during the first hour it is rare that I will say something which isn't some sort of test for one of the players at the table, tests which I drew up during the character generation process. Although if you are going to write down your conclusions make sure that the players don't see them... it doesn't go over well.

[Quertus]

Several replies eaten; in brief:


Nah. I think he'll just say whatever he needs to defend his statements (and thus himself). Truth or lack thereof is of secondary importance.

That wasn't me. I'm verbose enough already, I don't need additional things attributed to me. :smalleek:


There is a reason why my cardinal rule of GMing is always "Know your players".

That's one of the things I say most often on these forums. I heartily approve.

[OldTrees1]

Several replies eaten; in brief:

That wasn't me. I'm verbose enough already, I don't need additional things attributed to me. :smalleek:

It was me that said

In conclusion, no it is not controversial. Darth just likes lying.

Although, while Quertus is "verbose enough already", I do not mind Quertus getting credit for my words when they have said similar elsewhere.

[Cluedrew]

I think this is actually the most accurate thing DU has ever said.Actually, outside of any player-GM relationship topics (railroading being included here as too much GM control), Darth Ultron often says completely reasonable things most of the time. Except s/he doesn't often comment on those very often. And has recently also started blaming Caster-Martial Disparity and game imbalance in general on one way, which always seems to be bolded, of playing it and further that if saying if you play it a different way the problems go away.

As of yet, I have not seen him clarify what that one way is or say how it leads to imbalance. Nor clarify if that is a particular other way or just any other way. The latter is a bit hard to believe.

[kyoryu]

That wasn't me. I'm verbose enough already, I don't need additional things attributed to me. :smalleek:


It was me that said

Oops! Fixed.

[Darth Ultron]

one way, which always seems to be bolded, of playing it and further that if saying if you play it a different way the problems go away.

As of yet, I have not seen him clarify what that one way is or say how it leads to imbalance. Nor clarify if that is a particular other way or just any other way. The latter is a bit hard to believe.

I do so, often.

It is simple, The One Way is the Way the Everyone Collective plays the game. The way ''everyone'' agrees on, the common way...of at least the active posters and by extension most other gamers too.

Like you might notice when I post anything, there are all ways tons of people that disagree with me and all agree with each other: That is the Everyone Collective.

And, if you play the One Way you will have the Common Problems that happen when you play that Way. Just see any thread talking about problems in the game, and more then likely it will be a perfect example.

And as with anything if you change the way that is causing, exacerbating or allowing a problem to happen, then you can fix and eliminate the problem.

Though really this is a whole other thread.

[Talakeal]

I do so, often.

It is simple, The One Way is the Way the Everyone Collective plays the game. The way ''everyone'' agrees on, the common way...of at least the active posters and by extension most other gamers too.

Like you might notice when I post anything, there are all ways tons of people that disagree with me and all agree with each other: That is the Everyone Collective.

And, if you play the One Way you will have the Common Problems that happen when you play that Way. Just see any thread talking about problems in the game, and more then likely it will be a perfect example.

And as with anything if you change the way that is causing, exacerbating or allowing a problem to happen, then you can fix and eliminate the problem.

Though really this is a whole other thread.

Its like reading time cube.

[Cluedrew]

If the Everyone Collective's primary characteristic is that they disagree with Darth Ultron, where can I sign up? (Unless I have to agree with other members, than I'm out.) I disagree with everyone, some people more frequently than others.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If the Everyone Collective's primary characteristic is that they disagree with Darth Ultron, where can I sign up? (Unless I have to agree with other members, than I'm out.) I disagree with everyone, some people more frequently than others.

Heck, I disagree with myself as often as not.

[OldTrees1]

If the Everyone Collective's primary characteristic is that they disagree with Darth Ultron, where can I sign up? (Unless I have to agree with other members, than I'm out.) I disagree with everyone, some people more frequently than others.


Heck, I disagree with myself as often as not.

Unfortunately I think Darth Ultron "court-packed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937)" the Everyone Collective by inventing a number of strawmen that technically disagree with Darth Ultron.

[Max_Killjoy]

If the Everyone Collective's primary characteristic is that they disagree with Darth Ultron, where can I sign up? (Unless I have to agree with other members, than I'm out.) I disagree with everyone, some people more frequently than others.


Heck, I disagree with myself as often as not.


Unfortunately I think Darth Ultron "court-packed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937)" the Everyone Collective by inventing a number of strawmen that technically disagree with Darth Ultron.

To be fair, I think the two things we have in common are that we're all clustered around a similar definition of "player agency", and we all disagree with DU on what player agency is.

Of course, we don't disagree with it for the reasons it thinks we do, and the disagreement doesn't have the implications it thinks the disagreement does for how any of us run or play RPGs. And we all disagree on a lot of other things... A LOT.

[kyoryu]

We're... hahah....all... a..... hahhaha... coll.... hahhaha ective.... HAHAHAHA that... HAHAHAH.... all think..... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA alike HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I'm gonna die here.

[Darth Ultron]

If the Everyone Collective's primary characteristic is that they disagree with Darth Ultron, where can I sign up? (Unless I have to agree with other members, than I'm out.) I disagree with everyone, some people more frequently than others.

It is not just disagreeing with me....I'm just an example of someone who is not with Everyone. There are a couple others.

But take something like the Tier Thing: a great many gamers think this is super true and accurate and agree with it. And all the gamers that fall for this idea, play the game One Way.


To be fair, I think the two things we have in common are that we're all clustered around a similar definition of "player agency", and we all disagree with DU on what player agency is.

Of course, we don't disagree with it for the reasons it thinks we do, and the disagreement doesn't have the implications it thinks the disagreement does for how any of us run or play RPGs. And we all disagree on a lot of other things... A LOT.

I don't think Player Agency is really too much ''part'' of the One Way, other then it fits in with the vague ''whatever the players like" and the general ''player illusions".

After all, have a player sit down and play a game. Then after the game ask them if though the game had/gave them Player Agency. The answer will be simple and obvious: If the player had fun they will say they had Player Agency, if they did not have fun, they will whine and cry they did not have Player Agency.

[GreatKaiserNui]

I do so, often.

It is simple, The One Way is the Way the Everyone Collective plays the game. The way ''everyone'' agrees on, the common way...of at least the active posters and by extension most other gamers too.

Like you might notice when I post anything, there are all ways tons of people that disagree with me and all agree with each other: That is the Everyone Collective.

And, if you play the One Way you will have the Common Problems that happen when you play that Way. Just see any thread talking about problems in the game, and more then likely it will be a perfect example.

And as with anything if you change the way that is causing, exacerbating or allowing a problem to happen, then you can fix and eliminate the problem.

Though really this is a whole other thread.

On the last thread, while annoying, he was never this insane.
I think we broke him.

[OldTrees1]

After all, have a player sit down and play a game. Then after the game ask them if though the game had/gave them Player Agency. The answer will be simple and obvious: If the player had fun they will say they had Player Agency, if they did not have fun, they will whine and cry they did not have Player Agency.

Knowably false a priori & demonstrably false each time the test is replicated by a DM that isn't constantly railroading.


It is a badly designed test as any literate person would tell you. The existence of Player Agency vs the Illusion of Player Agency is best observed from inside the DM's mind. You go inside the Player's mind if you are asking about the existence of the Appearance of Player Agency vs the Appearance of Railroad.

Even then, it is obvious you are confusing the direction of the relationship. If you overtly deny Player Agency to the Players --> they will be unhappy. Not this silly claim that unhappy players randomly causes claims of no agency.




DM Railroads
DM does not Railroad


Player did not have fun
The Railroad was overt enough that the Player noticed and became unhappy. So they will answer No Agency
The Player is unhappy for some reason. Since they had meaningful choices, they will answer Yes Agency


Player had fun
The Player did not notice the DM's railroading or the lack of Agency. They will give a false positive
The Player knows there was Agency since they can cite examples. They will answer Yes Agency



Clearly this does not conform to your ill formed hypothesis. Players will answer "Yes there was Agency" if there was the appearance of Agency. The easiest way to create the appearance of Agency is to actually include Agency. Although there is the possibility for a false positive when asking the question to the wrong person.


On the last thread, while annoying, he was never this insane.
I think we broke him.

Technically that is Darth when on his caster/martial tirade rather than on his railroading tirade.

[Kyberwulf]

Not really commenting on topic yet.. I just wanted to say.. it's funny that people are okay with bullying. Singling someone out, them mocking them is fine I guess.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Not really commenting on topic yet.. I just wanted to say.. it's funny that people are okay with bullying. Singling someone out, them mocking them is fine I guess.

If they deserve it, absolutely.

[Cluedrew]

To Kyberwulf: I am against some of the things people have said about Darth Ultron, although sadly it is rarely because they are wrong, but for the general matter how is it bullying? He comes on the site voices his opinions and those that disagree voice their disagreement. In my mind it would be ruder to ignore him or lie to his face about the whole thing. Yes there are a lot of people who disagree with him, but that is hardly something we planned.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not really commenting on topic yet.. I just wanted to say.. it's funny that people are okay with bullying. Singling someone out, them mocking them is fine I guess.

For the record, we are NOT, repeat not OK with bullying -- which is precisely why we're opposed to the way DU describes treating its players and running its games, and the way DU tries to argue here.

With hubris and self-congratulation, DU describes engaging in all the classic behaviors of an abusive personality, and regularly engages in ham-handed transparent strawmanning, gaslighting, and a plethora of false dichotomies.


(And I'm using "it" because I'm no longer certain that DU isn't just some sort of chatbot, again, based on its behavior here...)

[Darth Ultron]

Clearly this does not conform to your ill formed hypothesis. Players will answer "Yes there was Agency" if there was the appearance of Agency. The easiest way to create the appearance of Agency is to actually include Agency. Although there is the possibility for a false positive when asking the question to the wrong person.


Um, you might have jumped threads...no Railroading here.

It is much more simple: If the player had fun, they will say they say they had Player Agency as they think they must have that to have fun. If they had no fun, they they will just say the game had no Player Agency.

But sure, overall, there was no real Player Agency, as it is just an illusion and not real anyway.

[Theoboldi]

(And I'm using "it" because I'm no longer certain that DU isn't just some sort of chatbot, again, based on its behavior here...)

You know, I think if you have to go as far as to dehumanize the person you are talking to by callimg them 'it', you have gone past reasonable opposition and gone straight into manic bullying.

Also, your argument that you as a collective not okay with bullying does not seem very convincing given that Koo Rehtorb just literally admitted to it being okay in Darth Ultron's case, and the fact that half of your posts seem less concerned with calling him out on saying stupid things but rather just sling insults at him.

Seriously, nobody is looking good here. Whatever was reasonable about you opposing Darth Ultron is long gone. At this point it's just people bullying an easy target so they can feel better about themselves. Doesn't matter if he is abusive, and whether anyone thinks he 'deserves' it.

[Quertus]

But sure, overall, there was no real Player Agency, as it is just an illusion and not real anyway.

Ok, let's try a hypothetical: suppose the system neither needs no has a GM. There are only players, and rules. Do the players have Agency in this system? Why our why not?

[OldTrees1]

Um, you might have jumped threads...no Railroading here.

It is much more simple: If the player had fun, they will say they say they had Player Agency as they think they must have that to have fun. If they had no fun, they they will just say the game had no Player Agency.

But sure, overall, there was no real Player Agency, as it is just an illusion and not real anyway.

Related topics are related. A railroad is an example of limited/zero Player Agency. Especially your games where there are no players, instead merely an audience duped into watching you play with yourself (citation: see prior DU posts).

However it is not that simple. As I pointed out above, a Player that had Player Agency might still have not enjoyed themselves that day. If so, despite not having had fun, they will still say "Yes, there was Player Agency".

[OldTrees1]

Not really commenting on topic yet.. I just wanted to say.. it's funny that people are okay with bullying. Singling someone out, them mocking them is fine I guess.

I would point out the difference between singling yourself out vs being singled out.

I would point out the difference between criticizing and mocking.

When we call Darth Ultron a liar, it is a reminder of an established pattern of posting behavior. It is not making fun of them. When we describe Darth Ultron's game as a duplicitous railroad, it is a reminder of the facts they established themselves. It is not making fun of them. When we claim that any literate person would see through one of Darth Ultron's strawmen, we are stating that we know Darth Ultron is arguing in bad faith (they are literate enough to know what they are doing). It is not making fun of them.

I will admit that this forum does de facto allow some bullying that is not allowed de jure. The forum commonly includes popcornEatingGifs when doing so (common examples can be found in Monkday threads or right before a bullied troll gets banned). While it is disgusting, it appears to go unpunished. So your concerns are warranted, but are generally misplaced when talking about Darth Ultron's threadspaning campaign.

[Quertus]

You know, I think if you have to go as far as to dehumanize the person you are talking to by callimg them 'it', you have gone past reasonable opposition and gone straight into manic bullying.

Also, your argument that you as a collective not okay with bullying does not seem very convincing given that Koo Rehtorb just literally admitted to it being okay in Darth Ultron's case, and the fact that half of your posts seem less concerned with calling him out on saying stupid things but rather just sling insults at him.

Seriously, nobody is looking good here. Whatever was reasonable about you opposing Darth Ultron is long gone.

Sigh. Where to start?

When someone, such as DU or myself, comes at a problem from such an unfamiliar and unexpected angle, the natural human response is to... kill the thing that doesn't fit, actually. Happily, we're more civilized now, and instead default to one of several slightly less objectionable actions, such as to assume the speaker is an idiot (or insane), assume the speaker is joking (or a troll), assume the speaker is ignorant, or, yes, attack the speaker for disturbing the status quo (usually only verbally).

I am not exactly happy with some of the responses to DU. And I recognize that many of my posts - where I unabashedly attack DU's ideas - could easily be misinterpreted as me attacking DU (him?)self. The same goes for other posters and their attacks on DU's ideas, style, etc - most are not attacks on DU. Sadly, I lack the social prowess necessary to formulate a precise analysis of which things therein cross a line for me and why, which is part of why I haven't really said anything.

Of course, intellectually, I'm not exactly happy with the way DU argues, either. Used to be, the rest of the vocal portion of the Playground was pretty well in consensus calling DU a troll; now, there's a lot more ideas circulating, from "intellectually dishonest" to "chatbot" to some form of insanity to, yes, troll.

We're gamers - we solve puzzles. Trying to reason through the DU thought process is a puzzle.

Personally, I'm still holding out hope that there is some more benevolent explanation for why none of us can find common ground to hold a reasonable discussion with someone who so obviously has a lot of good ideas buried beneath all that rubbish.

All that having been said, IRL I am absolutely willing to bully GMs and other people in power when they abuse that power, while tending to try to protect children and other people in positions of less power from being bullied. I've got to be careful with using bullying as a tool, though, as I've sent grown men into a corner curled up in a fetal position. Apparently, my player didn't think Charisma was terribly important, but maxed out my intimidate skill. :smalleek:

[Max_Killjoy]

You know, I think if you have to go as far as to dehumanize the person you are talking to by callimg them 'it', you have gone past reasonable opposition and gone straight into manic bullying.

Also, your argument that you as a collective not okay with bullying does not seem very convincing given that Koo Rehtorb just literally admitted to it being okay in Darth Ultron's case, and the fact that half of your posts seem less concerned with calling him out on saying stupid things but rather just sling insults at him.

Seriously, nobody is looking good here. Whatever was reasonable about you opposing Darth Ultron is long gone. At this point it's just people bullying an easy target so they can feel better about themselves. Doesn't matter if he is abusive, and whether anyone thinks he 'deserves' it.

Check its posting record, with the context of what its replying to.

Calling it a chatbot is the MORE generous and forgiving possibility when faced with that intense and continuous level of non sequitur and utter misrepresentation of the comments it's replying to.

That doesn't even get to the hubris, the insults, the belittlement, etc from that entiry.

[Theoboldi]

Sigh. Where to start?


By not being so condescending. That is an awful way to start a rebuttal. It sounds like you think I'm an idiot who doesn't understand the situation.

I don't like the self-congratulatory tone this whole discussion with Darth Ultron has. And that it openly declares the idea of bullying certain people to be perfectly fine, so long as one personally feels it is justified. It's at the same time dangerous, and makes everyone involved look horrible.

At least as far as I'm concerned.

I mean, I guess part of it comes down to me just not liking that I see people who I know can hold a genuinely intelligent and respectful conversation debase themselves to teach Darth Ultron some kind of lesson that he won't even learn.

Or because they apparently like insulting a chatbot that will probably learn from what they say and become even worse in the process. :smallconfused:

[Cluedrew]

I have a statement on bullying:

I disapprove of all forms of bullying as I understand the word. So I try to avoid that behaviour, but accept I could slip into it by accident. Which is why I asked if they thought I was. As for others, by form rules you will only be hearing about it if a moderator agrees with me and not from me directly.

[Segev]

Even broken clock seems right twice a day. The phenomenom he describes is sadly common in other hobbies as well. I've been in that position as a scout leader, with me putting a serious effort in providing kids opportunities for different activities, only for them to neglect all of them. And when asked what they would like to do, all you get is a shrug.Darth Ultron likes to pretend that this is inevitable, and that if you present a hook and players want to pursue something else, it's equivalent to players ignoring all hooks. That does not deny the truth of the fact that people can and do suffer choice paralysis. Presented with multiple options, they start evaluating the opportunity costs of picking any one as too high, and can't choose because they don't want to "miss out" on the others.

Having an "insistent hook" which, if all hooks are ignored, will forcibly drag them into something is a useful tool. (The distinction between this and Darth Ultron's proclaimed methods is that it's a fall back if you do get into "I dunno; what do you wanna do?" cycles.)

To take the scoutmaster example, if a number of activities are presented and none are taken up, the scoutmaster can have one he has determined is the default. If none are chosen, they're doing the SCUBA-assisted Underwater Basket Weaving merit badge today. Provided the activities are all ones they theoretically would enjoy, having the decision made will let them get on with doing an activity.

Choosing "the default" is a choice, but it's an easier choice than a more active one.


Knowably false a priori & demonstrably false each time the test is replicated by a DM that isn't constantly railroading.


It is a badly designed test as any literate person would tell you. The existence of Player Agency vs the Illusion of Player Agency is best observed from inside the DM's mind. You go inside the Player's mind if you are asking about the existence of the Appearance of Player Agency vs the Appearance of Railroad.

Even then, it is obvious you are confusing the direction of the relationship. If you overtly deny Player Agency to the Players --> they will be unhappy. Not this silly claim that unhappy players randomly causes claims of no agency.




DM Railroads
DM does not Railroad


Player did not have fun
The Railroad was overt enough that the Player noticed and became unhappy. So they will answer No Agency
The Player is unhappy for some reason. Since they had meaningful choices, they will answer Yes Agency


Player had fun
The Player did not notice the DM's railroading or the lack of Agency. They will give a false positive
The Player knows there was Agency since they can cite examples. They will answer Yes Agency



Clearly this does not conform to your ill formed hypothesis. Players will answer "Yes there was Agency" if there was the appearance of Agency. The easiest way to create the appearance of Agency is to actually include Agency. Although there is the possibility for a false positive when asking the question to the wrong person.


I'm not sure why you assume "players had fun" + "DM Railroaded" will get a false positive to the question "did you have agency?" People play rail shooters and go see movies, and know they have no agency, but still can have fun. Playing a linear hack-and-slash dungeon, or playing a module at a convention, you almost never will have meaningful agency, but people can have plenty of fun at those if that's what they go in expecting. Without even having an illusion of agency to fool them into giving a false positive to the "did you have agency?" question.

[Darth Ultron]

Ok, let's try a hypothetical: suppose the system neither needs no has a GM. There are only players, and rules. Do the players have Agency in this system? Why our why not?

Well, no. In this sort of game the players have Control. Again, as Player Agency is not real you can't ever have it, but sure you can say you have it.




