Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

[NichG]

I think the control of agency question is a red herring.

In terms of authored vs emergent, yes, it has something to do with agency, but it seems to more be an after-the-fact observation than stuff about intent-to-deny that comes up in railroading discussions. In which case the GM can be responsible for a game ending up authored or emergent, but so are the players.

So e.g. the GM runs two campaigns for two different groups of players who you know and tells you the stories of the campaigns without telling you who was in which. If you can tell who was in which group from the stories, that's emergence. A GM could prevent that intentionally. They could accidentally use premises where there really likely directions for groups of players to choose to go. The players in the groups might not want to do anything but roll dice and kill stuff, making them hard to distinguish. The players may be really good at erasing their own tastes or opinions, and as a result don't cause divergences that have anything in particular to do with them (I'd say 'it's what my character would do' can be a force tending towards player controlled but still ultimately Authored games...).

But it's all after the fact, so it doesn't matter what the GM could have done or what the rules permitted them to do. What matters is what was actually done and what marks were actually left on the course of events.

[BRC]

Player Input is the Illusionism!

After your "input" who creates the content and drives the story beats? I have played very Improv heavy games, where I work with the players to craft the plot, impacts, etc. Make no mistake though, as the GM using Rule 0, I get to say what we acted on and what got reeled back in; not the players.

To paraphrase The Matrix, "Would You Still Have Broken It If I Hadn't Said Anything?"

It's not an Illusion though. Illusion implies deception. It implies that the agency is fake.


You're mistaking "Agency" for "Power". Players have no real Power in the game, because the GM's power is absolute due to Rule 0. In that, you are correct.

However, "Agency" is different from "Power". Agency is the ability of the players to drive the story. If you drive the story by suggesting things to the GM, who then acts on those suggestions, or by doing things in game, and the GM reacts to those actions, then you are, in fact, exercising Agency and driving the story. That is not an Illusion.

[Vahnavoi]

Saying player inputs are illusionism is equivalent to saying that words appearing on the screen when I press keys is illusionism.

You can swap keyboard and computer for a human transcribing speech by ear. It doesn't matter. The inputs aren't illusions and neither is their effect on the system receiving said inputs.

[Satinavian]

Make no mistake though, as the GM using Rule 0, I get to say what we acted on and what got reeled back in; not the players.

Most systems don't have Rule 0.

[Easy e]

Should have been obvious this was about tabletop RPGs without GM.

And it should of also been obvious I was talking about GM led TT RPGs as I went out of my way to limit the discussion to GMed TT RPGS in my initial premise.

You also mention meta-resources, and those are the most common way a games rules try to "control" or balance GM Fiat. However, I also point out that this is just an illusion to make players feel like GM Fiat does not run the game. Rules, Player Agency, RNG, etc are all ways to hide the fact that GM fiat is what ultimately controls a game, because the GM determines how and when the rules are factored in, setting, NPCs, encounters, etc. that no rule system can fully control and still be a GMed TT RPG.

Plus, the GM can always use Rule 0 and discard the rules as an extreme position and be within their per-view as a GM in a TT RPG.

[kyoryu]

Refs in hockey games can put anyone in the box for just about any reason. In some cases, it's enough to change a game.

Usually, it doesn't.

Are you claiming that all hockey games are actually decided by the refs?

[Easy e]

You're mistaking "Agency" for "Power". Players have no real Power in the game, because the GM's power is absolute due to Rule 0. In that, you are correct.

Yes, at least I have someone agree with me on the power all belonging to GMs in GM led TT RPGs! Success!

Also, in GM led TT RPGs, Rule 0 is the base line assumption. If you made a game that did not use Rule 0, you would not bother making a GM part of the game. You would have something else.

[Thrudd]

Yes, the GM can choose/arrange the game content in such a way that the players have no real effect on what happens, even when the mechanical rules are mostly being followed.

The entire debate is about how and why a GM chooses the particular content they choose, not whether or not a GM is allowed to choose content.

Whether any position is "right" or "wrong" in this debate really depends on the relationship between any given GM and their players. If you wouldn't want your players to find out how you really run the game, then there's probably something "wrong" going on.

[Easy e]

Refs in hockey games can put anyone in the box for just about any reason. In some cases, it's enough to change a game.

Usually, it doesn't.

Are you claiming that all hockey games are actually decided by the refs?

Ultimately, yes. They are the ones who tell you if you scored a goal or not. If they say you did not, you didn't. If they say you do, you do. Of course, the NHL (and others) uses many various approaches to reduce flaws and corruption of this system with oversight.

What oversight does a GM have? Only the players willingness to keep playing.

Therefore, the discussion should not be about Illuionism is bad, railroad is bad, sandbox is bad, etc. These are simply tools to be used for enjoyment and discarded when no longer bringing enjoyment. GM led TT RPGs have an inbuilt power imbalance and the GM controls the game, not rules, RNG, player choice, or other factors. The GM does, and ultimately the survival of a game is up to their decisions.

[Telok]

So we all ultimately agree, that PC agency is controlled by GM Fiat,

Do we also agree that all GMs decide how much they exert their GM Fiat powers during a game?

Only in games where the GM is the rules. Some games present rules for the GM to follow, with such rules giving agency to players. At that point the GM violating those rules to deny player agency is no different from a player violating the rules governing PCs.

Now, D&D 5e is a game where the GM is the rules. All of its GM facing "rules" are at best rough guidelines. But a number of games do present actual GM rules and give players agency over aspects of the game. Some may be obfuscated, DtD40k7e stunting rules give players some scene editing ability and the GM is not given a blank check to overrule them (and the GM doesn't have an option to nope PC stunts). But they are still limits on the GM that can give players agency by the rule of the game.