However it is not that simple. As I pointed out above, a Player that had Player Agency might still have not enjoyed themselves that day. If so, despite not having had fun, they will still say "Yes, there was Player Agency".

I can agree with your statement that not many players are understand or ''get it''.


So your concerns are warranted, but are generally misplaced when talking about Darth Ultron's threadspaning campaign.

Well, except see you can't just say ''someone is wrong'' because you say so and then say ''well that means I can say or do anything as they are wrong." I don't really expect you to understand that though.


SWhen someone, such as DU or myself, comes at a problem from such an unfamiliar and unexpected angle,

I'd say Unique, as I'm not a member of the Everyone Collective.



the natural human response is to... kill the thing that doesn't fit, actually. Happily, we're more civilized now, and instead default to one of several slightly less objectionable actions, such as to assume the speaker is an idiot (or insane), assume the speaker is joking (or a troll), assume the speaker is ignorant, or, yes, attack the speaker for disturbing the status quo (usually only verbally).

Odd, this does not sound ''natural human'' to me....more like ''dumb caveman proto human''. And sure, put anything in front of such a caveman and they will be like ''smash!''. And it say it is human to just say someone who says something you don't like is an idiot, joking or ignorant is no better.

That is not what humans do....humans have the ability to accept what is different: You think Y, they think X. No one is right or wrong, and you just accept it.



Personally, I'm still holding out hope that there is some more benevolent explanation for why none of us can find common ground to hold a reasonable discussion with someone who so obviously has a lot of good ideas buried beneath all that rubbish.

It is a Sign of the Times and the World we Live In, and not just The Game.


I have a statement on bullying:


I kinda wonder what it was I ever typed that give people the idea that I ''bully''.

[Cozzer]

You know, there's also the fact that DU's behavior is deliberately constructed to gradually push other people into the kind of "bullying" behavior he's a "victim" of. This, of course, would not be an excuse for actual bullying behavior, which I don't think is what's happening here. But come on, he's not pushing people's buttons, he's playing a freaking symphony on them. Don't pretend this isn't exactly what he wants. Then people try to "fix" his "mistakes", mistakenly thinking there's something to fix and/or that it can be fixed, and the whole thread stops being about whatever it was, and becomes about DU and how you should deal with him and whether the others went too far etc.

Every thread in the roleplaying section I've gotten interested in has been derailed in exactly the same way by exactly the same person. Come on. Let's protect future ones. :smallfrown: It takes two to tango, except this isn't tango but some kind of terrible dance where everyone just ends up spraining their ankles (I'm better with basketball metaphors, ok?). Just let him play this dance alone. If he actually wants to dance, he knows how to do it properly. He just doesn't want to.

[Segev]

Well, no. In this sort of game the players have Control. Again, as Player Agency is not real you can't ever have it, but sure you can say you have it.Since DM Agency isn't real, players always have control.


I can agree with your statement that not many players are understand or ''get it''.



Well, except see you can't just say ''someone is wrong'' because you say so and then say ''well that means I can say or do anything as they are wrong." I don't really expect you to understand that though.It's a pity how DMs don't get that, just because they're wrong, doesn't mean that players aren't right.


I'd say Unique, as I'm not a member of the Everyone Collective.https://4chanmemeandmotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/unique_-_just_because_you_are_unique_does_not_mean_you_are _useful.jpg?w=720


Odd, this does not sound ''natural human'' to me....more like ''dumb caveman proto human''. And sure, put anything in front of such a caveman and they will be like ''smash!''. And it say it is human to just say someone who says something you don't like is an idiot, joking or ignorant is no better.

That is not what humans do....humans have the ability to accept what is different: You think Y, they think X. No one is right or wrong, and you just accept it.



It is a Sign of the Times and the World we Live In, and not just The Game.



I kinda wonder what it was I ever typed that give people the idea that I ''bully''.Well, admitting you like to sit down and tell players that you're smashing their characters like a proto-caveman DM might have something to do with it.

[Quertus]

By not being so condescending. That is an awful way to start a rebuttal. It sounds like you think I'm an idiot who doesn't understand the situation.

I don't like the self-congratulatory tone this whole discussion with Darth Ultron has. And that it openly declares the idea of bullying certain people to be perfectly fine, so long as one personally feels it is justified. It's at the same time dangerous, and makes everyone involved look horrible.

At least as far as I'm concerned.

I mean, I guess part of it comes down to me just not liking that I see people who I know can hold a genuinely intelligent and respectful conversation debase themselves to teach Darth Ultron some kind of lesson that he won't even learn.

Or because they apparently like insulting a chatbot that will probably learn from what they say and become even worse in the process. :smallconfused:

Hmmm... That wasn't the intended emotion. "Sigh, this is a big conversation (and I know about being a good programmer, so I consider being lazy a virtue). But where to start?" Is my intent clearer that way?

Also, to explicitly state it, I wasn't trying to imply you were an idiot. I was trying to imply that it was your good for being willing to call people out for bullying (regardless of whether you were right or not - and I personally feel some posts were only "valuable" as bullying).

[Cluedrew]

To Cozzer: What do you suggest? I have tried keeping the main topic of a thread alive, but it tends to get buried and I can't tell people to stop posting about the only partially off topic stuff that might be taking up posts. If you have a solution I would be glad to hear it, because there are times where it fits (like the thread Darth Ultron started about the thing most of the topics devolve into) or others where we have finished the main part of the topic (technically this one, although there was a more interesting tangent I wanted to pursue).

To Darth Ultron: About my statement on bullying, it wasn't aimed at you and I was surprized you thought it was.

[Darth Ultron]

Darth Ultron likes to pretend that this is inevitable, and that if you present a hook and players want to pursue something else, it's equivalent to players ignoring all hooks. That does not deny the truth of the fact that people can and do suffer choice paralysis. Presented with multiple options, they start evaluating the opportunity costs of picking any one as too high, and can't choose because they don't want to "miss out" on the others.

Odd, I don't recall typing that? If the players want to hook themselves I'm all for it..it does not matter where the hook comes from.



Having an "insistent hook" which, if all hooks are ignored, will forcibly drag them into something is a useful tool. (The distinction between this and Darth Ultron's proclaimed methods is that it's a fall back if you do get into "I dunno; what do you wanna do?" cycles.)

I very often drag players into a hook. I don't go for the ''lets sit around and do nothing'' idea. If the players really want or need to talk about things endlessly, I recommend they do this any time other then the game time. They can all get together and talk and talk and talk....and then show up for the game and are ready to do something.




Well, admitting you like to sit down and tell players that you're smashing their characters like a proto-caveman DM might have something to do with it.

This is known as being a Meat Grinder DM, and I'm very open about it. If you sit down and play in my game, your special character will be hurt. Don't like that? Don't play in my game.

[Segev]

Odd, I don't recall typing that? If the players want to hook themselves I'm all for it..it does not matter where the hook comes from.



I very often drag players into a hook. I don't go for the ''lets sit around and do nothing'' idea. If the players really want or need to talk about things endlessly, I recommend they do this any time other then the game time. They can all get together and talk and talk and talk....and then show up for the game and are ready to do something.



This is known as being a Meat Grinder DM, and I'm very open about it. If you sit down and play in my game, your special character will be hurt. Don't like that? Don't play in my game.

Now, now, don't deny that you've supported what everyone always says about hooking players. I mean, you don't actually want to do it, because you've said your players won't follow them. Killing their characters is clearly why they come to your games, and they're happy about it. Don't ruin a winning formula!

[Cozzer]

To Cluedrew: I would suggest answering his first questions in a given topic (which are usually quite sensible, and it would be bad to ignore him before he start to provoke, giving him grounds to play the victim card), and just ignoring him as soon as he starts obiviously provoking.

But yeah, the problem is that no solution will ever work if even one or two people get caught in the DU maelstrom, and are active enough to bury the "main topic". You know, protecting is hard mode, destructing is easy mode. :smalltongue: But I hope that as more and more people tire of him, sooner or later it will be the DU maelstrom that gets buried by the main topic.

[Frozen_Feet]

Darth Ultron likes to pretend that this is inevitable, and that if you present a hook and players want to pursue something else, it's equivalent to players ignoring all hooks. That does not deny the truth of the fact that people can and do suffer choice paralysis. Presented with multiple options, they start evaluating the opportunity costs of picking any one as too high, and can't choose because they don't want to "miss out" on the others.

Having an "insistent hook" which, if all hooks are ignored, will forcibly drag them into something is a useful tool. (The distinction between this and Darth Ultron's proclaimed methods is that it's a fall back if you do get into "I dunno; what do you wanna do?" cycles.)

To take the scoutmaster example, if a number of activities are presented and none are taken up, the scoutmaster can have one he has determined is the default. If none are chosen, they're doing the SCUBA-assisted Underwater Basket Weaving merit badge today. Provided the activities are all ones they theoretically would enjoy, having the decision made will let them get on with doing an activity.

Choosing "the default" is a choice, but it's an easier choice than a more active one.

You seem to have missed a post. Let's recap: the problem in the scenario under discussion is not decision paralysis. It is player passivity and apathy.

And that's why GM simply moving the game ahead, or the Scoutmaster picking the activity, is not a solution, because it's addressing the wrong problem. I know from experience that just going "fine, since you can't decide between X, Y and Z, we'll do X" is not sufficient to create any sort of interest towards X, when the reason none of X, Y or Z were chosen was because the players/kids deemed them all boring.

[Darth Ultron]

Now, now, don't deny that you've supported what everyone always says about hooking players. I mean, you don't actually want to do it, because you've said your players won't follow them. Killing their characters is clearly why they come to your games, and they're happy about it. Don't ruin a winning formula!

It is true I do want players that are much more ''lets do this'' and not the ones that just sit there like goldfish in a bowl and say ''DM hook us".

And the good players at least try to avoid character death.


DU maelstrom

Humm, needs a better name....


You seem to have missed a post. Let's recap: the problem in the scenario under discussion is not decision paralysis. It is player passivity and apathy.


Makes sense to me. Player passivity and apathy is a good way to put it.

[OldTrees1]

I'm not sure why you assume "players had fun" + "DM Railroaded" will get a false positive to the question "did you have agency?" People play rail shooters and go see movies, and know they have no agency, but still can have fun. Playing a linear hack-and-slash dungeon, or playing a module at a convention, you almost never will have meaningful agency, but people can have plenty of fun at those if that's what they go in expecting. Without even having an illusion of agency to fool them into giving a false positive to the "did you have agency?" question.

I squashed a 3D matrix into a 2D matrix. Rather than list both cases that fit in that box, I listed the one that Darth had been drawing false conclusions from and that highlighted the fallacy of the question being posed to the Players rather than the DM. If it had been a response to you, then I would have included the full 3D matrix to highlight the general independence of the presence vs the perception of presence of Player Agency.

[RedMage125]

It is a badly designed test as any literate person would tell you. The existence of Player Agency vs the Illusion of Player Agency is best observed from inside the DM's mind. You go inside the Player's mind if you are asking about the existence of the Appearance of Player Agency vs the Appearance of Railroad.





DM Railroads
DM does not Railroad


Player did not have fun
The Railroad was overt enough that the Player noticed and became unhappy. So they will answer No Agency
The Player is unhappy for some reason. Since they had meaningful choices, they will answer Yes Agency


Player had fun
The Player did not notice the DM's railroading or the lack of Agency. They will give a false positive
The Player knows there was Agency since they can cite examples. They will answer Yes Agency



Clearly this does not conform to your ill formed hypothesis. Players will answer "Yes there was Agency" if there was the appearance of Agency. The easiest way to create the appearance of Agency is to actually include Agency. Although there is the possibility for a false positive when asking the question to the wrong person.


While, for the most part, I like to make sure Player Agency is protected in my games (that is, I like the players to be able to make meaningful, informed choices that have an impact on their characters' experiences), I have had an oddball group that disagrees with your chart here.

Basically, a group of people I played with (mostly military, like myself, and their spouses), under their old DM, almost always ran pre-published adventures. When I first took over as DM (old DM got new orders and was stationed in another state), I ran a short Evil campaign (so old DM could play for a bit before he left). When I run Evil campaigns (that is, PCs as Villains), I let the players know that most of the agency is in their hands. Villains are Proactive, Heroes are Reactionary. So they would have to move the plot forward, tell me what plot they wanted to enact and how, and my job would be to provide the world and how it reacted to them.

This group was PARALYZED by the absolute freedom of choice. They had a gist of what they wanted to do (overthrow a thieve's guild from within), but when it came to the "what do we do next?" question, they often spent hours talking without making any constructive decisions.

Fats forward about a month, the Evil Campaign story arc ended with a satisfying conclusion. The rest of the players (the ones who were going to be in the next game) came to me and asked me for, and I quote "a more structured storyline" because "they weren't big fans of being able to choose to do ANYTHING". I was floored. I've never seen this. I asked them, straight-up "are you guys asking me to give you a railroad plotline?". They considered it and said "We would be fine with that".

So how this relates to your chart...I object to the idea that players who had fun when the DM was Railroading results in any kind of "False Positive". There exists a breed of players out there who do not value Player Agency, and in fact, may find it to be an obstacle to Fun.

Mind you, this does not affect what I said about Player Agency. I DO value it, and when I DM, I make sure the story I write for the plot is open-ended enough to allow for the players' choices to alter where the story goes. But I do not believe that Player Agency is some kind of be-all, end-all goal. Player FUN is. I firmly believe that the ONLY "wrong" way to play D&D is where the people at your table are not having fun.

I don't necessarily agree with Darth_Ultron's methods for the way I run a game, and I certainly find his assertions of how he is somehow a "unique and independent thinker" that stands in opposition to the "collective"-as if that somehow makes him superior-to be petty and juvenile. HOWEVER, if all the people who play with him don't care about Player Agency, and they are all knowingly consenting to participate in a "meat grinder" style of game wherein a high attrition rate is expected...who are any of us to say that his style is "wrong"? Are we not undermining the very concept of "no wrong way to play" by telling him that HIS style is wrong? If he's got one unhappy player with his style and 3 or 4 happy ones, I recommend that one guy leave. I personally know a few people who would like to occasionally test their gaming mettle against such a meat grinder (maybe not as the ONLY style of play, but once in a while). If ALL of his players hate his style and are not having fun, then yes...he would be playing the game "wrong". As we have no barometer of the fun his players are having, we cannot say yea or nay to that.

[Cluedrew]

I asked them, straight-up "are you guys asking me to give you a railroad plotline?". They considered it and said "We would be fine with that".Well by my definition of a railroad (forcing the other players+ to take a particular path), that makes in not a railroad. Instead it is just a linear adventure. And if they asked for a planned plot, you are hardly forcing them to take it.

Aside, aside and relating to "What is Player Agency?". I don't really feel this is low player agency game, although I suppose it is lower. Because there are many areas of a game agency can be exerted. Think about Dragon Quest or Final Fantasy, not only do you not control the overall plot but you often don't get to control the characterization of the PCs or what they say. Yet there is still agency in the battles, exploration and equipment. You can play a table top game for the same reasons.

I feel you aren't taking full advantage of the medium if you stop there, but that is just the purist in me talking. I don't think I have to explain how that sort of game can still be fun. If anyone does need an explanation, read ReMage125's post again. My point is simply that agency exists in different areas and at different levels.

[Koo Rehtorb]

You know, I think if you have to go as far as to dehumanize the person you are talking to by callimg them 'it', you have gone past reasonable opposition and gone straight into manic bullying.

Also, your argument that you as a collective not okay with bullying does not seem very convincing given that Koo Rehtorb just literally admitted to it being okay in Darth Ultron's case, and the fact that half of your posts seem less concerned with calling him out on saying stupid things but rather just sling insults at him.

Seriously, nobody is looking good here. Whatever was reasonable about you opposing Darth Ultron is long gone. At this point it's just people bullying an easy target so they can feel better about themselves. Doesn't matter if he is abusive, and whether anyone thinks he 'deserves' it.

People who speak up about their terrible destructive opinions and behaviour need to be soundly mocked for them, lest we risk it becoming normalized. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil GMs is that good GMs do nothing, or something.

[kyoryu]

Mind you, this does not affect what I said about Player Agency. I DO value it, and when I DM, I make sure the story I write for the plot is open-ended enough to allow for the players' choices to alter where the story goes. But I do not believe that Player Agency is some kind of be-all, end-all goal. Player FUN is. I firmly believe that the ONLY "wrong" way to play D&D is where the people at your table are not having fun.

Of course.

The problem that people need to be aware of is that for some people, agency is the fun. So if you take that away, without at least being honest and letting the person make a decision, you take away the fun.


I don't necessarily agree with Darth_Ultron's methods for the way I run a game, and I certainly find his assertions of how he is somehow a "unique and independent thinker" that stands in opposition to the "collective"-as if that somehow makes him superior-to be petty and juvenile.

The "Collective" is the funniest thing I've read, though it's about par for the course here. It's just funnier than most of the unsupported strawmen.


HOWEVER, if all the people who play with him don't care about Player Agency,

I absolutely believe that his methods, knowingly or not, explicitly select out those people that care about agency as "bad players". I'm not so sure that's done in a healthy way based on his descriptions, but I'm not there and I have incomplete info.


and they are all knowingly consenting to participate in a "meat grinder" style of game wherein a high attrition rate is expected...who are any of us to say that his style is "wrong"?

I have maintained from the beginning that, regardless of my preferences, low agency and railroad games clearly appeal to some people. And I've got no problem with meatgrinders.


Are we not undermining the very concept of "no wrong way to play" by telling him that HIS style is wrong?

Very few people are saying that his way of playing is necessarily wrong. There's some descriptions that sound... almost abusive. Like, by his descriptions, it sounds like the way he weeds out players that care about agency is to basically push people around, and anyone that pushes back gets labeled a "bad player" and ejected.

But the game style itself? Nothing wrong with low agency, railroady games.

What people *do* get on him about is his discussion style, which seems to mostly revolve around strawment, ad hominem attacks, and non sequiturs.


If he's got one unhappy player with his style and 3 or 4 happy ones, I recommend that one guy leave.

Of course. If you're doing an adventure path, and someone wants a game with more agency, they should leave (or, at least discuss witht eh group and see if there's a compromise. Similarly, if you're in a more open game, and people really want more of a railroad, that person should leave. Game with people that have compatible styles and goals.

[Pleh]

People who speak up about their terrible destructive opinions and behaviour need to be soundly mocked for them, lest we risk it becoming normalized.

Actually, this seems a terrible, destructive opinion and behavior. There is tremendously little to be gained by this reaction; if the target of ridicule were receptive to correction, mockery is likely unnecessary. If they are not receptive, mockery will only make them dig their heels and become more defensive.

I started into these threads assuming everyone receptive. I have since altered this understanding. I now target focused points that seem interesting to dig into discussion. I don't do much to try to convince others.

[RedMage125]

I feel you aren't taking full advantage of the medium if you stop there, but that is just the purist in me talking.
Lol, believe me, I generally agree with you, and was quite shocked when they asked me. However, since my personal bias DOES agree with you, I gradually introduced a little more and more choice as the next campaign wore on. First, I had NPCs lay out multiple options, any of which would be successful paths to take, then later it was some binary choices that could have meaningful impact. I was basically trying to wean them towards being able to enjoy having meaningful agency.

But I appreciate the compliment, thank you.


The problem that people need to be aware of is that for some people, agency is the fun. So if you take that away, without at least being honest and letting the person make a decision, you take away the fun.
I quite agree, you will note that what I said about D_U's game was predicated on "the players know what kind of game they're getting into".


The "Collective" is the funniest thing I've read, though it's about par for the course here. It's just funnier than most of the unsupported strawmen.

I absolutely believe that his methods, knowingly or not, explicitly select out those people that care about agency as "bad players".

What people *do* get on him about is his discussion style, which seems to mostly revolve around strawment, ad hominem attacks, and non sequiturs.

Oh, yes, I quite agree about his debate tactics. No argument there. I just had a bit of a vibe about people attacking him for his style of playing, and the sense that it made him a bit defensive, and his abrasiveness got worse. It doesn't excuse his behavior-not at all. But I think perhaps "the collective" (that is funny) may have aggravated the open sore.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Actually, this seems a terrible, destructive opinion and behavior. There is tremendously little to be gained by this reaction; if the target of ridicule were receptive to correction, mockery is likely unnecessary. If they are not receptive, mockery will only make them dig their heels and become more defensive.

It isn't about changing their mind. It's about not allowing it to pass unchallenged, because if people don't challenge awful opinions then they seem more normal to neutral observers.

And to be clear, this doesn't extend to someone having a difference of preferences over gaming styles. There's plenty of room for many varied and acceptable preferences and civil disagreements between people. Darth Ultron routinely crosses lines where "difference of preferences" doesn't cover it any more.

[pwykersotz]

It isn't about changing their mind. It's about not allowing it to pass unchallenged, because if people don't challenge awful opinions then they seem more normal to neutral observers.

And to be clear, this doesn't extend to someone having a difference of preferences over gaming styles. There's plenty of room for many varied and acceptable preferences and civil disagreements between people. Darth Ultron routinely crosses lines where "difference of preferences" doesn't cover it any more.

Now this is a terrifying opinion. :smalleek:

[OldTrees1]

So how this relates to your chart...I object to the idea that players who had fun when the DM was Railroading results in any kind of "False Positive". There exists a breed of players out there who do not value Player Agency, and in fact, may find it to be an obstacle to Fun.

IF a DM Railroads, and the Players do not notice, and the Players are asked if they had Player Agency, they are likely to answer "Yes they had Agency". This is caused a false positive (the signal you get out of the experiment is the opposite of the truth of the matter). You got a signal "There was agency" when we know that case was one of "There was not agency".

Consider if I checked the weather in an attempt to predict if it was a Tuesday or not. If I assumed rain --> Tuesday, then any time it rained on a Friday would be a false positive. Having false positives or false negatives without accounting for them via additional tests or statistical analysis implies your test is fallacious and worth scrapping.

So how does this relate? Darth's test of asking the Players whether or not the DM allowed Player Agency that session and then separating that data based upon the unrelated statistic of whether they had fun that session or not is similarly flawed in that all 4 quadrants can have either a false positive (when the DM Railroads but the Players did not notice regardless of if they had fun) or a false negative (when the DM provided Player Agency but the Players did not notice regardless of if they had fun).

If you check Darth Ultron's post that I was replying to, you will realize neither of us were talking about the Players that have fun when they know they had no Player Agency.


So regardless of your preference for game structure:
1) You can agree that the test Darth Ultron proposed is full of false positives and false negatives thus invalidating the conclusions Darth is attempting to draw.
2) That Player Agency is not merely code for if the Players had fun that session.

[Darth Ultron]

if all the people who play with him don't care about Player Agency, and they are all knowingly consenting to participate in a "meat grinder" style of game wherein a high attrition rate is expected...who are any of us to say that his style is "wrong"?

I'm sure most of my players would say my game has a high amount of Player Agency, if they were the type of Collective Players that believed such things. Of course they are also just going by the idea that ''if they had fun, then the game had Player Agency''.

And I'd tell them it is an illusion, if they asked.



If ALL of his players hate his style and are not having fun, then yes...he would be playing the game "wrong". As we have no barometer of the fun his players are having, we cannot say yea or nay to that.

Well, even if all the players hate the game, it does not make the game wrong.....it is just wrong for those couple of players.


Darth Ultron routinely crosses lines where "difference of preferences" doesn't cover it any more.

I do wonder what lines you see crossed?


IF a DM Railroads, and the Players do not notice, and the Players are asked if they had Player Agency, they are likely to answer "Yes they had Agency". This is caused a false positive (the signal you get out of the experiment is the opposite of the truth you wanted the experiment to reveal).

Well, I'd note the players will also had to have fun and like the game to say it had Player Agency too. But it's not exactly a false positive, it is more just how clueless people are.



If you check Darth Ultron's post that I was replying to, you will realize neither of us were talking about the Players that have fun when they know they had no Player Agency.

Well, fun is the only way to really judge if a player had ''agency'', as there is nothing else to even remotely base it on. The Average Game does not tell the players every single tiny detail about every single thing in the whole game. So the players can't ''know'' anything for sure...unless the DM rolls over and tells them. And sure, a lot of DM's do this to make their players like them(as it works). I never have and never will tell any player any detail about the game; as far as the players are concerned, everything is unknown.

[Pleh]

It isn't about changing their mind. It's about not allowing it to pass unchallenged, because if people don't challenge awful opinions then they seem more normal to neutral observers.

The opinion can be challenged without resorting to public defamation. Peaceful resistance is almost certainly a better strategy. Also, there is a danger of creating sympathy for the opinion you attack if neutral observers perceive excessive force being used on your part.

[OldTrees1]

Well, I'd note the players will also had to have fun and like the game to say it had Player Agency too. But it's not exactly a false positive, it is more just how clueless people are.

Well, fun is the only way to really judge if a player had ''agency'', as there is nothing else to even remotely base it on. The Average Game does not tell the players every single tiny detail about every single thing in the whole game. So the players can't ''know'' anything for sure...unless the DM rolls over and tells them. And sure, a lot of DM's do this to make their players like them(as it works). I never have and never will tell any player any detail about the game; as far as the players are concerned, everything is unknown.

If there was no X and your test returns that there was X, that is a false positive.

If there was no Player Agency (and no, Players having fun is not the same as Player Agency) but your test returns a statement that "there was Player Agency", then that is a false positive you failed to account for in the design of your experiment.

Furthermore we can look at RedMage's example where their Players had too much Player Agency and did not have a fun session. You predicted that they would cry that there was no Player Agency. Instead, as a resounding refutation of your hypothesis, those Players said they did have Player Agency. So clearly the lack of enjoyment does not imply Players will cry that there was no Player Agency.

Player Agency is not merely code for if the Players had fun. If you can learn nothing else in this thread, learn that Player Agency is the ability to make meaningful choices rather than your straman about it being code for enjoyment.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The opinion can be challenged without resorting to public defamation.

Perhaps we're speaking about different things? I don't support lying about Darth Ultron. Pointing out the numerous awful things he's actually said is quite sufficient. My favourite is (paraphrasing), that cheating on your spouse isn't wrong if you don't get caught.

There is no moral obligation to treat everyone's thoughts and opinions as equally valid.

[Max_Killjoy]

The opinion can be challenged without resorting to public defamation. Peaceful resistance is almost certainly a better strategy. Also, there is a danger of creating sympathy for the opinion you attack if neutral observers perceive excessive force being used on your part.

The neutral observers should consider that when they come into the middle of the discussion, they often miss the context, which in this case consists of an endless list of examples of the "target" more than earning the disgust being shown by other posters.

It's all well and good to talk in theory about how ideally we all get access to the public well. But what are people supposed to do when someone like DU has absolutely and repeatedly proven themselves utterly determined to poison the public well -- by defecating in it?

Personally, I think at some point we have to point at that person and say out loud, "Don't let that one near your well, he's going to take a giant crap in it".

Also... it's not defamation if it's true.

[RazorChain]

I kinda gave this discussion and all the railroading ones a miss because I saw that DU was participating. All those discussion devolve into proving DU wrong and all forum members know that he's wrong

But

https://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/c_limit,w_680/fl_lossy,pg_1,q_auto/sc7vzc9okyuqfw47crpd.jpg

[Darth Ultron]

Player Agency is not merely code for if the Players had fun. If you can learn nothing else in this thread, learn that Player Agency is the ability to make meaningful choices rather than your straman about it being code for enjoyment.

Except the two will all ways be linked for Everyone Collective players. If the had fun, X must be true as it is the only way they think they can have fun. If they did not have fun, then X is false for the same reasons.

No Player who is a True Believer in Player Agency will ever say ''that game was no fun at all even slightly, but it had a super ton of Player Agency''.

Take your slain mentor example from a couple pages back, it still works out to: Fun= Player Agency.


Player Agency does not matter and is in fact just an illusion. If you can give up something and not notice you even lost it, then it does not matter much at all.

High, or Pure, Player Agency is Free Form: a player can have a character do anything on a whim and no one can say anything about it ever. Then you start to chip away at that for other RPGs. First you have the game, game setting, game rules and game concept. Then you have the social contract, common sense, and social norms. Then you have the other players and the DM. Then you have any self imposed things from yourself. And finally you have the story, plot or whatever you want to call whatever the game has that makes it not just a random free form mess.

Just look at that list, it is huge. It is going from having it all, to nothing...or so little that it is next to nothing.

[jindra34]

Except the two will all ways be linked for Everyone Collective players. If the had fun, X must be true as it is the only way they think they can have fun. If they did not have fun, then X is false for the same reasons.

No Player who is a True Believer in Player Agency will ever say ''that game was no fun at all even slightly, but it had a super ton of Player Agency''.

So despite not being one of the Everyone Collective (tm) players you understand how they think better than they do? You may have a better time convincing people if you used things OTHER than your own statements as evidence to prove your point. Especially since FUN is the sum of all the factors. If you drop the amount of agency but boost other elements players want it can still work out well. A fine touch, and good read is the most important skill of a DM/GM after all.



Anyway my opinions on Player Agency, what is, and WHY its good for the game. Player agency is the confluence of player freedom, player action consequence and versimilitude. It helps keep the players engaged and ward of monster/threat of the week apathy. Or just apathy in general. Its probably the number one factor of continued buy in. And personally? Personally I can have plenty of fun in a game where the DM doesn't give enough room for agency. Without stepping on the other players fun feet. Though it may be a bit smashing for the setting.

[Cluedrew]

Also... it's not defamation if it's true.I think that is slander. I think defamation can be based on truth or falsehood. More importantly, I don't think we have some duty to notify everyone about our opinions of Darth Ultron. I'm sure they will form their own soon enough. Personally, I'm more interested in making sure we can still have productive conversations about the intended topic while Darth Ultron is posting. Something that we are not doing write now, although I have hope that something productive can come from this.

I mean if we can build off of the ideas of ImNotTrevor and Cozzer and keep replies to him short and focused while the main topic continues. I mean 3 people in a row telling Darth Ultron he is wrong is both unnecessary and might be the seed of truth behind the everyone collective. It dirties the well, a post addressing the crazy things (or perhaps better would be two or three parts of posts that are mostly discussing the main topic) would be enough.

If you want to have a Clean Well Protocol (wow that sounds official) it would be something like: Reply politely, as short possible while still covering the subject, don't say things others have already said and try to say something about the main topic in the same post. You could probably add a lot of details to that, but that at a high level is the best way I can think of preventing crazy opinions from dragging a thread off topic.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think that is slander. I think defamation can be based on truth or falsehood. More importantly, I don't think we have some duty to notify everyone about our opinions of Darth Ultron. I'm sure they will form their own soon enough. Personally, I'm more interested in making sure we can still have productive conversations about the intended topic while Darth Ultron is posting. Something that we are not doing write now, although I have hope that something productive can come from this.

I mean if we can build off of the ideas of ImNotTrevor and Cozzer and keep replies to him short and focused while the main topic continues. I mean 3 people in a row telling Darth Ultron he is wrong is both unnecessary and might be the seed of truth behind the everyone collective. It dirties the well, a post addressing the crazy things (or perhaps better would be two or three parts of posts that are mostly discussing the main topic) would be enough.

If you want to have a Clean Well Protocol (wow that sounds official) it would be something like: Reply politely, as short possible while still covering the subject, don't say things others have already said and try to say something about the main topic in the same post. You could probably add a lot of details to that, but that at a high level is the best way I can think of preventing crazy opinions from dragging a thread off topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation


"Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed.Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel."

[Cluedrew]

That whole post and you decide to respond to the half line between "I think" and "More importantly"? I mean not that the definition link hurts but that really wasn't the point I was getting at.

[kyoryu]

Agency is important to me because I believe in this model of the game:

GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?"
Player: "I do this."
GM: "This is the new situation. What do you do?"

If what I do is irrelevant, there's little use in playing the game in this model. For other game styles (build a character, kill monsters, listen to a story), it may be fine to have little or no agency. But it is directly counter top what I, and I believe many other people, see as the whole point of the game.

[Darth Ultron]

So despite not being one of the Everyone Collective (tm) players you understand how they think better than they do?

Yes, I have training in this field. So I know more about such things.



Anyway my opinions on Player Agency, what is, and WHY its good for the game. Player agency is the confluence of player freedom, player action consequence and versimilitude. It helps keep the players engaged and ward of monster/threat of the week apathy. Or just apathy in general. Its probably the number one factor of continued buy in. And personally? Personally I can have plenty of fun in a game where the DM doesn't give enough room for agency. Without stepping on the other players fun feet. Though it may be a bit smashing for the setting.

Well, sounds like your just saying ''Player Fun''.



GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?"
Player: "I do this."
GM: "This is the new situation. What do you do?"


I guess this is a nice, vague feel good example. Though it does seem like your saying you want a character that can Alter the Game Reality on a Whim....but I'm sure you'd say that is not what you meant.

In a more Normal Game it is like:

DM: Describes the castle
Player: "Ok, Zom will attempt sneak along the outer wall towards the back door"
DM:The Troll guards don't seem to notice or react to Zom.

So I guess you'd celebrate forever that for one second the player made a choice? But it is not ''player agency'', it is just ''the player making a choice''.

[Quertus]

we have finished the main part of the topic (technically this one, although there was a more interesting tangent I wanted to pursue).

What sub-topic did you want to discuss?


The rest of the players (the ones who were going to be in the next game) came to me and asked me for, and I quote "a more structured storyline" because "they weren't big fans of being able to choose to do ANYTHING". I was floored. I've never seen this. I asked them, straight-up "are you guys asking me to give you a railroad plotline?". They considered it and said "We would be fine with that".

Yours is one of several stories that turned me from saying "railroading is bad" to "railroading is bad for me".


I don't necessarily agree with Darth_Ultron's methods for the way I run a game, and I certainly find his assertions of how he is somehow a "unique and independent thinker" that stands in opposition to the "collective"-as if that somehow makes him superior-to be petty and juvenile. HOWEVER, if all the people who play with him don't care about Player Agency, and they are all knowingly consenting to participate in a "meat grinder" style of game wherein a high attrition rate is expected...who are any of us to say that his style is "wrong"? Are we not undermining the very concept of "no wrong way to play" by telling him that HIS style is wrong? If he's got one unhappy player with his style and 3 or 4 happy ones, I recommend that one guy leave. I personally know a few people who would like to occasionally test their gaming mettle against such a meat grinder (maybe not as the ONLY style of play, but once in a while). If ALL of his players hate his style and are not having fun, then yes...he would be playing the game "wrong". As we have no barometer of the fun his players are having, we cannot say yea or nay to that.


Very few people are saying that his way of playing is necessarily wrong. There's some descriptions that sound... almost abusive. Like, by his descriptions, it sounds like the way he weeds out players that care about agency is to basically push people around, and anyone that pushes back gets labeled a "bad player" and ejected.

But the game style itself? Nothing wrong with low agency, railroady games.

What people *do* get on him about is his discussion style, which seems to mostly revolve around strawment, ad hominem attacks, and non sequiturs.

As to Badwrongfun, if some of DU's players are having fun, that's fine. But what he does to the other players who aren't having fun often sounds abusive.

Having fun at the expense of others is Badwrongfun.

The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas.


The "Collective" is the funniest thing I've read, though it's about par for the course here. It's just funnier than most of the unsupported strawmen

Yes and no. You humans approach things very differently than I do. Comparatively, I think "sideways". It would have been trivially easy for me to view you humans as a collective, because you have this strange "group think" of always approaching problems in this very same-y way.

Then there are less extreme collectives with strange outliers. The master artisan was a time honored tradition, until Henry Ford broke the collective, and introduced the Assembly Line.

Point is, DU is such a strange outlier, it would be easy for him to view our "odd" consistency of perspective (measured in distance from his) as a collective, if he wasn't aware enough to perceive our individuality, and his own uniqueness.

[Max_Killjoy]

That whole post and you decide to respond to the half line between "I think" and "More importantly"? I mean not that the definition link hurts but that really wasn't the point I was getting at.


Honestly I don't feel like arguing about whether we should be arguing over the arguments that DU wants to have. The only part I wanted to make clear is that if someone (DU) is constantly being an self-absorbed, self-righteous threadcrapper who advocates toxic deceit and bullying as "normal gaming" and constantly lies about what other people say and do... then calling them a self-absorbed, self-righteous threadcrapper who advocates toxic deceit and bullying as "normal gaming" and constantly lies about what other people say and do... isn't defamation, or an insult, or an attack.




Yes and no. You humans approach things very differently than I do. Comparatively, I think "sideways". It would have been trivially easy for me to view you humans as a collective, because you have this strange "group think" of always approaching problems in this very same-y way.

Then there are less extreme collectives with strange outliers. The master artisan was a time honored tradition, until Henry Ford broke the collective, and introduced the Assembly Line.

Point is, DU is such a strange outlier, it would be easy for him to view our "odd" consistency of perspective (measured in distance from his) as a collective, if he wasn't aware enough to perceive our individuality, and his own uniqueness.


Oh, he's "unique" alright... but I think Segev said it best.




https://4chanmemeandmotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/unique_-_just_because_you_are_unique_does_not_mean_you_are _useful.jpg?w=720



If the house is on fire, then the house is on fire... and that one guy screaming "You idiots, you fools, you morons, you simpletons, the house isn't on fire, this is the warmth of righteousness! What, is a little flame too complex and challenging for you?" while splashing gasoline on the furniture isn't "offering a useful alternative opinion".

[Cluedrew]

What sub-topic did you want to discuss?PhoenixPhyre's idea, talking about pitfalls in player agency, accidentally stifling it. After reading RedMage125 I would throw on how do you practice for "high agency games". How you do (assuming they are interested in learning) teach someone to make decisions in that ANYTHING! environment. Both of those are close enough they both feel appropriate in this thread and we might get something useful out of them.

[Darth Ultron]

As to Badwrongfun, if some of DU's players are having fun, that's fine. But what he does to the other players who aren't having fun often sounds abusive.

I'm not sure how it comes across like that. I'm very strict and only give a person three strikes. And I don't put up with any wasting of game time.



Point is, DU is such a strange outlier, it would be easy for him to view our "odd" consistency of perspective (measured in distance from his) as a collective, if he wasn't aware enough to perceive our individuality, and his own uniqueness.

Till all are One...End of Line.


PhoenixPhyre's idea, talking about pitfalls in player agency, accidentally stifling it. After reading RedMage125 I would throw on how do you practice for "high agency games". How you do (assuming they are interested in learning) teach someone to make decisions in that ANYTHING! environment. Both of those are close enough they both feel appropriate in this thread and we might get something useful out of them.

I don't think it can be taught. This is one of the ''you get it'' or you ''don't'' things.

Like Red, I find that most players...like 99% can't handle freedom. And sure, for a lot of them it is a learned behavior: so many players come to the table with ''my character goes to the tavern and looks for a quest to do'' idea. But a guess a lot of DM's do that.

It is hard enough with modern players to get them to grasp the simple concept that their character can try and do anything and they are not limited to the abilities on their character sheet.

[OldTrees1]

Except the two will all ways be linked for Everyone Collective players. If the had fun, X must be true as it is the only way they think they can have fun. If they did not have fun, then X is false for the same reasons.

No Player who is a True Believer in Player Agency will ever say ''that game was no fun at all even slightly, but it had a super ton of Player Agency''.

So when I provide one counterexample your argument is null and void. Congrats, you lost. I have had 2 sessions (out of hundreds) where I did not have fun despite there being plenty of player agency.

So since I am one of the people in this thread stating the conventional definition of Player Agency, and I have a counterexample to your hypothesis, your hypothesis has been shown to be false. Player Agency is not code for if the Player had fun. Instead Player Agency has a definition that will consistently reference and cite. The only thing standing in your way from understanding the definition, is yourself.

[Quertus]

I mean 3 people in a row telling Darth Ultron he is wrong is both unnecessary and might be the seed of truth behind the everyone collective.

Not really, IMO. They may have all made their posts "at the same time". Or they may have been hitting different points. But, even if they all said the same thing, well, some things but only need to be said, but need to be said that this is normal.


PhoenixPhyre's idea, talking about pitfalls in player agency, accidentally stifling it. After reading RedMage125 I would throw on how do you practice for "high agency games". How you do (assuming they are interested in learning) teach someone to make decisions in that ANYTHING! environment. Both of those are close enough they both feel appropriate in this thread and we might get something useful out of them.

Wait - how many different things is that?

For the last one, acclimating people to increased freedom, I find giving them examples, or pairing them with more experienced individuals helps. Kinda like with most things.

[Pleh]

Yes, I have training in this field. So I know more about such things.

I doubt this. To what kind of, "training" are you referring?

You might want a refund.

[Darth Ultron]

I doubt this. To what kind of, "training" are you referring?


Oh, you know real life stuff.


So when I provide one counterexample your argument is null and void. Congrats, you lost. I have had 2 sessions (out of hundreds) where I did not have fun despite there being plenty of player agency.

It is a good thing that arguments don't work that way. And just as you personally had two...to use your own words False Positive...does not prove anything.



So since I am one of the people in this thread stating the conventional definition of Player Agency, and I have a counterexample to your hypothesis, your hypothesis has been shown to be false. Player Agency is not code for if the Player had fun. Instead Player Agency has a definition that will consistently reference and cite. The only thing standing in your way from understanding the definition, is yourself.

Yup that is how it works, the Everyone Collective just says something random, and Everyone agrees and falls into line behind it....and maybe even think they thought of it themselves.

It is so simple, and like most Collective things impossible. Go ahead and type out what Player Agency is, but not in your endless stream of meaningless words, type exactly what a Player must do and/or a DM must do or not do to make it happen. Note how you can't do it.


Like lets take your example from a couple of pages ago. Now I'll use, by default, my Normal Game way...unless you want to do things differently. But if so, say so.

OK, I let players make up their own back stories...generally by themselves. I'll answer any questions they have, but leave the details to them. All Backstories have to be approved by the DM, and I'm free to do anything with the story I want too.

So we have player Bob, and he comes up with the 'great' back story that his character Zom had a mentor that trained him and was killed and now Zom wants revenge. But the player does not makes no details, and leaves it up to the DM to fill in. So the DM makes the killer another character trained by the mentor similar to the PC: a half orc named Skorn. The DM put Skorn as living in the nearby city of Tosk, as the leader of a evil group there.

So the game starts and the game play is in and around the home town of all the charactrers: the town of Hayvaven. So a good six game sessions pass...

1)So this is the one where the DM just takes ''bad guy'' and crosses it off to say "Skorn'', and simply puts the NPC right in the PC's way to encounter. And this fits within the game reality...Skorn is evil and lives nearby, so it is reasonable he might come an do evil anywhere.

2)This is the DM just puts Skorn nearby...so they player can hear something like ''Skorn is over at Blood Rock".

3)Is the player saying ''DM do my back story now'', and the DM doing 1 or 2.

4)Is the player doing the whole revenge plot story as a tyrant player/co-dm, where Bob says what and where and how everything will happen...and then demands/forces the DM to do it all his way.

So where is Player Agency here?

Then Bob mentions how he would like to do his 'cool' revenge back story plot

[Cluedrew]

Not really, IMO. They may have all made their posts "at the same time". Or they may have been hitting different points. But, even if they all said the same thing, well, some things but only need to be said, but need to be said that this is normal.I don't follow, except for the bit about hitting different points. Could you elaborate?


Wait - how many different things is that?Just two, avoiding pitfalls and helping people adjust to high agency games. In other words: Not pushing people down and bringing them up.

[Pleh]

Oh, you know real life stuff.

Looking for specifics. What kind of real world training? I have real world bachelor's in physics. What real world training do you have? As things stand, I actually don't believe you, since you deflect instead of giving a direct answer.

I'm not looking for personal information (like where you studied). Just a little more credential to your claim.

[OldTrees1]

It is a good thing that arguments don't work that way. And just as you personally had two...to use your own words False Positive...does not prove anything.
Counter proofs do work that way. You made a claim and I posted a counterexample.

Even if it were a false positive, it still disproves your hypothesis. You expected someone that did not enjoy a session to say there was no Player Agency. Since one of those cases said there was Player Agency (even if it was a false positive), your hypothesis is disproved because you predicted they would say there was no agency.




It is so simple, and like most Collective things impossible. Go ahead and type out what Player Agency is, but not in your endless stream of meaningless words, type exactly what a Player must do and/or a DM must do or not do to make it happen. Note how you can't do it.

We can and we each have many times in this thread.

Player Agency is when the Player is faced with Meaningful Choices.

For the Player to be faced with Meaningful Choices the DM needs to include choices where the outcome differs depending on which choice was made and the Player is sufficiently informed such that they can choose which option based upon the outcomes of the options.

The more Meaningful Choices the Players are faced with (both in quantity and in scale), the greater the Player Agency in that session.



Like lets take your example from a couple of pages ago. Now I'll use, by default, my Normal Game way...unless you want to do things differently. But if so, say so.

OK, I let players make up their own back stories...generally by themselves. I'll answer any questions they have, but leave the details to them. All Backstories have to be approved by the DM, and I'm free to do anything with the story I want too.

So we have player Bob, and he comes up with the 'great' back story that his character Zom had a mentor that trained him and was killed and now Zom wants revenge. But the player does not makes no details, and leaves it up to the DM to fill in. So the DM makes the killer another character trained by the mentor similar to the PC: a half orc named Skorn. The DM put Skorn as living in the nearby city of Tosk, as the leader of a evil group there.

So the game starts and the game play is in and around the home town of all the charactrers: the town of Hayvaven. So a good six game sessions pass...

1)So this is the one where the DM just takes ''bad guy'' and crosses it off to say "Skorn'', and simply puts the NPC right in the PC's way to encounter. And this fits within the game reality...Skorn is evil and lives nearby, so it is reasonable he might come an do evil anywhere.

2)This is the DM just puts Skorn nearby...so they player can hear something like ''Skorn is over at Blood Rock".

3)Is the player saying ''DM do my back story now'', and the DM doing 1 or 2.

4)Is the player doing the whole revenge plot story as a tyrant player/co-dm, where Bob says what and where and how everything will happen...and then demands/forces the DM to do it all his way.

So where is Player Agency here?

A) In none of the options 1-4 do you mention a choice the Players are faced with, therefore you are still talking about an off topic strawman rather than addressing the issue.
B) In the choices you forgot to mention, you forgot to mention if the outcomes differ based upon the choice made.
C) In the options and outcomes you forgot to mention, you forgot to mention if the Players were sufficiently informed about the outcomes of the options of the choice such that they could decide the choice based upon the outcome of the options of the choice

[Max_Killjoy]

Looking for specifics. What kind of real world training? I have real world bachelor's in physics. What real world training do you have? As things stand, I actually don't believe you, since you deflect instead of giving a direct answer.

I'm not looking for personal information (like where you studied). Just a little more credential to your claim.

Most likely possibilities:

1) He's lying. Again. Still.

2) Given the behavior he proudly describes engaging in as a GM, his behavior here, and the way he fixates on "power"... his "training" consists of watching Youtube videos on how to manipulate people, for example "how to score with chicks" advice from slimestains pushing the whole "alphas" and "betas" construct.

[Segev]

You seem to have missed a post. Let's recap: the problem in the scenario under discussion is not decision paralysis. It is player passivity and apathy.

And that's why GM simply moving the game ahead, or the Scoutmaster picking the activity, is not a solution, because it's addressing the wrong problem. I know from experience that just going "fine, since you can't decide between X, Y and Z, we'll do X" is not sufficient to create any sort of interest towards X, when the reason none of X, Y or Z were chosen was because the players/kids deemed them all boring.I must have missed a post, yes.

I wouldn't call active disinterest in any presented options, to the point that one being picked for them still gets "I don't want to do this" as a response, apathy or passivity. The fact that they can't come up with something they want to do instead suggests one of two things to me:

1) They each have things they'd personally like to do, but can't come up with something everybody in the group is at least okay with, or
2) they have one or more things they'd like to do, but for whatever reason won't admit to them.

Option (2) can be for any number of reasons, from the somewhat malign "we know we shouldn't admit to this" to the relatively benign "I am embarrassed to admit I like that nerdy/uncool/kiddie thing."

There's also a third option: they're all depressed and have no motivation. But that seems unlikely for a whole group to be that way.

Oh, I suppose option (2) could also encompass, "We'd rather be doing something that isn't in the category of 'scouting stuff' (or, at a game table, 'playing this game')."

Depending on how much of the activity is there for the good of forcing them out of a rut, the best response is either still to say, "Okay, we're doing X," or to say, "Well, let's cancel this and go do something else."


It is true I do want players that are much more ''lets do this'' and not the ones that just sit there like goldfish in a bowl and say ''DM hook us".

And the good players at least try to avoid character death.



Humm, needs a better name....



Makes sense to me. Player passivity and apathy is a good way to put it.Passive players do enable you to hand them their scripts and go along with your plot, though I'm not sure why you need players for that. Of course, if you have bad wicked players who say "let's do this" and try to take over the game, you can't do that, so obviously you're right, you don't want players who'll do more than sit there like goldfish.


I squashed a 3D matrix into a 2D matrix. Rather than list both cases that fit in that box, I listed the one that Darth had been drawing false conclusions from and that highlighted the fallacy of the question being posed to the Players rather than the DM. If it had been a response to you, then I would have included the full 3D matrix to highlight the general independence of the presence vs the perception of presence of Player Agency.I think you'd have been better served trying to expand the tesseract that way, because otherwise it's too easy to warp it into seemingly supporting Darth Ultron's model, which is the opposite of your intent.


Well by my definition of a railroad (forcing the other players+ to take a particular path), that makes in not a railroad. Instead it is just a linear adventure. And if they asked for a planned plot, you are hardly forcing them to take it.Linear adventures are railroads. Just because you happen to want to be riding the train doesn't make it not a railroad. It just makes a railroad not a problem.

"Railroading" is not always a bad thing. It's only a bad thing when it's forced on players who don't want it. People play rail shooters and have a great time. People play cRPGs where there's little to no meaningful choice in plot progression, and love them. Linear adventures can be fun, as long as the players signed on for it and they're well-enough written that the players aren't being asked to juggle idiot balls just to avoid derailing it.

(Well, and they're not being sidelined while NPCs actually do everything important and they're just fighting to succeed well enough to be allowed a view of the plot unfolding. I'm looking at you, Witchfyre Trilogy.)


Now this is a terrifying opinion. :smalleek:I'm not sure why. It seems common sense, to me. Don't let people say things you find disagreeable without at least pointing out that there is disagreement, lest it form an echo chamber that defines opposition to that opinion as "weird" and "outlandish."

[OldTrees1]

I think you'd have been better served trying to expand the tesseract that way, because otherwise it's too easy to warp it into seemingly supporting Darth Ultron's model, which is the opposite of your intent.

Yeah, you are right.

These are the full results to Darth Ultron's experiment "Ask a Player if there was Player Agency that session and check to see if it correlates with whether they did or did not enjoy the session". The goal of the experiment was an ill-conceived attempt at defining Player Agency based upon data collected by the responses of Players to the above question.

False Positives (There was no Player Agency but the Player answers that there was) are green.
False Negatives (There was Player Agency but the Player answers that there was not) are blue.


When the Player did perceive Agency



There was no Agency
There was Player Agency


The Player had Fun
Player: "Yes, there was Agency"
Player: "Yes, there was Agency"


The Player did not have fun
Player: "Yes, there was Agency"
Player: "Yes, there was Agency"





When the Player did not perceive Agency



There was no Agency
There was Player Agency


The Player had Fun
Player: "No, there was Agency"
Player: "No, there was Agency"


The Player did not have fun
Player: "No, there was Agency"
Player: "No, there was Agency"



Conclusion 1: Since the results did not depend on the rows in any fashion, Player Agency is not merely code for if the Player enjoyed the session.
Conclusion 2: Since 50% of the results are either false positives or false negatives, the test is terribly designed.
Conclusion 3: Since the results did not depend on the columns in any fashion, the test results are not causally linked with the data the test was nominally supposed to be about. Thus we can conclude you should not merely ask the Players about if the DM did or did not include Player Agency.

[pwykersotz]

People who speak up about their terrible destructive opinions and behaviour need to be soundly mocked for them, lest we risk it becoming normalized. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil GMs is that good GMs do nothing, or something.


Now this is a terrifying opinion. :smalleek:


I'm not sure why. It seems common sense, to me. Don't let people say things you find disagreeable without at least pointing out that there is disagreement, lest it form an echo chamber that defines opposition to that opinion as "weird" and "outlandish."

What you say, Segev, is entirely different from what I replied to. Pointing out counter-examples and driving discourse is wonderful. It leads to greater understanding. Mocking as a method of supression of an idea to prevent it from becoming normalized is apalling. Ideas should be challenged with ideas, not societal suppression.

Bad ideas still need to be critically examined and understood. Derision serves as a social vehicle to remove critical thought. Plus, it assumes that you yourself are not the one with the terribly destructive opinion, and no one should be arrogant enough to assume that all their thoughts, especially on something as wide-open as running a game, are free from destructive ideas.

I don't like thought police. At all.

[Frozen_Feet]

I must have missed a post, yes.

I wouldn't call active disinterest in any presented options, to the point that one being picked for them still gets "I don't want to do this" as a response, apathy or passivity. The fact that they can't come up with something they want to do instead suggests one of two things to me:

1) They each have things they'd personally like to do, but can't come up with something everybody in the group is at least okay with, or
2) they have one or more things they'd like to do, but for whatever reason won't admit to them.

Option (2) can be for any number of reasons, from the somewhat malign "we know we shouldn't admit to this" to the relatively benign "I am embarrassed to admit I like that nerdy/uncool/kiddie thing."

There's also a third option: they're all depressed and have no motivation. But that seems unlikely for a whole group to be that way.

Oh, I suppose option (2) could also encompass, "We'd rather be doing something that isn't in the category of 'scouting stuff' (or, at a game table, 'playing this game')."

Depending on how much of the activity is there for the good of forcing them out of a rut, the best response is either still to say, "Okay, we're doing X," or to say, "Well, let's cancel this and go do something else."

Neither of 1) or 2) need to be true. It's actually quite common for people to have no clue whatsoever of what they really want to do, leading them to have no motivation. Depression is not required, though depression can manifest as the sort of passivity and apathy that I'm talking about.

Also, your idea of "active disinterest" is flawed. When you have truly passive people on-board, they won't say "I don't want to do this". That would be too much effort. Instead, they just don't do or say anything without direct prodding. "We're doing X" is an option, but it's not in itself a solution. The GM/Scoutmaster must also address the reason for the passivity and do other things to create motivation and interest. This isn't easy.

Neither is "We'll cancel this and go do something else" a solution, unless the GM/Scoutmaster can create motivation and interest towards that "something else". Even when one or both of your 1) and 2) are true, it's not an easy task to get the passive people to spit out a good candidate for that "something else".

What I'm trying to get across here is that simply unilaterally choosing to push onward rarely creates any sort of motivation in other people. At worst, it makes them even more passive or hostile, like I said earlier. The question "how can I motivate these people to act on their own?" must be asked and addressed separately from "what will we do next?"

[Max_Killjoy]

What you say, Segev, is entirely different from what I replied to. Pointing out counter-examples and driving discourse is wonderful. It leads to greater understanding. Mocking as a method of supression of an idea to prevent it from becoming normalized is apalling. Ideas should be challenged with ideas, not societal suppression.

Bad ideas still need to be critically examined and understood. Derision serves as a social vehicle to remove critical thought. Plus, it assumes that you yourself are not the one with the terribly destructive opinion, and no one should be arrogant enough to assume that all their thoughts, especially on something as wide-open as running a game, are free from destructive ideas.

I don't like thought police. At all.

How about "behavior police"?

Because the core issue here is behavior, both the abusive deceitful manipulative behavior at the gaming table that has been openly and proudly self-reported by the person in question, and the person in question's continuously and deeply dishonest behavior in these threads.

[pwykersotz]

How about "behavior police"?

Because the core issue here is behavior, both the abusive deceitful manipulative behavior at the gaming table that has been openly and proudly self-reported by the person in question, and the person in question's continuously and deeply dishonest behavior in these threads.

I have two thoughts on that.
First: Alleged behavior. None of us game at that table.
Second: That's what the mods are for. If forum rules are broken or abused, that's for them to deal with. We have the power to report posts we find troubling.

Keep in mind, I'm not calling anyone out here. My record isn't squeaky clean either. I'm just saying that Koo Rehtorb's assertion disturbed me.

[Max_Killjoy]

I have two thoughts on that.
First: Alleged behavior. None of us game at that table.


Because we're talking about this person's self-reported behavior, the alternatives are that he does the things he says he does, or that he's lying about his own behavior -- I don't see any other possible options.




Second: That's what the mods are for. If forum rules are broken or abused, that's for them to deal with. We have the power to report posts we find troubling.

Keep in mind, I'm not calling anyone out here. My record isn't squeaky clean either. I'm just saying that Koo Rehtorb's assertion disturbed me.


I don't think there are rules against constantly lying about what other people have said and deliberately misrepresenting their positions and deliberately misusing terminology. So we're left in the area where we can say nothing and risk letting that person's lies define our positions, or we can call out the lies.

[RedMage125]

I'm sure most of my players would say my game has a high amount of Player Agency, if they were the type of Collective Players that believed such things. Of course they are also just going by the idea that ''if they had fun, then the game had Player Agency''.
All you show by this quote is that STILL, after this many pages of discussion, that you do not understand what the rest of us mean by the phrase "Player Agency". Player Agency either exists or it does not, irrespective of the players' perception of it. This is what OldTrees is trying to get through to you. It can be objectively judged to either be present or not. It doesn't matter what the players' perception of agency is, because there could be False Positives and False Negatives.

Player Agency was best phrased by a poster on the first page of this thread:

To me, agency (player or otherwise) is the ability to make meaningful choices.

That requires
+ Freedom: There have to be choices to be made. While watching a movie, you have no freedom to change the events. No agency. Rare that this happens in an RPG though.
+ Consequences: different choices have to have different effects. If a parent asks "do you want vanilla or chocolate ice cream" but, no matter what the child chooses, gives them vanilla, there was no agency. Only a false choice. As a corollary, you have to have the ability to choose wrongly. If every choice goes the right way, no matter what you chose, were you really making meaningful choices?
+ Knowledge: You must be able to (at least with some level of surety) be able to predict the possible consequences of actions. If every action involves a roll on a d1000 table ranging from success to "and the world explodes," there's no real agency.




And I'd tell them it is an illusion, if they asked.
In YOUR games, perhaps.

But that does not mean that it does not exist anywhere else. Other people-MANY people-run games where the players are able to make informed, meaningful choices for their characters that result in different consequences than other choices they could have made.


Well, even if all the players hate the game, it does not make the game wrong.....it is just wrong for those couple of players.
The only "wrong" way to play D&D is the one in which people who are playing are not having fun. If none of your players are having fun, the YOU are the problem. Granted, I don't actually think that's the case, but it's a juvenile mindset that cannot ever see when one is mistaken.


Well, fun is the only way to really judge if a player had ''agency'', as there is nothing else to even remotely base it on.
Just want to re-iterate, that you once again show that you don't ACTUALLY understand what is meant by everyone else's use of "player agency".

And that's not an insult. I'm not implying that such is some kind of defect. But it DOES mean that you are never going to contribute constructively to any discussion about the topic. It's like a person who has never before encountered an orange, nor any other citrus fruit-who knows a lot about apples-insisting on participating in a discussion about mandarin oranges, and INSISTING that what he believes about apples are relevant, and equating everything being said about oranges to something apple-related in his mind.



Yours is one of several stories that turned me from saying "railroading is bad" to "railroading is bad for me".
Aww...yay. ^_^.

That's one of the basic codes that I live by and try to promote in others' thinking. It is one think to say "x is bad", and another to say "x is bad for me". The former being a closed-minded objective value judgment based off of subjective preference. The latter simply being an expressed opinion. One that-most importantly-the speaker acknowledges is just an opinion or statement of preference. Nothing wrong with having a preference.


As to Badwrongfun, if some of DU's players are having fun, that's fine. But what he does to the other players who aren't having fun often sounds abusive.

Having fun at the expense of others is Badwrongfun.
Agreed.



If the house is on fire, then the house is on fire... and that one guy screaming "You idiots, you fools, you morons, you simpletons, the house isn't one fire, this is the warmth of righteousness! What, is a little flame too complex and challenging for you?" while splashing gasoline on the furniture isn't "offering a useful alternative opinion".

Lol.
It's one of the many falsehoods among what is currently popular "groupthink" in our nation today that "everyone's opinion is equally valid". No the F*** it is not. Some people's opinions are ACTUALLY wrong.

I actually dread the day when I will retire from the military and have to face the unwashed masses of ignorant hipsters, spoiled brats, and tree-hugging-dirt-hippies who have never been forced to contend with someone telling them "No, you're wrong, and what you said has no value". That thought LITERALLY gives me nightmares.


PhoenixPhyre's idea, talking about pitfalls in player agency, accidentally stifling it. After reading RedMage125 I would throw on how do you practice for "high agency games". How you do (assuming they are interested in learning) teach someone to make decisions in that ANYTHING! environment. Both of those are close enough they both feel appropriate in this thread and we might get something useful out of them.
I'd be happy to participate in such a discussion. I spent another year with those players, gradually "weaning" them towards more independence of thought and action.

I LIKE writing fairly well-structured storylines. Or at least...starting points. I know what happened BEFORE the game started, and I know what the enemy's plan was going to be BEFORE the PCs started mucking up their mojo. But I don't play D&D to just tell people a fixed narrative while we occasionally roll dice. I want to see where the players make the story their own. I especially love when the players are invested enough in their characters and my world that they get really into making said choices. To my personal idiom, that is the mark of success as a DM.



I don't think it can be taught. This is one of the ''you get it'' or you ''don't'' things.
And you clearly do not. What you have been calling "player agency" in your responses is-like I said-Apples and Oranges to what everyone else is saying.



Like Red, I find that most players...like 99% can't handle freedom. And sure, for a lot of them it is a learned behavior: so many players come to the table with ''my character goes to the tavern and looks for a quest to do'' idea. But a guess a lot of DM's do that.

It is hard enough with modern players to get them to grasp the simple concept that their character can try and do anything and they are not limited to the abilities on their character sheet.
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Please do not compare my outlook to yours. I have been playing D&D for 20 years (started in 2e), DMing for 17 of those years (3.0, 3.5, 4e, 5e, & PF). I have DMed in 7 states, on 3 US Navy Aircraft Carriers (on 2 oceans), for the RPGA at conventions, at college campuses, in home games, in hotel rooms, all over...and those players I mentioned who "couldn't handle" the freedom were ABSOLUTELY the outliers. THOSE players were the minority.

I brought up the example because while I value Player Agency, I value Player FUN first. And in OldTrees' chart, I misunderstood what he was saying, and thought that he was implying that any fun the players' had in a "railroaded" game was a "false positive" (By the way OldTrees, I get what you meant now, and I thank you for clarifying).

YOU do not understand what other posters even MEAN by "player agency", let alone value it. We're all talking about a very specific, measurable, quantifiable kind of orange, you keep insisting that we mean the apples you're used to.

[Segev]

What you say, Segev, is entirely different from what I replied to. Pointing out counter-examples and driving discourse is wonderful. It leads to greater understanding. Mocking as a method of supression of an idea to prevent it from becoming normalized is apalling. Ideas should be challenged with ideas, not societal suppression.

Bad ideas still need to be critically examined and understood. Derision serves as a social vehicle to remove critical thought. Plus, it assumes that you yourself are not the one with the terribly destructive opinion, and no one should be arrogant enough to assume that all their thoughts, especially on something as wide-open as running a game, are free from destructive ideas.

I don't like thought police. At all.Hm. I didn't get "mocking and social pressure" from the quote to which you're responding. I just got "calling out that it isn't the only opinion."

I agree that policing thought by simply saying, "If you disagree, you're a bad/stupid/unworthy person," is bad behavior. It is one of the plagues on the peer review process, in fact, in academia. ("If your paper doesn't conclude something I like, your scientific approach must be wrong, because a real scientist would conclude in agreement with me." And, to a lesser extent, "Your paper can't be any good; it didn't cite mine.")

But it is important to, when somebody voices an opinion as if it were fact, to speak up and point out that there is opposing thought to be had.


Neither of 1) or 2) need to be true. It's actually quite common for people to have no clue whatsoever of what they really want to do, leading them to have no motivation. Depression is not required, though depression can manifest as the sort of passivity and apathy that I'm talking about.

Also, your idea of "active disinterest" is flawed. When you have truly passive people on-board, they won't say "I don't want to do this". That would be too much effort. Instead, they just don't do or say anything without direct prodding. "We're doing X" is an option, but it's not in itself a solution. The GM/Scoutmaster must also address the reason for the passivity and do other things to create motivation and interest. This isn't easy.

Neither is "We'll cancel this and go do something else" a solution, unless the GM/Scoutmaster can create motivation and interest towards that "something else". Even when one or both of your 1) and 2) are true, it's not an easy task to get the passive people to spit out a good candidate for that "something else".

What I'm trying to get across here is that simply unilaterally choosing to push onward rarely creates any sort of motivation in other people. At worst, it makes them even more passive or hostile, like I said earlier. The question "how can I motivate these people to act on their own?" must be asked and addressed separately from "what will we do next?"Generally, if you want people to be self-motivated, you first have to get them to identify goals. Otherwise, they never will have reason to be self-motivated.

Once you know their goals, you can work with them to define steps to take. The first few goals, they may need you to push them, to tell them what the steps are. But you can help with this by asking them questions until they come to the conclusions and make the steps.

But at some level, at least to start, "Well, we'll do X, then," is often necessary.

That said, you seem to be describing problems I don't really recognize, despite them seeming like issues I've dealt with in the past. Since the solutions I'm discussing worked for me.

[OldTrees1]

By the way OldTrees, I get what you meant now, and I thank you for clarifying

No problem, it needed clarifying.

Sidenote: Good reaction towards those players. Your priorities are well calibrated.

[Frozen_Feet]

@Segev: you seem to be fairly well on the ball of what sort of a problem I am talking about, you're just not quite seeing how deep the problem can be.

Like, you say "if you want people to be self-motivated, you first have to get them to identify goals". Where as I'm speaking of people who have no goals to identify and they must be created from scratch.

And even just creating goals is not enough. I've been in a situation many times where people have apparently and enthusiastically agreed on a course of action, but when time comes to actually act, none of them do anything. Because the motivation was not there. Having a goal is just one, pretty superficial aspect, of creating motivation. There are many other important factors, such as how charismatic and entertaining the activity organizer is, which have little to do with the person we're trying to motivate.

[Thinker]

@Segev: you seem to be fairly well on the ball of what sort of a problem I am talking about, you're just not quite seeing how deep the problem can be.

Like, you say "if you want people to be self-motivated, you first have to get them to identify goals". Where as I'm speaking of people who have no goals to identify and they must be created from scratch.

And even just creating goals is not enough. I've been in a situation many times where people have apparently and enthusiastically agreed on a course of action, but when time comes to actually act, none of them do anything. Because the motivation was not there. Having a goal is just one, pretty superficial aspect, of creating motivation. There are many other important factors, such as how charismatic and entertaining the activity organizer is, which have little to do with the person we're trying to motivate.

I also find that rewarding goals helps with that. These can be both mechanical improvements (XP, unlocking new abilities, new loot that otherwise wouldn't have been acquired, access to a PrC, etc.) or narrative (a tavern renames itself in honor of a player, the organization that killed Character A's family has been dismantled, coronation as a noble, etc.). If you outline possible rewards at the beginning, it goes a long way to getting players interested in and sticking with a course of action.

[Segev]

@Segev: you seem to be fairly well on the ball of what sort of a problem I am talking about, you're just not quite seeing how deep the problem can be.

Like, you say "if you want people to be self-motivated, you first have to get them to identify goals". Where as I'm speaking of people who have no goals to identify and they must be created from scratch.

And even just creating goals is not enough. I've been in a situation many times where people have apparently and enthusiastically agreed on a course of action, but when time comes to actually act, none of them do anything. Because the motivation was not there. Having a goal is just one, pretty superficial aspect, of creating motivation. There are many other important factors, such as how charismatic and entertaining the activity organizer is, which have little to do with the person we're trying to motivate.

Yeah. Like I said, defining the goals is the FIRST thing. And I don't just mean, "define goals they agree to." I mean, "learn what it is they actually want to achieve, individually as well as as a group."

No, that's not enough, but it's an essential starting point. Next is helping them find a path towards those goals. Then is pushing them, providing motivation.

And then slowly weaning them from the external motivation so they become self-starters.

This is nontrivial, and not everybody is a self-starter.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Linear adventures are railroads. Just because you happen to want to be riding the train doesn't make it not a railroad. It just makes a railroad not a problem.

I don't agree. I think the term railroading implies a degree of coercion and force.

If people agree to a linear adventure then it's just a linear adventure. It doesn't become a railroad until the players want to do something else, but are forced to not be able to.

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't agree. I think the term railroading implies a degree of coercion and force.

If people agree to a linear adventure then it's just a linear adventure. It doesn't become a railroad until the players want to do something else, but are forced to not be able to.

Concurred -- not only has that always been my understanding of the term, these conversations have hardened that opinion.

There's nothing wrong with linear adventure if that's what everyone playing agrees to. There is something wrong with linear adventure when deceit and coercion are involved, and then it becomes railroading.

[Cluedrew]

Linear adventures are railroads. Just because you happen to want to be riding the train doesn't make it not a railroad. It just makes a railroad not a problem.I know some people use the term railroad to mean what I say by linear adventure, but I draw a distinction between the two. In fact probably I shouldn't even said "a railroad" because the definition focuses on railroading, that is to say the action as opposed to any concept of adventure design. 22561283


I'd be happy to participate in such a discussion. I spent another year with those players, gradually "weaning" them towards more independence of thought and action.I would too. Can we go to a different thread? I think this one is sick.

[Jama7301]

How do [the collective] you deal with a table of players with wildly different levels of agency comfort or requests?

[Koo Rehtorb]

How do [the collective] you deal with a table of players with wildly different levels of agency comfort or requests?

I find one PC being the leader and making most of the big decisions and the rest of the PCs following their lead works well with this.

[OldTrees1]

How do [the collective] you deal with a table of players with wildly different levels of agency comfort or requests?

On a case by case basis. :smallamused:

One common solution is to differentiate by which Players get access to which choices. The Player that desires very high Player Agency probably has a PC with an active goal they can pursue. I can coop that goal as a backbone of the campaign (that Player will have meaningful choices that impact the shape of the backbone). The Player that desires low Player Agency might decide to just go along with what the group decides as long as I can assure them that there will be something enjoyable in that direction. Then the "standard" amount of Player Agency can be placed in the rest of the structure to satisfy both the Players that desire high and middle Player Agency.

Ex: The Adventures of Conan the Barbarian and his trusty crew of Ghruk the Strong, Sif the Swift, and the rest.
(high agency, medium agency, medium agency, and the rest low agency)

This solution could be further improved to better accommodate the Players that wanted low Player Agency.


If I had Players that wanted both higher and lower agency than that? At that point we start to get into trying to play mixed genres at the same time. Trying to mix the low Agency that Horror uses with the high Agency of Reality Warping would be really hard to figure out. At some point it becomes too difficult for the DM to figure out and they split it into 2 games.


Of course then you could consider that desires about Player Agency are rarely reducible to a single variable. By asking the extremes about what parts in particular they are looking for, you might find surprising solutions.

[RazorChain]

I don't necessarily agree with Darth_Ultron's methods for the way I run a game, and I certainly find his assertions of how he is somehow a "unique and independent thinker" that stands in opposition to the "collective"-as if that somehow makes him superior-to be petty and juvenile. HOWEVER, if all the people who play with him don't care about Player Agency, and they are all knowingly consenting to participate in a "meat grinder" style of game wherein a high attrition rate is expected...who are any of us to say that his style is "wrong"? Are we not undermining the very concept of "no wrong way to play" by telling him that HIS style is wrong? If he's got one unhappy player with his style and 3 or 4 happy ones, I recommend that one guy leave. I personally know a few people who would like to occasionally test their gaming mettle against such a meat grinder (maybe not as the ONLY style of play, but once in a while). If ALL of his players hate his style and are not having fun, then yes...he would be playing the game "wrong". As we have no barometer of the fun his players are having, we cannot say yea or nay to that.

The problem has mostly been that DU definition of Player Agency and Railroading has been vastly different than anyone elses. In the start he meant that any kind of structure on the GM's part was railroading. It was either chaotic empty random world or railroading, even if the GM used a random table it was railroading if the GM made the random table. On Player Agency it was either the GM ran the game and there was no agency or the players ran the game and the GM said yes to everything. This has resulted in ruining many of the best threads which for example interest me because it devolves into 15 pages of arguments about things that don't matter......one says black is black while another maintains that it's white. I like discussions about agency, meaningful decisions and railroading but people always get trolled by DU.

The saying is never get into an argument with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[Quertus]

Go ahead and type out what Player Agency is, but not in your endless stream of meaningless words, type exactly what a Player must do and/or a DM must do or not do to make it happen. Note how you can't do it.

I'll agree that I can't write a program which would analyze a scenario and rate its "agency level". Closest I can come to your request is to say that such a program to measure agency would take into account the extent to which the GM has given the Player the knowledge, capabilities, and consistency to be able to make informed choices to affect affect the game state in intentional, meaningful ways. I expect others can give a better answer.


Like lets take your example from a couple of pages ago. Now I'll use, by default, my NormalGame way...unless you want to do things differently. But if so, say so.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


So we have player Bob, and he comes up with the 'great' back story that his character Zom had a mentor that trained him and was killed and now Zom wants revenge. But the player does not makes no details, and leaves it up to the DM to fill in. So the DM makes the killer another character trained by the mentor similar to the PC: a half orc named Skorn. The DM put Skorn as living in the nearby city of Tosk, as the leader of a evil group there.

You forgot to mention telling the player however much his character would know about Skorn, and the death of their mentor.

In an extremely odd case, for example, the PC may know of Skorn (as a fellow apprentice), and try to hunt him down - to get him to join forces to help avenge their dead mentor!

Knowledge is key to Agency under most current Playground definitions.


So the game starts and the game play is in and around the home town of all the charactrers: the town of Hayvaven. So a good six game sessions pass...

1)So this is the one where the DM just takes ''bad guy'' and crosses it off to say "Skorn'', and simply puts the NPC right in the PC's way to encounter. And this fits within the game reality...Skorn is evil and lives nearby, so it is reasonable he might come an do evil anywhere.

2)This is the DM just puts Skorn nearby...so they player can hear something like ''Skorn is over at Blood Rock".

3)Is the player saying ''DM do my back story now'', and the DM doing 1 or 2.

4)Is the player doing the whole revenge plot story as a tyrant player/co-dm, where Bob says what and where and how everything will happen...and then demands/forces the DM to do it all his way.

So where is Player Agency here?

Then Bob mentions how he would like to do his 'cool' revenge back story plot

Let me try for how I try to make my games work:

Option Q) the GM determines what come before, where Skorn is and otherwise what the state of the world is as the curtain rises. Then the GM roleplays the world. Skorn keeps acting in accordance with Skorn's knowledge, motivations, and capabilities, same as the PCs. If the PCs ask around about Skorn, they may learn information about him, his past or present whereabouts, or possibly even some clues as to his future plans. Of course, if they ask questions of the wrong people, word may well get back to Skorn that someone is asking about him/her/it.

Where is the Agency? In getting to add the elements of their revenge plot to the world? Sure, I guess. But, personally, I mostly look elsewhere. The players have the option to ask any question or perform any investigation within their capabilities, and make any conclusions or formulate any strategies they desire to shape the final confrontation with Skorn - or to take their grievances and evidence to whatever law enforcement agencies / bounty hunters they choose - or whatever else they can imagine and implement, including even ignoring Skorn entirely, and shaping an entirely different story out of the combination of the world and their characters.


I don't follow, except for the bit about hitting different points. Could you elaborate?

It hardly seems worth the ink to say that, sometimes, someone will post a reply before you finish your reply to a post.

And measurements of the strength, quality, and frequency of objections are all useful metrics. Multiple people making the same reply isn't just noise - it says something.


Aww...yay. ^_^.

That's one of the basic codes that I live by and try to promote in others' thinking. It is one think to say "x is bad", and another to say "x is bad for me". The former being a closed-minded objective value judgment based off of subjective preference. The latter simply being an expressed opinion. One that-most importantly-the speaker acknowledges is just an opinion or statement of preference. Nothing wrong with having a preference.

You misunderstand the depth of the issue - until posts such as yours, I honestly believed that railroading was objectively bad for all people.


"everyone's opinion is equally valid". No the F*** it is not. Some people's opinions are ACTUALLY wrong.

I LIKE writing fairly well-structured storylines. Or at least...starting points. I know what happened BEFORE the game started, and I know what the enemy's plan was going to be BEFORE the PCs started mucking up their mojo. But I don't play D&D to just tell people a fixed narrative while we occasionally roll dice. I want to see where the players make the story their own. I especially love when the players are invested enough in their characters and my world that they get really into making said choices. To my personal idiom, that is the mark of success as a DM.

I can only say that I agree with these sentiments.

[PhoenixPhyre]

@Redmage125, I think the key distinction in that story is that you didn't take their agency--they chose to surrender their agency. They used their OOC agency to voluntarily limit their IC agency. That's fine. Now if you'd have decided that they didn't want agency and had railroaded them without consent, that would be wrong.

And what about this? What if, in the middle of that linear story, they had knowingly gone off the rails. Would you have let them? They said they wanted rails, so make them stick to them? I'd say no. They made you their agent, but that doesn't make you the master, but the servant. And when the master wants his authority back, no good servant can deny it to him.

A DM is both master (of the game world) and agent entrusted with a portion of the players' agency. It's a large responsibility.

[pwykersotz]

And what about this? What if, in the middle of that linear story, they had knowingly gone off the rails. Would you have let them? They said they wanted rails, so make them stick to them? I'd say no. They made you their agent, but that doesn't make you the master, but the servant. And when the master wants his authority back, no good servant can deny it to him.

I agree with the rest, but this presupposes the DM is willing and able to do so. If the players decide to go off the rails and the DM lacks either the will or the ability to handle it after the initial agreement has been set, that should be a discussion, not a demand either way. Maybe a new game is started, maybe someone else DM's. But I don't really like your DM as servant metaphor. It's accurate to a degree, the DM isn't there to bully his players, but the DM has to have fun too. The players shouldn't run roughshod over him any more than he should over them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree with the rest, but this presupposes the DM is willing and able to do so. If the players decide to go off the rails and the DM lacks either the will or the ability to handle it after the initial agreement has been set, that should be a discussion, not a demand either way. Maybe a new game is started, maybe someone else DM's. But I don't really like your DM as servant metaphor. It's accurate to a degree, the DM isn't there to bully his players, but the DM has to have fun too. The players shouldn't run roughshod over him any more than he should over them.

True, but I tend to think that since the DM has intrinsically more power, he should be more willing to compromise. Discussion is always good. Talking like adults tends to solve almost all problems at the table that can be solved.

[RedMage125]

I would too. Can we go to a different thread? I think this one is sick.
If you start one, PM me with the link. I'm in the Navy and on deployment on a carrier right now, my internet is crap.

How do [the collective] you deal with a table of players with wildly different levels of agency comfort or requests?
This is essentially the kind of question that Cluedrew and I are talking about posing and discussing.
Koo Rehtorb and OldTrees1 had excellent responses.

The problem has mostly been that DU definition of Player Agency and Railroading has been vastly different than anyone elses.
I've noticed that, and have been pointing it out. He's yet to respond.


The saying is never get into an argument with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Lol.
And yet, I am, at heart, an educator, and I cannot resist the siren call of pulling someone up out of ignorance.



You misunderstand the depth of the issue - until posts such as yours, I honestly believed that railroading was objectively bad for all people.

Oh no, I quite understand. Which is why I am so pleased with your change of heart. I think it's important for all of us to recognize where the line of demarcation is between our own preferences and objective facts. That applies to more than just "railroading". I now encourage you to question some of your other beliefs and look to see where others' preferences are just that-a difference of preference-as opposed to them being objectively "wrong".

This is why I say that the only "wrong" way to play D&D is when people are not having fun. I believe our hobby THRIVES on customization and house rules. I've met and spoken with people who have told me some of their house rules and I knew immediately that I would not want to play with them. I usually tell them "a game like that isn't my bag", rather than "that sounds like an awful way to play".


@Redmage125, I think the key distinction in that story is that you didn't take their agency--they chose to surrender their agency. They used their OOC agency to voluntarily limit their IC agency. That's fine. Now if you'd have decided that they didn't want agency and had railroaded them without consent, that would be wrong.
Of course. What I hoped to do (and apparently succeeded) with the telling of that story was to share that Player Agency is not necessarily something that all players value. We must prioritize the fun of the players at our table, and not be so beholden to upholding "Player Agency" as a value in and of itself that we lose sight of making the game fun for our players. Most players DO desire some level of Agency in order to have fun. When they WANT it, and it is stymied, is usually what most of think of with "railroading"


And what about this? What if, in the middle of that linear story, they had knowingly gone off the rails. Would you have let them? They said they wanted rails, so make them stick to them? I'd say no. They made you their agent, but that doesn't make you the master, but the servant. And when the master wants his authority back, no good servant can deny it to him.
Lol, I honestly would have been so pleased, I'd have catered to it.

And what you have said about service resonates deeply with me, personally. I have served 11 years and counting in the military. Leadership-of any kind-is, above all else, a position of service to one's inappropriately named "subordinates".


A DM is both master (of the game world) and agent entrusted with a portion of the players' agency. It's a large responsibility.
This is the crux, ne?

A DM has the power (that is, the potential) to take away a great deal of his (or her) players' agency. To paraphrase Frank Herbert (in Dune), the one with the power to destroy something is the one with power over it. This is the very reason we focus so much on the DM's role in a player's power in this discussion. Power must be used and exercised wisely.

We must always remember what our REAL goal is. As I said, shepherding and protecting the players' FUN. While ensuring the players are able to exercise their agency is usually a good way to protect and nurture that fun, we must not become so focused on the means that we forget the end.

[Lorsa]

What you say, Segev, is entirely different from what I replied to. Pointing out counter-examples and driving discourse is wonderful. It leads to greater understanding. Mocking as a method of supression of an idea to prevent it from becoming normalized is apalling. Ideas should be challenged with ideas, not societal suppression.

Bad ideas still need to be critically examined and understood. Derision serves as a social vehicle to remove critical thought. Plus, it assumes that you yourself are not the one with the terribly destructive opinion, and no one should be arrogant enough to assume that all their thoughts, especially on something as wide-open as running a game, are free from destructive ideas.

I don't like thought police. At all.

Fighting bad ideas with good ideas would be great if everyone was rational and always striving towards the idea with the best arguments. That is unfortunately not how reality works.

Just as an example, there is a very strong scientific consensus that global warming is real and man-made. This is reached by doing just what you said; basing it on constructive discussion together with empirical measurements.

Unfortunately there are many people that still do not believe either in global warming or possibly that it is man-made. When faced with an overwhelming amount of arguments and empirical measurements they still say "nope".

So then what do you do? Allow these people to continue acting on their faulty belief or use a social vehicle such as derision to suppress their ideas and limit its spread in the population? One of them has the potential to save the planet, the other does not.

There are ideas that are harmful to the society. When these can no longer be fought with other ideas, would you just sit by and let them flourish?

You should always, at all times, critically examine your own thoughts and make sure that they are firmly grounded in arguments (which include facts). You can, however, not force other people to critically examine their thoughts. For that, you may need to use other tools, and social tools are extraordinarily powerful.

Derision in specific may not be the best tool to use though, and its effectiveness can be debated. Humans are, in general, social animals and they gravitate towards others with similar views. So if you can somehow isolate a person with a certain harmful and erroneous belief, you can avoid that thought to become normalized within society and get the individual to change their mind based simply on their intrinsic desire to belong.

[Cluedrew]

It hardly seems worth the ink to say that, sometimes, someone will post a reply before you finish your reply to a post.

And measurements of the strength, quality, and frequency of objections are all useful metrics. Multiple people making the same reply isn't just noise - it says something.But is worth the ink to say it? I mean I did say I felt the best reply would be a couple of partial posts so I see that part. But the thing is the productive conversations I've had with Darth Ultron did not involve half the thread picking his posts apart line by line. They pretty much always happen when there is just an exchange between me and him, generally covering one point at a time. No one can craft a meaningful reply to 3/4 point by point posts. Or at least I have yet to see anyone do it. OK it might have happened in "its what the dice said my character would do" but... well have you seen that thread?

To RedMage125: I'll see what I can do.

I might not be coming back to this thread after this, so no one feel any obligation to reply.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Of course. What I hoped to do (and apparently succeeded) with the telling of that story was to share that Player Agency is not necessarily something that all players value. We must prioritize the fun of the players at our table, and not be so beholden to upholding "Player Agency" as a value in and of itself that we lose sight of making the game fun for our players. Most players DO desire some level of Agency in order to have fun. When they WANT it, and it is stymied, is usually what most of think of with "railroading"

Lol, I honestly would have been so pleased, I'd have catered to it.

And what you have said about service resonates deeply with me, personally. I have served 11 years and counting in the military. Leadership-of any kind-is, above all else, a position of service to one's inappropriately named "subordinates".


Figured as much, but wanted to illuminate the difference between your story and a railroad.

Honestly, I have the most fun when everybody's having fun with the things I built or I present. And when they find creative ways to overcome things I never thought of. When they want to know more and interact more with the world. These all rely on them having agency. Even if that agency involves giving up the in-character/moment-to-moment choices knowingly.

This is why I can't restrict my definition of agency to in-character pieces only. Sometimes the "funnest" exercise of agency in a situation is to hand those choices over to someone else. Examples include linear stories (JRPGs--one of my favorites was FFX which was entirely linear but I enjoyed greatly), rail shooters, and even well-written adventure paths (where you have to stick to the rails or it all comes crashing down). All of these are voluntary delegations of choice to someone else.



This is the crux, ne?

A DM has the power (that is, the potential) to take away a great deal of his (or her) players' agency. To paraphrase Frank Herbert (in Dune), the one with the power to destroy something is the one with power over it. This is the very reason we focus so much on the DM's role in a player's power in this discussion. Power must be used and exercised wisely.

We must always remember what our REAL goal is. As I said, shepherding and protecting the players' FUN. While ensuring the players are able to exercise their agency is usually a good way to protect and nurture that fun, we must not become so focused on the means that we forget the end.

This is the flip side of agency. Responsibility. DMs should shepherd the agency of the players and never involuntarily remove it from them. If they chose to delegate their agency, the DM should use it carefully with the best interests of the player at heart. The biggest role of a DM is not to be neutral. It's not to provide agency. It's not even to follow the rules. It's to facilitate fun (his included). Everything is subordinate to that. Protecting agency, which might include wielding it on someone else's behalf (with their permission) is part of that but it's not the whole of it. It's why I'm a fan of OOC conversations. What do the players want? What do they want more of? What do they want less of? How can we make this more fun for everyone?

[Weimann]

Wow, this a really interesting topic. I'm going to read the discussion so far, but here's my take on the question as it stands right now:

To me, player agency is the point of the game. The way the players, by interaction with each other and the game system, collaboratively create the narrative around the table is the thing that separates the RPG medium from other types of storytelling, like novels or films.

[Pleh]

This thread moves quickly. I didn't have time yesterday to keep up with a few things I saw:


Hm. I didn't get "mocking and social pressure" from the quote to which you're responding. I just got "calling out that it isn't the only opinion."

Here you go:



Not really commenting on topic yet.. I just wanted to say.. it's funny that people are okay with bullying. Singling someone out, them mocking them is fine I guess.


If they deserve it, absolutely.

Ever since it came up, most people have been distancing themselves from the "mocking and social pressure." A couple people have attempted to justify it instead of distancing themselves.


It's one of the many falsehoods among what is currently popular "groupthink" in our nation today that "everyone's opinion is equally valid". No the F*** it is not. Some people's opinions are ACTUALLY wrong.

I actually dread the day when I will retire from the military and have to face the unwashed masses of ignorant hipsters, spoiled brats, and tree-hugging-dirt-hippies who have never been forced to contend with someone telling them "No, you're wrong, and what you said has no value". That thought LITERALLY gives me nightmares.

Take it one step further. Everyone's opinions will be wrong somewhere due to the fact that none of us have everything absolutely and unerringly figured out. (Ironically, the concept that a person has a better knowledge of things than another person is itself a common source of error.) In this sense, everyone's opinions are equally valid to the extent that there is an equally unknown, but nonzero quantity of error in every individual's thoughts. No one really knows for sure who has that one nugget of truth that just hasn't managed to take hold in the cultural awareness (largely due to competing biases that are based in something other than truth).

That is to say, any one of us could be right about something while everyone else is wrong and we all have equally the inability to actually dispel the inaccuracy in the minds of others.

Or more simply, it is bombastically presumptuous to claim intellectual superiority over other people when speaking to subjects of opinion. While you may know you are right about something, no one wants to be condescended to, so it's ineffective and unhelpful to correct them in a manner than places you above the other person. This is somewhat antithetical to Militarized organization, where the point is that EVERYONE is above someone or below someone.

The military is really great at employing conformity and submission to authority. It is intensely effective and a powerfully useful tool, but being devised by a group of individuals all possessing particular flaws in their individual opinions, the groupthink in that organization is equally flawed to some unknown, but nonzero, quantitative degree. The military strives to utilize, and mandate the utilization, of the most usefully accurate* answers our culture has been able to provide.

Ironically, you are speaking like a snowflake, afraid of what will happen when forced to leave your echo chamber safe space of the military and have to deal with dirt hippies telling you that you are wrong. The reality is that probably very little will actually happen. You'll probably just become more hard and jaded in your opinions and continue pushing back against ideas that don't suit your biases (and they likewise in return as you seek to correct them). It's just natural human psychology for this to happen and we have to actively oppose this effect to prevent its occurrence. But maybe you might actually listen one day and find something more behind a different set of beliefs than you had seen before and you'll be able to see both sides of the conversation.



*But to highlight the difference between information that is "accurate" vs "useful," consider the application of Classical Mechanics in physics.

We know for fact that Classical Mechanics is just plain wrong and has no factual bearing on reality. It is entirely Inaccurate. Quantum Mechanics much more Accurately describes the fundamental principles governing our physical existence.

However, Quantum Mechanics is not terribly Useful for macroscopic applications. It is insufferable in the amount of work it would take to handle day to day human interactions and industry with Quantum Mechanics, when the end result will end up being only marginally different than the Classical model would have predicted. This is because, while the Classical Model is simply wrong and completely disconnected from reality, it still possesses the power of being a reliably accurate Approximation while it is limited to use on the Macroscopic scale.

Classical Mechanics is totally Inaccurate compared to Quantum Mechanics. But for Macroscopic problems, Classical Mechanics is orders of magnitude more Useful than Quantum Mechanics.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Not all opinions are created equally. There are a great many legitimate, diverse, and wonderful opinions out there.

I disagree with Segev about whether a linear adventure is the same thing as a railroad but still respect him and can potentially have a civil discussion about it. Someone who claims that a linear adventure and a railroad are both the same thing as a pineapple does not have a legitimate opinion. Patient people might try to explain why this opinion is wrong, but if that person continues to kick in the door of every thread and flood it with pineapple railroad chat, at some point mockery and derision is the appropriate response.

[Segev]

Just as an example, there is a very strong scientific consensus that global warming is real and man-made. This is reached by doing just what you said; basing it on constructive discussion together with empirical measurements.

This is an unfortunately excellent example of opinion disguised as fact which needs to be refuted when it's brought up.

The so-called "consensus" is actually quite disputed, and the only reason there is even a veneer of "hah, we don't even have to consider the opposing evidence" is because there is a circular bit of logic: 1) all serious scientists believe in global warming; 2) therefore, any evidence against global warming must be unscientific; 3) Since all evidence against global warming is unscientific, any scientist who suggests we examine it isn't a serious scientist; 4) this proves that all serious scientists believe in global warming.

The fact is that this is one of the most virulent places where the "wrong" conclusion will get papers rejected, no matter their scientific merits. There is a strong political agenda behind promoting the notion of anthropogenic climate change; many politicians and wealthy donors make their living off of government funding into research to "prevent" it, and thus if you don't give lip service to it, getting grants is nearly impossible. Meanwhile, it has been demonstrated that the evidence behind much of the claims is not merely inaccurately modeled, but is fraudulent. And even that which isn't, again, is just a model. A set of many models, really. A set of many models who have yet to prove accurate, as we've finally managed to move forward the 1-3 decades out they all claim to predict. Not a single model that was claimed 30, 20, or even 10 years ago to predict where we'd be today if we didn't take "drastic" action has been born out. But we're still using them and their descendants to map 10, 20, 30, 100 years into the future with the same dire predictions. We were supposed to be devastated by now, with cities under water.

Since it's not the thread for it, I'll spoiler that bit, but regarding the point Lorsa was originally addressing: bringing up contradictory views and rebuttals is often necessary, lest a place become an echo chamber for an idea which may not even be on topic for it. By virtue of assuming that, since nobody said nay, it must be the consensus that it's true.

(I strongly recommend taking further discussion of the politicization of climate science elsewhere. I have tried to restrain my spoilered bit to demonstrate that there is more than "nuh-uh" behind the counterargument to Lorsa's point. My apologies if I failed. Certainly, trying to support either side's points further than that is beyond the scope of this thread.)

[Pleh]

Not all opinions are created equally. There are a great many legitimate, diverse, and wonderful opinions out there.

I disagree with Segev about whether a linear adventure is the same thing as a railroad but still respect him and can potentially have a civil discussion about it. Someone who claims that a linear adventure and a railroad are both the same thing as a pineapple does not have a legitimate opinion. Patient people might try to explain why this opinion is wrong, but if that person continues to kick in the door of every thread and flood it with pineapple railroad chat, at some point mockery and derision is the appropriate response.

Actually, I would posit that the appropriate response to Pineapple Railroad chat is to not respond to it (not responding can include a simple dismissal, "no, you are not talking about the same thing as us"). Mockery and derision will only establish a victim/martyr complex.

The better solution is to just put a halt to everything by not engaging with it.

At this point, I'm only picking the few points in this thread that I see my response presenting potential positive value for myself or others.

[Segev]

Regarding railroading and linear adventures, I am willing to accept for discussion purposes a well-defined difference where "railroad" enforces the linearity against the players' will, while linear adventures can avoid being railroads if the players agree to follow it.

I get the reason for wanting that distinction, though I think it invites definitional problems that can open the door to validation of Darth Ultron's "if players like it, it's not railroading" argument.

One reason I'd argue against it being redefined to cover only perjoratives is that a group of players who buy in to a linear adventure might still wind up having some "soft railroading" happen. If their DM is good, they may never realize they tried to step off the rails. He'll quantum ogre a few key things in their path so the path they veered onto "was always" the railroaded one, just with a dash of paint and wallpaper to make the backdrops look like the Snow Fields of Sohkohld rather than the Sand Dunes of Tuhaht. Fighting a white dragon there instead of the scheduled blue dragon is not a huge deal and keeps the party finding the Orb of Bronze Dragonkind that the wicked dragon was using to frame good dragons for his plot, etc. etc.

That's unarguably railroading and doing a bit to diminish player agency, but the players, even if they realize they'd been railroaded, probably are okay with it since we started with the assumption that they bought into the linear adventure. Their derailment was likely either players misunderstanding something or not realizing the module never covered actually going to Sohkhold.

It's less cool if they went to Sohkohld because they weren't interested in fighting the Blue Dragon of Tuhaht and wanted to explore something other than this oddity about Bronze Dragons running extortion rings.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Actually, I would posit that the appropriate response to Pineapple Railroad chat is to not respond to it (not responding can include a simple dismissal, "no, you are not talking about the same thing as us"). Mockery and derision will only establish a victim/martyr complex.

The better solution is to just put a halt to everything by not engaging with it.

I mean, I am certainly willing to sign onto a forum pact for everyone collectively putting Darth Ultron on ignore. I'm not going to claim that this is objectively the right route to take, however.

If people derive some meaning from endlessly debunking his worthless posts then who am I to tell them that they're wrong? There are a great many legitimate, diverse, and wonderful ways for any given person to deal with ****posters. :smallsmile:

[Darth Ultron]

All you show by this quote is that STILL, after this many pages of discussion, that you do not understand what the rest of us mean by the phrase "Player Agency". Player Agency either exists or it does not, irrespective of the players' perception of it. This is what OldTrees is trying to get through to you. It can be objectively judged to either be present or not. It doesn't matter what the players' perception of agency is, because there could be False Positives and False Negatives.

If you can break it down to ''the player had fun'', then that is what it breaks down too.



Player Agency was best phrased by a poster on the first page of this thread:

Right, except Freedom, Consequences and Knowledge is just describing a Normal Game. It is exactly like saying ''any game with a Player Character has Player Agency''. So it is a very bad definition.



But that does not mean that it does not exist anywhere else. Other people-MANY people-run games where the players are able to make informed, meaningful choices for their characters that result in different consequences than other choices they could have made.

Sure, this is possible......though this is very close to a Player Controlled game here if it happens all the time.



It's one of the many falsehoods among what is currently popular "groupthink" in our nation today that "everyone's opinion is equally valid". No the F*** it is not. Some people's opinions are ACTUALLY wrong.

I think this opinion is wrong.



YOU do not understand what other posters even MEAN by "player agency", let alone value it. We're all talking about a very specific, measurable, quantifiable kind of orange, you keep insisting that we mean the apples you're used to.

Well, if that was true, you could tell me what it is...but oddly you can't. If a one pound orange equals player agency...well, ok, put that in game terms: A player has to do exactly what for how many seconds to say the game has player agency?



I'll agree that I can't write a program which would analyze a scenario and rate its "agency level". Closest I can come to your request is to say that such a program to measure agency would take into account the extent to which the GM has given the Player the knowledge, capabilities, and consistency to be able to make informed choices to affect affect the game state in intentional, meaningful ways. I expect others can give a better answer.

I get that all in the Everyone Collective has deep scars....maybe they did game with a horrible jerk DM for years or maybe they just ''heard a story about it'' and made it ''more then real-larger then life'' inn their own mind. Either way Everyone hates even the slightest hint of they might not be able to do anything any time they want to on a whim. And sure, it looks good typed on a screen, but that is not reality. You have to stop at red lights when driving unless you want to get a ticket..or worse, no matter how much you whine and cry about having Car Agency. You have to wait in lines, you have to do this and you have to do that....this is reality. You just have to accept it.

The game a lot like that. Most of the choices a player makes in the game are ''unknown''...that is, as the future is unknown to everyone, you can never know if a choice might be anything. A player is free to memorize any spell they have, per the rules, but on one knows the future or the effect that might have. The player is free to pick to attack orc group two over orc group one, but again the future is unknown. So this takes care of everything that no one has any control of....the future.

So, this only leaves the things in the game world the DM has direct control over. And this is where the vile Player vs DM mindset comes in. The good players accept the DM has control of the game world and everything of this type that happens: this is part of the game and even in the rules. The other players want things to just ''go'' they way they want...or in short, they want control of the game.

Lets take an example of the Player Characters trying to bribe a constable(with no rules coving this)

Game A-The DM has made the constable npc well ahead of time, made them lawful good, and made them the type that would never take a bribe. So when the PC's try...they fail. As the players did not get what they wanted, they whine and cry ''no Player Agency''.

Game B-The DM has made the constable npc well ahead of time, made them lawful good, and made them the type that would never take a bribe....but the DM just tosses all that out the window and just does whatever they feel like on a whim. So if the DM has the NPC take the bribe then the players are happy, have fun and will say they have ''Player Agency; If the Dm has the bribe fail, then the players did not get what they wanted, they whine and cry ''no Player Agency''.

Game C-The DM has nothing made up. And just does whatever they feel like on a whim. So if the DM has the NPC take the bribe then the players are happy, have fun and will say they have ''Player Agency; If the Dm has the bribe fail, then the players did not get what they wanted, they whine and cry ''no Player Agency''.

So again, this fits both ''Player Agency = Fun'' and ''fun, for some, is getting exactly what they want, all ways'' and ''some players hate any sort of preparation''.



Where is the Agency? In getting to add the elements of their revenge plot to the world? Sure, I guess. But, personally, I mostly look elsewhere. The players have the option to ask any question or perform any investigation within their capabilities, and make any conclusions or formulate any strategies they desire to shape the final confrontation with Skorn - or to take their grievances and evidence to whatever law enforcement agencies / bounty hunters they choose - or whatever else they can imagine and implement, including even ignoring Skorn entirely, and shaping an entirely different story out of the combination of the world and their characters.

And you don't think it is odd that your example of ''player agency'' is just ''playing the game''?



So then what do you do? Allow these people to continue acting on their faulty belief or use a social vehicle such as derision to suppress their ideas and limit its spread in the population? One of them has the potential to save the planet, the other does not.

As a public service I can tell you want to do:

Live your life the way you keep telling everyone else they should be doing. See this is the Big Clue that lets everyone know what your saying is not real: You, personally, don't do or change anything...and yet demand everyone else does. Take anything. Lets say I ''thought'' Sugar was harmful somehow. I would immediately stop using it or any product with it and anything related to it. But this is not done, they just sit back and say ''oh, everyone else must change...and once they do, I might (maybe) be the last to change."

[Max_Killjoy]

This is an unfortunately excellent example of opinion disguised as fact which needs to be refuted when it's brought up.

The so-called "consensus" is actually quite disputed, and the only reason there is even a veneer of "hah, we don't even have to consider the opposing evidence" is because there is a circular bit of logic: 1) all serious scientists believe in global warming; 2) therefore, any evidence against global warming must be unscientific; 3) Since all evidence against global warming is unscientific, any scientist who suggests we examine it isn't a serious scientist; 4) this proves that all serious scientists believe in global warming.

The fact is that this is one of the most virulent places where the "wrong" conclusion will get papers rejected, no matter their scientific merits. There is a strong political agenda behind promoting the notion of anthropogenic climate change; many politicians and wealthy donors make their living off of government funding into research to "prevent" it, and thus if you don't give lip service to it, getting grants is nearly impossible. Meanwhile, it has been demonstrated that the evidence behind much of the claims is not merely inaccurately modeled, but is fraudulent. And even that which isn't, again, is just a model. A set of many models, really. A set of many models who have yet to prove accurate, as we've finally managed to move forward the 1-3 decades out they all claim to predict. Not a single model that was claimed 30, 20, or even 10 years ago to predict where we'd be today if we didn't take "drastic" action has been born out. But we're still using them and their descendants to map 10, 20, 30, 100 years into the future with the same dire predictions. We were supposed to be devastated by now, with cities under water.

Since it's not the thread for it, I'll spoiler that bit, but regarding the point Lorsa was originally addressing: bringing up contradictory views and rebuttals is often necessary, lest a place become an echo chamber for an idea which may not even be on topic for it. By virtue of assuming that, since nobody said nay, it must be the consensus that it's true.

(I strongly recommend taking further discussion of the politicization of climate science elsewhere. I have tried to restrain my spoilered bit to demonstrate that there is more than "nuh-uh" behind the counterargument to Lorsa's point. My apologies if I failed. Certainly, trying to support either side's points further than that is beyond the scope of this thread.)

Most of the papers being rejected are being rejected for the same reason that papers arguing that the earth is flat or that the sun orbits the earth are rejected -- or simply because they're sloppy work.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/letter-to-humanity-warning-climate-change-global-warming-scientists-union-concerned-a8052481.html
https://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/


Now, can we not play this game where we run right up to the edge of the rules and hope that people won't refute our statements out of fear of crossing the line and getting nailed for it?

[Max_Killjoy]

Regarding railroading and linear adventures, I am willing to accept for discussion purposes a well-defined difference where "railroad" enforces the linearity against the players' will, while linear adventures can avoid being railroads if the players agree to follow it.

I get the reason for wanting that distinction, though I think it invites definitional problems that can open the door to validation of Darth Ultron's "if players like it, it's not railroading" argument.

One reason I'd argue against it being redefined to cover only perjoratives is that a group of players who buy in to a linear adventure might still wind up having some "soft railroading" happen. If their DM is good, they may never realize they tried to step off the rails. He'll quantum ogre a few key things in their path so the path they veered onto "was always" the railroaded one, just with a dash of paint and wallpaper to make the backdrops look like the Snow Fields of Sohkohld rather than the Sand Dunes of Tuhaht. Fighting a white dragon there instead of the scheduled blue dragon is not a huge deal and keeps the party finding the Orb of Bronze Dragonkind that the wicked dragon was using to frame good dragons for his plot, etc. etc.

That's unarguably railroading and doing a bit to diminish player agency, but the players, even if they realize they'd been railroaded, probably are okay with it since we started with the assumption that they bought into the linear adventure. Their derailment was likely either players misunderstanding something or not realizing the module never covered actually going to Sohkhold.

It's less cool if they went to Sohkohld because they weren't interested in fighting the Blue Dragon of Tuhaht and wanted to explore something other than this oddity about Bronze Dragons running extortion rings.

If the players bought into a linear adventure and are enjoying the linear adventure, then it's not a bad thing.

My major concern is the deceit, manipulation, etc, that straight-up hard railroading involves... I've seen everything from shell games and such, to actual gaslighting, coercion, and bullying.

In terms of definition, my real objection is to the nonsense false dichotomy that anything short of total chaos and/or the GM being a yes-man for the players while their characters do literally anything they want is "railroading".



Not all opinions are created equally. There are a great many legitimate, diverse, and wonderful opinions out there.

I disagree with Segev about whether a linear adventure is the same thing as a railroad but still respect him and can potentially have a civil discussion about it. Someone who claims that a linear adventure and a railroad are both the same thing as a pineapple does not have a legitimate opinion. Patient people might try to explain why this opinion is wrong, but if that person continues to kick in the door of every thread and flood it with pineapple railroad chat, at some point mockery and derision is the appropriate response.

If it were just a matter of strongly differing opinion, there'd be room for civil disagreement with the poster in question.

It's the lying, evasive, smug way in which said poster constantly pushes his opinion while deliberately misrepresenting and distorting any opposing opinion, while describing with pride the way he abuses and manipulates other gamers. Having him here is like going to a forum for discussing relationships and having one of those pickup-artist pigs trolling around talking about all the "chicks" he's "scored with".

[Darth Ultron]

If the players bought into a linear adventure and are enjoying the linear adventure, then it's not a bad thing.

My major concern is the deceit, manipulation, etc, that straight-up hard railroading involves... I've seen everything from shell games and such, to actual gaslighting, coercion, and bullying.

In terms of definition, my real objection is to the nonsense false dichotomy that anything short of total chaos and/or the GM being a yes-man for the players while their characters do literally anything they want is "railroading".

It comes back to:

Player Type One-Can accept good and bad things like a mature adult.

Player Type Two-Can only except good things like an immature brat.

So...no room more the middle. Type two can never accept even one bad thing....or they will use the lie of ''once in a while'', and to them that is like ''once a year''.

So like:

Normal Game- Good and Bad things happen to the world and/or characters all the time.

Special Players Game-Only good things the players like happen all ways.

Again, no middle.

[Quertus]

A player has to do exactly what for how many seconds to say the game has player agency?

Hey, guys, this gem has inspired another hypothetical:

Suppose you're in the worst possible railroad, with no ability to affect the outcome of the game (say, something like the Final Fantasy series). Then, half-way through the game, you come to this magical console - which will happen, because you have no choice but to follow the rails here. At exactly this one moment in the game, your character has complete control over the game world. They can do absolutely anything to change the state of the world.

But then, once they leave the room, they're back on the tightest rails with no ability to do anything but follow the prescribed path again.

Is this a high agency or low agency game? How much difference does it make if the console is completely intuitive to use vs unlabeled? Or if it is replaced by a wish-granting djinni of questionable ethics?


You have to stop at red lights when driving unless you want to get a ticket..or worse, no matter how much you whine and cry about having Car Agency. You have to wait in lines, you have to do this and you have to do that....this is reality. You just have to accept it.

But that's the point: you don't have to do those things. I've seen people IRL go through red lights*, I've seen people but in line. People have the ability to jump the rails IRL. People have the Agency to make those choices.

* my personal observational record was 6 cars in a row ran the same red light. :smalleek:


And you don't think it is odd that your example of ''player agency'' is just ''playing the game''?

... No. Should I?

[Max_Killjoy]

...


^ More self-aggrandizing self-serving false-binary non-sequitur intended to paint his position as mature and all disagreement as "bratty".

http://cdn-frm-us.wargaming.net/4.5/style_emoticons/wot/Smile_smile.gif

[Segev]

I get that all in the Everyone Collective has deep scars....maybe they did game with a horrible jerk DM for years or maybe they just ''heard a story about it'' and made it ''more then real-larger then life'' inn their own mind. Either way Everyone hates even the slightest hint of they might not be able to do anything any time they want to on a whim. And sure, it looks good typed on a screen, but that is not reality. You have to stop at red lights when driving unless you want to get a ticket..or worse, no matter how much you whine and cry about having Car Agency. You have to wait in lines, you have to do this and you have to do that....this is reality. You just have to accept it.

The game a lot like that. Most of the choices a player makes in the game are ''unknown''...that is, as the future is unknown to everyone, you can never know if a choice might be anything. A player is free to memorize any spell they have, per the rules, but on one knows the future or the effect that might have. The player is free to pick to attack orc group two over orc group one, but again the future is unknown. So this takes care of everything that no one has any control of....the future.

So, this only leaves the things in the game world the DM has direct control over. And this is where the vile Player vs DM mindset comes in. The good players accept the DM has control of the game world and everything of this type that happens: this is part of the game and even in the rules. The other players want things to just ''go'' they way they want...or in short, they want control of the game.You keep bragging about scarring people, which is just plain weird. Why do you need to tell us how you physically abuse your players every chance you get?


Most of the papers being rejected are being rejected for the same reason that papers arguing that the earth is flat or that the sun orbits the earth are rejected -- or simply because they're sloppy work.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/letter-to-humanity-warning-climate-change-global-warming-scientists-union-concerned-a8052481.html
https://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/


Now, can we not play this game where we run right up to the edge of the rules and hope that people won't refute our statements out of fear of crossing the line and getting nailed for it?I'm happy to leave it here in this thread, yes. I don't need to rebut repeatedly to achieve my goal of pointing out that there exists contrary evidence and viewpoints. It is a little snide of you to try to pretend you're being "brinksmaned" on this when you're the one who felt the need to dig out a counter-counter argument, then pretend that you're not just trying to get the last word. But I'm willing to let you have it, here (acknowledging that I'm being a bit smarmy, myself, for pointing it out), because my purpose wasn't to actually have the debate; merely demonstrate that the debate exists.

Dismissing it as "meh, you're just like flat earthers" is a sneaky effort to pretend it doesn't, though. I had come to expect better from you.

(Hint: If it's a highly politicized issue, there probably is more substance on both sides than there is for flat earthers, who literally have no support because their claims are so ridiculously "just so" stories and have absolutely no basis for their arguments. Even their "it's a government conspiracy, man" arguments fail to hold the simplest bit of water: there's no motive for governments to fake it, as they could achieve the same ends with using researching the Flat Earth if that were how things really were.)

...okay, maybe I can't quite go without trying to get in a last word. >_< If you really want to discuss the difference between the things you tried to tie together by analogy, I'm happy to in a more appropriate venue.


If the players bought into a linear adventure and are enjoying the linear adventure, then it's not a bad thing.

My major concern is the deceit, manipulation, etc, that straight-up hard railroading involves... I've seen everything from shell games and such, to actual gaslighting, coercion, and bullying.Oh, absolutely agreed. Though I've never seen gaslighting. "Coercion" and "bullying" are ... arguable, because "come on, if you don't go with this the game won't run" can be seen as both. But I hesitate to suggest that more egregious cases of actual intimidation and real-world extortion don't happen, even though I've never (thankfully) seen them.

[Max_Killjoy]

But that's the point: you don't have to do those things. I've seen people IRL go through red lights*, I've seen people but in line. People have the ability to jump the rails IRL. People have the Agency to make those choices.

* my personal observational record was 6 cars in a row ran the same red light. :smalleek:


Game with player agency -- "OK, you run the red light. Rolling to see if there was a cop around, rolling to see if there was traffic camera installed, rolling to see if someone pulled into the intersection from the crossing street." Kinda like real life, you're able to take foolish actions, and sometimes there are bad consequences for foolish actions.

Game without player agency -- "You can't run the red light, because I said so."

[Segev]

Game with player agency -- "OK, you run the red light. Rolling to see if there was a cop around, rolling to see if there was traffic camera installed, rolling to see if someone pulled into the intersection from the crossing street." Kinda like real life, you're able to take foolish actions, and sometimes there are bad consequences for foolish actions.

Game without player agency -- "You can't run the red light, because I said so."

Fuzzy case: "You can't run the red light; a barrier shoots up to block cars when it comes on. This is a thing they do in this city/nation/world." It's fuzzy because it seems like something the GM might have just made up to ensure the red light is obeyed right now, but it's not impossible that the world is set up that way. If this really is all the further it goes, it's either not railroading or at least something to give reasonable doubt to...or at least, that's my personal view. Especially since this factoid could become (or is) a piece of worldbuilding with potential ramifications and use in player-agency-based-actions down the line.

[RedMage125]

Take it one step further. Everyone's opinions will be wrong somewhere due to the fact that none of us have everything absolutely and unerringly figured out. (Ironically, the concept that a person has a better knowledge of things than another person is itself a common source of error.) In this sense, everyone's opinions are equally valid to the extent that there is an equally unknown, but nonzero quantity of error in every individual's thoughts. No one really knows for sure who has that one nugget of truth that just hasn't managed to take hold in the cultural awareness (largely due to competing biases that are based in something other than truth).

That is to say, any one of us could be right about something while everyone else is wrong and we all have equally the inability to actually dispel the inaccuracy in the minds of others.
That only means that everyone's opinion is equally INVALID.


Or more simply, it is bombastically presumptuous to claim intellectual superiority over other people when speaking to subjects of opinion. While you may know you are right about something, no one wants to be condescended to, so it's ineffective and unhelpful to correct them in a manner than places you above the other person. This is somewhat antithetical to Militarized organization, where the point is that EVERYONE is above someone or below someone.

The military is really great at employing conformity and submission to authority. It is intensely effective and a powerfully useful tool, but being devised by a group of individuals all possessing particular flaws in their individual opinions, the groupthink in that organization is equally flawed to some unknown, but nonzero, quantitative degree. The military strives to utilize, and mandate the utilization, of the most usefully accurate* answers our culture has been able to provide.
The point, which you missed, is that the current zeitgeist of our society places SO MUCH value on the "merit" of individuality and opinion that even those people who claim to have "opinions" that are DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO FACTS are being told that said opinion still "has value".

It does not.

This is a corollary to what Max_Killjoy said about someone's "opinion" about a house fire being that the fire was "the warmth of righteousness" and that spilling gasoline on furniture was "offering a useful opinion".


Ironically, you are speaking like a snowflake, afraid of what will happen when forced to leave your echo chamber safe space of the military and have to deal with dirt hippies telling you that you are wrong. The reality is that probably very little will actually happen. You'll probably just become more hard and jaded in your opinions and continue pushing back against ideas that don't suit your biases (and they likewise in return as you seek to correct them). It's just natural human psychology for this to happen and we have to actively oppose this effect to prevent its occurrence.
Ironically, you completely missed what I was saying. I do not fear ANYONE telling me that I'm wrong. Being proven wrong (emphasis on PROOF) is something I welcome, because it means for me a chance to learn and grow. What keeps me awake is the idea of having to live and work with people who have been so saturated with the idea that their special snowflake ideas-which may be completely asinine and nonsensical-have been allowed to fester and grow in the absence of challenge or contradiction because no one wanted to "hurt their feelings". Obstacles and challenges force us to adapt, to grow. Being confronted with being wrong opens us up to new ideas and concepts outside our default assumptions.

I like military life. I like order, structure, and discipline.* I know exactly where my authority extends and where it ends. EVERYONE I work with acknowledges-and is a part of-the same rank structure that we all adhere to. And there are rules. Rules of behavior, etiquette, and more. It doesn't matter that some new schmuck fresh out of boot camp thinks that everyone must earn his respect on an individual basis, if he mouths off to a chief or a first class because they told him he was out of line, HE is in the wrong.

THAT is what I meant about hipsters and dirt-hippies who have never been confronted with being told they're wrong. In the civilian sector, there aren't any actual universal codes that everyone must adhere to. It is the absence of that grand, overreaching authority that I dread.

*In a D&D world, I'd almost certainly be Lawful Neutral.



But maybe you might actually listen one day and find something more behind a different set of beliefs than you had seen before and you'll be able to see both sides of the conversation.
Maybe YOU might actually listen one day and realize that I actually ADVOCATE sharing of ideas and beliefs and STAUNCHLY adhere to the idea that "what I believe/prefer is what is right for me, and is not necessarily 'better' objectively than what other people believe".

But I'm not talking about "preferences" or things that are "just opinions" in the instance of what you have quoted me saying. Once again, that was all in reference to Max_Killjoy's example of someone pouring gasoline on furniture and saying that they were offering a "different opinion" in regards to a fire.

Context is important.




If you can break it down to ''the player had fun'', then that is what it breaks down too.
That's not what it breaks down to. That's been MY whole point all along, is that sometimes players can have LOTS of Agency, and not have fun. They are not the same thing, and as long as you continue to argue as if they are, you are saying "an apple IS a kind of orange" when we discuss oranges.



Right, except Freedom, Consequences and Knowledge is just describing a Normal Game. It is exactly like saying ''any game with a Player Character has Player Agency''. So it is a very bad definition.
That's...what?

You've been advocating taking away those very things from your players because of your playstyle, and booting them if they object.



Sure, this is possible......though this is very close to a Player Controlled game here if it happens all the time.
You're getting closer to the point. Players-if their agency is respected-DO have some "control" in the game. If the whole party decides to not take the DM's hook about orcs to the north and head south instead, they should be able to have different things happen than if they went north.



I think this opinion is wrong.
Of course you do.

Because you think your opinion is so vital and universal that it holds the same weight as fact in a discussion with other people. And you think that you're MORE special and enlightened because your opinion is different.



Well, if that was true, you could tell me what it is...but oddly you can't. If a one pound orange equals player agency...well, ok, put that in game terms: A player has to do exactly what for how many seconds to say the game has player agency?
We've told you a number of times what Player Agency is.

Go read the first page of this thread again. But first, stop...clear your mind of all your presuppositions about what it means, and read with an open mind. As long as you continue to read any post with the presupposition that the poster is already "wrong/stupid/part of the 'collective'" before you even read what they're saying, then you're never going to understand anything new.





The game a lot like that. Most of the choices a player makes in the game are ''unknown''...that is, as the future is unknown to everyone, you can never know if a choice might be anything. A player is free to memorize any spell they have, per the rules, but on one knows the future or the effect that might have. The player is free to pick to attack orc group two over orc group one, but again the future is unknown. So this takes care of everything that no one has any control of....the future.
Did you not understand that choices the player makes where knowledge is not a factor are not taken into consideration when determining agency?
It's been said a number of times.

Maybe it would help if we re-iterated the point...Even in a game where players have a great deal of agency, that does not mean that EVERY SINGLE CHOICE is made with agency. Sometimes the future is unknown, yes. It's in situations where the players DO have enough knowledge to reasonably foresee potential outcomes, and the resultant outcomes are completely disconnected from the choices that the players made to try and affect those outcomes that Player Agency is compromised.


So, this only leaves the things in the game world the DM has direct control over. And this is where the vile Player vs DM mindset comes in. The good players accept the DM has control of the game world and everything of this type that happens: this is part of the game and even in the rules. The other players want things to just ''go'' they way they want...or in short, they want control of the game.
Only an asinine and petulant juvenile believes this to be an absolute truth. the story of the game belongs to the Players as much as it does the DM. The DM has a great deal of control, yes. But the Players have control of their characters. If they players make choices for their characters, and the DM does not respect this, they do not have agency. "Agency" is not "control of the whole game world". It's the ability to make meaningful choices for their characters that have an impact on their game.



Lets take an example of the Player Characters trying to bribe a constable(with no rules coving this)

Game A-The DM has made the constable npc well ahead of time, made them lawful good, and made them the type that would never take a bribe. So when the PC's try...they fail. As the players did not get what they wanted, they whine and cry ''no Player Agency''.

Game B-The DM has made the constable npc well ahead of time, made them lawful good, and made them the type that would never take a bribe....but the DM just tosses all that out the window and just does whatever they feel like on a whim. So if the DM has the NPC take the bribe then the players are happy, have fun and will say they have ''Player Agency; If the Dm has the bribe fail, then the players did not get what they wanted, they whine and cry ''no Player Agency''.

Game C-The DM has nothing made up. And just does whatever they feel like on a whim. So if the DM has the NPC take the bribe then the players are happy, have fun and will say they have ''Player Agency; If the Dm has the bribe fail, then the players did not get what they wanted, they whine and cry ''no Player Agency''.

So again, this fits both ''Player Agency = Fun'' and ''fun, for some, is getting exactly what they want, all ways'' and ''some players hate any sort of preparation''.

None of those have anything to do with Player Agency. You once again do not understand the topic of discussion.




As a public service I can tell you want to do:

Live your life the way you keep telling everyone else they should be doing. See this is the Big Clue that lets everyone know what your saying is not real: You, personally, don't do or change anything...and yet demand everyone else does. Take anything. Lets say I ''thought'' Sugar was harmful somehow. I would immediately stop using it or any product with it and anything related to it. But this is not done, they just sit back and say ''oh, everyone else must change...and once they do, I might (maybe) be the last to change."

Since you don't understand "Player Agency", do you understand "hypocrisy"?

[Cozzer]

In my opinion, a linear adventure can still be a moderate-to-high-agency game, as long as "linear" means that the succession of scenes is more or less pre-determined (think a murder mystery where each scene has clues that point exclusively to the next scene in the sequence, and refusing to go there just ends up with the characters roaming at random), and as long as the way you act in each scene has meaningful consequences on next scenes.

It could be a couple goblins running away to warn the others, with the PCs having to choose whether to follow them and risk falling into an ambush. It could be the choice between convincing a key witness or intimidating him (making him into an enemy). Even if the general structure of the adventure is linear, or mostly linear, there are all sorts of ways to give agency to the player.

It's unlikely that such an adventure will end up being the agenciest game around, but it doesn't have to be a "meh, whatever we do things end the same" railroad either.

[OldTrees1]

Lets take an example of the Player Characters trying to bribe a constable(with no rules coving this)

Game A-The DM has made the constable npc well ahead of time, made them lawful good, and made them the type that would never take a bribe. So when the PC's try...they fail. As the players did not get what they wanted, they whine and cry ''no Player Agency''.

Game B-The DM has made the constable npc well ahead of time, made them lawful good, and made them the type that would never take a bribe....but the DM just tosses all that out the window and just does whatever they feel like on a whim. So if the DM has the NPC take the bribe then the players are happy, have fun and will say they have ''Player Agency; If the Dm has the bribe fail, then the players did not get what they wanted, they whine and cry ''no Player Agency''.

Game C-The DM has nothing made up. And just does whatever they feel like on a whim. So if the DM has the NPC take the bribe then the players are happy, have fun and will say they have ''Player Agency; If the Dm has the bribe fail, then the players did not get what they wanted, they whine and cry ''no Player Agency''.

So again, this fits both ''Player Agency = Fun'' and ''fun, for some, is getting exactly what they want, all ways'' and ''some players hate any sort of preparation''.

Let's test the Player Agency is the Player being faced with Meaningful Choices definition:
Game A: I see you did not mention any Meaningful Choices. The only choice you included was a false choice (both options lead to the same outcome). No Meaningful Choices = No Player Agency.

Game B: Here I see you have one DM change the false choice into a Meaningful Choice (now not bribing and bribing have different outcomes) while the other DM kept it as a false choice. If there is a Meaningful Choice then there is some Player Agency, otherwise there is no Player Agency.

Game C: I see you did not mention any Meaningful Choices. The only choice you included was a false choice (both options lead to the same outcome). No Meaningful Choices = No Player Agency

So these three example fit the "Player Agency is the Player being faced with Meaningful Choices" definition.

Game D: The Players have been caught in an out of bounds area. The DM has either made the constable ahead of time or can derive that this constable is a LG individual that happens to react poorly to bribes. The constable moves in to question the suspicious PCs about why they are in this out of bounds area. The PCs can react
Reaction 1 - The PCs could attack like a bunch of thugs. This causes the constable to call for reinforcements and try to hold out while they arrive.
Reaction 2 - The PCs could answer the questions (some deception vs insight might be involved, or it might be just honest persuasion) in an attempt to ease the constable's concerns and possibly only get a slap on the wrist. The constable might let them off with a warning, or throw them in an overnight cell depending on how they quell or exacerbate the constable's concerns.
Reaction 3 - The PCs attempt to bribe the constable. Since the constable has be prepared as or derived as a person that reacts poorly to bribes, they react poorly to the bribe. The constable attempts to arrest them for the attempted bribe (a fine, a couple days in a cell, and the enmity of the constable).

In Game D the Players were faced with a Meaningful Choice. If the Players decide to attempt to bribe the constable, the attempt does not work. The Players did not get what they wanted but they did interact with the game through a Meaningful Choice. Therefore there was Player Agency.

With the inclusion of Game D, we can reject your ''Player Agency = Fun'' and ''fun, for some, is getting exactly what they want, all ways'' and ''some players hate any sort of preparation'' definition because it fails to fit the data. However our definition that Player Agency "when the Player is faced with Meaningful Choices" still fits the data. This means our definition is the more accurate one.

[Future Sword]

@Darth Ultron: Nobody is saying "Player agency = all players getting to do everything they want, always, no matter what". Nobody, that is, except for the scarecrow you're incessantly arguing against. Stop being an ass.

[RedMage125]

@Darth Ultron: Nobody is saying "Player agency = all players getting to do everything they want, always, no matter what". Nobody, that is, except for the scarecrow you're incessantly arguing against. Stop being an ass.

A Straw man is all he CAN construct an argument against on this topic.

[Glorthindel]

Fighting bad ideas with good ideas would be great if everyone was rational and always striving towards the idea with the best arguments. That is unfortunately not how reality works.

...

So then what do you do? Allow these people to continue acting on their faulty belief or use a social vehicle such as derision to suppress their ideas and limit its spread in the population? One of them has the potential to save the planet, the other does not.

There are ideas that are harmful to the society. When these can no longer be fought with other ideas, would you just sit by and let them flourish?

...

Derision in specific may not be the best tool to use though, and its effectiveness can be debated. Humans are, in general, social animals and they gravitate towards others with similar views. So if you can somehow isolate a person with a certain harmful and erroneous belief, you can avoid that thought to become normalized within society and get the individual to change their mind based simply on their intrinsic desire to belong.

I really, really disagree with this stance. Bullying and belittling is never acceptable, regardless of what moral imperative you believe is behind it.

People are allowed to have a different opinion. It is not my, your, or societies duty to make people conform with the prevaling opinion. Because that is the problem - it is not necessarily the right opinion, it is just the one held by the majority (and sometimes not even that, just the segment with the best ability to be heard). And there has been a lot of times in the past where the majority opinion was proven to be horribly, horribly wrong in retrospect.

I have a general attitude when it comes to discussing any subject that has held me well in forums for many, many years. Don't try and convert your opponent. In real life (and more so on the internet) people don't like being wrong, and wont back down if confronted. It just doesn't happen. So don't try. When I reply to a thread or post, I am almost never directly addressing the person I am replying to (including this time - Lorsa has raised an issue that I feel I need to counteract, but I am not here to change Lorsa's opinion - if that happens, it would be nice, but I wouldn't expect it, and its not the goal here). Instead, I am addressing everyone who is reading my post, hoping that someone, somewhere might be swayed by my opinion, or reflect on what I have said and reasses their own opinion. Those people, not already directly involved in the discussion, are more likely to be amenable to listening to an alternative view, because they are not already "exposed" and therefore likely on the defensive. And because I am not addressing the person I am replying to, I don't get the urge to get drawn into a protracted forum back-and-forth, which is usually pointless (as the opponent is usually intrenched) and likely counter-productive (since getting heated often makes everyone look like idiots, and undoes any good the initial arguement might have had).

So no - regardless what the opposing opinion might be, attempting to bully or belittle the poster, or throwing around accusations that their views are harmful (or anything else) might cause them to stop arguing, but it doesn't achieve what you were aiming to do. Bullying does not change someones opinion; if anything it entrenches it, and not just in the person you have bullied, but in anyone who heard the exchange who were on the fence about the opinion - acting like a jerk and a bully will have only caused sympathy to the other persons viewpoint, and maybe converted people to the opposite cause. Sure, you might think you have succeeded due to the congratulating and backslapping awarded by those who already shared your view... but that it the kicker, those people already shared your views, so didn't need converting.

So, long ramble short - reason, discuss, but when both sides entrench, walk away. Don't engage the person you disagree with, and let your arguement stand on its reasonable merits for the people who might listen.

[Pleh]

We do not want this thread to devolve into political topics.

But I am interested in how this concept of Player Agency and Railroading seems to be related to these other larger cultural themes. Maybe that might be worth its own thread in the appropriate area?


Right, except Freedom, Consequences and Knowledge is just describing a Normal Game. It is exactly like saying ''any game with a Player Character has Player Agency''. So it is a very bad definition.

"Any game with a Player Character has Player Agency."

This is actually a wonderful statement and not a bad definition at all (a bit circular without going a bit further to define the parameters). Yes, any game with a Player Character includes Player Agency associated with that character. Hence why Railroading, the misappropriation of that Player Agency, which belongs in the game by definition, is a bad thing. This is why so many people make the criticism, "if you do not intend to provide Players with Agency, why don't you just read them a book?"

A Player Character is a Character for which a Player possesses Agency.

Hence, Player Agency is not only Good for Normal Games, it is Required.

Players using Agency to make Decisions that have Meaningful Consequences is itself the essence of the Game.

@Red Mage I was going to follow up on those points in a PM because this thread didn't seem to suit it well, but your inbox is full. If you clear some of that out, I'd have a few more thoughts to share with you.

[Future Sword]

This thread is in the goddamn sewer. Everyone reasonable already said their piece, and now the jag who decided to poison the well is the center of discussion. It doesn't have anything of value to add to this, just deliberate baiting and ****-flinging.

Screw this, y'all have fun debating whether or not it's okay to be mad at the guy who lit your house on fire. I'm sick of seeing this exact outcome in every other thread, with its accompanying "nothin' we can do about this" attitude.

[Max_Killjoy]

This thread is in the goddamn sewer. Everyone reasonable already said their piece, and now the jag who decided to poison the well is the center of discussion. It doesn't have anything of value to add to this, just deliberate baiting and ****-flinging.

Screw this, y'all have fun debating whether or not it's okay to be mad at the guy who lit your house on fire.

Indeed. There is a certain surreal aspect to how some people have dropped into the thread to tell us to "stop being mean" to the guy who flings flaming crap all over any thread he joins. (Just to be clear, neither "some people" or "the guy" refers to you.)

[Darth Ultron]

But that's the point: you don't have to do those things. I've seen people IRL go through red lights*, I've seen people but in line. People have the ability to jump the rails IRL. People have the Agency to make those choices.


But it is only possible some times. And if there is a cop, or cop camera around then you will get a ticket. And if there is traffic you will get into an accident.

So ''99%'' of the time....most people stop and wait. And doing anything else is a huge risk.


Game with player agency -- "OK, you run the red light. Rolling to see if there was a cop around, rolling to see if there was traffic camera installed, rolling to see if someone pulled into the intersection from the crossing street." Kinda like real life, you're able to take foolish actions, and sometimes there are bad consequences for foolish actions.

Game without player agency -- "You can't run the red light, because I said so."

Except this is Normal Game vs Jerk DM......or of course, Normal Game with a Jerk cry baby player that can't accept a ''no'' or any ''negative'' ever.


@Darth Ultron: Nobody is saying "Player agency = all players getting to do everything they want, always, no matter what". Nobody, that is, except for the scarecrow you're incessantly arguing against. Stop being an ass.

I wish someone could just say what it IS....without being vague and saying it is ''something something'' that then as to be explained AND is a personal view point/ taste sort of thing.

[Future Sword]

Eat my ass, dude. Several people already said what it is, and you know it.

[Max_Killjoy]

Except this is Normal Game vs Jerk DM......or of course, Normal Game with a Jerk cry baby player that can't accept a ''no'' or any ''negative'' ever.


A normal game is a game with legitimate player agency -- player agency as explained and laid out by a multiple of posters in this thread and elsewhere across the broader RPG landscape.

A "jerk DM" game is a game wherein legitimate player agency is stymied and stifled, by the GM, usually via coercion, deception, and manipulation.

Your inability to solve that simple equation rests entirely on your own fixation on the phantom issue of control/power, and your insistence on binary either-or answers for all questions including that one.




I wish someone could just say what it IS....without being vague and saying it is ''something something'' that then as to be explained AND is a personal view point/ taste sort of thing.


Many people have laid it out in plain English for you, in very clear and unambiguous terms. Repeatedly. Ad infinitum, almost. They have not been vague. They have not said "something something".

Your insistence that they haven't is just another example of your dishonesty and inability to engage other people's actual clearly stated positions in good faith.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Many people have laid it out in plain English for you, in very clear and unambiguous terms. They have not been vague. They have not said "something something".

Repeatedly. Ad infinitum, almost.

As the song goes--"A man hears what he wants to hear/and disregards the rest." It's like arguing with a chatbot. Nothing anyone says will make a difference to him, so everyone should ignore him on topics like this (and those who try to argue with him). Don't even respond, don't even acknowledge it.

[Delicious Taffy]

I wish someone could just say what it IS....without being vague and saying it is ''something something'' that then as to be explained AND is a personal view point/ taste sort of thing.
You know, as a matter of fact, I seem to recall a brief exchange in which someone did say what player agency is, followed immediately by you agreeing with that person. How did it go, again?


If I really wanted to define player agency, I'd say something like "Player agency is the player's ability to make a choice within the parameters set by the DM, other players, and game setting, and for that choice to have a noticeable effect on the campaign, whether large or small."

I made this point back a couple pages and Everyone hated it...as it was too much of The Truth.

So, not only did you acknowledge that another person had defined the term, but you also explicitly referred to it as "The Truth". So, unless you're an extremely dishonest person on an intellectual level, or you're a very forgetful person, and forget when you've ostensibly accepted a definition. Either way, you successfully made the majority of a thread your own personal spotlight, so congratulations on that.

[Max_Killjoy]

As the song goes--"A man hears what he wants to hear/and disregards the rest." It's like arguing with a chatbot. Nothing anyone says will make a difference to him, so everyone should ignore him on topics like this (and those who try to argue with him). Don't even respond, don't even acknowledge it.

I got grief for calling it a chatbot earlier.

But yeah, I think it's at the point where we have to just say that he's totally incapable of understanding the simplest of points, and/or utterly unwilling to engage in anything resembling honest discussion, and that it's a waste of time to even bother reading his posts. He's an intellectual black hole. I was already at the point where if his post was showing as the latest post on a thread, I didn't even bother opening it ("it" being the thread, as in skip it until someone else had posted something).




So, unless you're an extremely dishonest person on an intellectual level,


That one.

He's a bully. He puts up a tough front, but he lacks the basic courage and confidence necessary to engage other people's real positions in an honest discussion, so instead he attacks defenseless strawmen and misrepresentations.

I'm done bothering with his nonsense -- he gets the plonk (old school Usenet style).

[Scripten]

I was already at the point where if his post was showing as the latest post on a thread, I didn't even bother opening it.

If only it were able to be staunched by that. The worst part about all of this is that he gets into the threads that have some of the most insightful and interesting discussions in this part of the forum. Except to read such threads you have to wade through pages and pages of utter inanity.

DU's behavior is to the point where he actively inhibits positive discussion and drives out all but the most driven contributors.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If only it were able to be staunched by that. The worst part about all of this is that he gets into the threads that have some of the most insightful and interesting discussions in this part of the forum. Except to read such threads you have to wade through pages and pages of utter inanity.

DU's behavior is to the point where he actively inhibits positive discussion and drives out all but the most driven contributors.

Very much agree. And people writing multi page responses to his insanity doesn’t help with that. If it were just him, then the ignore function would work fine.

[Segev]

But it is only possible some times. And if there is a cop, or cop camera around then you will get a ticket. And if there is traffic you will get into an accident.

So ''99%'' of the time....most people stop and wait. And doing anything else is a huge risk.

Yep. And in a game, where the consequences are less real, some players will choose to take the risk where they wouldn't IRL.




Also, IRL, people are more likely to run a light at a busy intersection if they're following others who've just done so. Left-turn lanes are really guilty of this.

[RedMage125]

Pleh: I cleared out my inbox. Didn't know it HAD a capacity, lol.



I wish someone could just say what it IS....without being vague and saying it is ''something something'' that then as to be explained AND is a personal view point/ taste sort of thing.
Are you intellectually dishonest on purpose, or do you have the short-term memory of a goldfish?

I'd wager money that you're intentionally trolling at this point.