[OldTrees1]

So we all ultimately agree, that PC agency is controlled by GM Fiat,

Do we also agree that all GMs decide how much they exert their GM Fiat powers during a game?

Is it possible for a GM to grant players some limited agency?
Is it possible for a GM to avoid revoking agency they granted to the players?

As a GM, I do not see a meaningful practical difference between "I have granted agency that I won't revoke" vs "I have granted agency that I can't revoke.". Sure there is a technical difference, but the difference will not come up during the campaign I run.

Since I exert my GM Fiat powers to restrict my GM Fiat powers, for all practical purposes the Players do have the agency I granted.


An aside: Now in my case I prefer sandboxes with some events in motion (a cult working on waking an elder evil for example event). There are limits on the granted agency but the players have lots of agency within those bounds.

-snip-

@kyoryu this aside (see immediately above) might be an example of the continuum near the Emergent end but with some Authored elements. The PCs will eventually interact with the cult/elder evil of ice and snow even if it is just improving the insulation/heating on a tavern they decided to run.

The main gameplay loop is one of discovery, exploration, and expression. However I created a rock big enough that when it falls in the pond, the ripples will encounter the PCs. I don't know who tiny/large those ripples will be when they reach the PCs but I did author the ripples eventually reaching the PCs* by making the ripples cover the entire pond.

* Maybe the PCs proactively learn about, find, and stop the cult. (Large ripples). Maybe they are nearby and engage the elder evil when it emerges (Medium ripples). Maybe they decide their tavern will survive the freezing summers as long as they set up trade routes to the outside world and use some heating spells (Tiny ripples) but their main focus is the weekly singing competition they started.

[Composer99]

I realise no one is obliged to accept the stated premise of a thread, but it is frankly exhausting and annoying to read through a thread only to have it become almost immediately derailed because the conversation inevitably shifts to whomever makes the most inflammatory statements that disagree with the stated premise.

[Easy e]

I realise no one is obliged to accept the stated premise of a thread, but it is frankly exhausting and annoying to read through a thread only to have it become almost immediately derailed because the conversation inevitably shifts to whomever makes the most inflammatory statements that disagree with the stated premise.

Noted. I will bow out for a bit.

I am 100% sure that if we all played together at the local RPG table, we would all be fine and have fun; because ultimately; we are all here because we like to play TT RPGs.

Thanks for entertaining my rantings.

[LecternOfJasper]

What oversight does a GM have? Only the players willingness to keep playing.

Therefore, the discussion should not be about Illuionism is bad, railroad is bad, sandbox is bad, etc. These are simply tools to be used for enjoyment and discarded when no longer bringing enjoyment. GM led TT RPGs have an inbuilt power imbalance and the GM controls the game, not rules, RNG, player choice, or other factors. The GM does, and ultimately the survival of a game is up to their decisions.

Sure, GM's in D&D technically have all the power in introducing content that the players interact with. They can, if they want to (for some reason), do all sorts of dumb stuff with or without taking into account the decisions of their players. The players can't really do anything about it except say "that's pretty ****ty" and leave, which seems like the predominant reaction to bad DMing around here.

That said, I can't imagine a player would WANT to play a game where they were promised some level of agency and the DM chooses to blatantly or surreptitiously disregard that (read: railroading, illusionism). Isn't the whole point of this trying to have fun with other people? I suppose I would, in a space of actually trying to run a game for people that want some degree of agency, immediately discard railroading and illusionism.

I have no idea why you're stressing this point so much. Just because DMs can have all the power to point a game in whatever direction they want, does not mean that they actually have all the power to keep the game going. There's a level of buy in necessary from your players that is - for most people's styles here - best achieved by giving them what they want instead of telling them one thing while secretly shuffling encounters do do what you want with.

As a totally voluntary experience (I hope), tabletop games should be predicated on a group of people getting together and trying to make an experience everyone enjoys. If I said "I would like to have some ability to change where the story goes" and the DM says "well, actually, I have all the power so any decision you make is ultimately up to me anyways," I'd think they're tripping and probably would find a way to leave.

So, like, totally valid point about the power structures built into some iterations of D&D, but not conducive to the discussion at hand, because I assumed the discussion at hand was about people trying to play a game with friends and the DM at least giving a passing **** about what the players want out of the game enough to deliver the experience asked for.

Can we get back to the whole "Authored vs. Emergent" thing? I for one found that the "Divergent" suggestion posted would fit most games I've liked or tried to run, and is probably my favored descriptor of these as it takes into account more than just the binary presented by the OP*. I note that that almost certainly would qualify as "Emergent" under the OP's definitions, which is fine. I don't really play a lot of games that run consistently off the seat of my pants, in that I like to prepare the playable world's span of content if I can (as much as is reasonable, at least), but I am fully willing to adjust various faction's plans for the world based on the player's antagonism.

*I also understand that the binary presented by the OP is kinda the whole point of the thread and making new terms for this phenomenon, but whatever.

[Cheesegear]

So, like, totally valid point about the power structures built into some iterations of D&D, but not conducive to the discussion at hand, because I assumed the discussion at hand was about people trying to play a game with friends and the DM at least giving a passing **** about what the players want out of the game enough to deliver the experience asked for.

The problem is that people define things very, very generally, and when you get specific about those generalities, you end up in very dark and murky waters.

'I don't like when [X].'
Oh. I do [X] all the time, here's why, when and how.
'Oh, that's just DMing. That's fine.'
B- But...But you just you don't like it? But also sometimes it's fine?
'Shall we derail the thread about it?'
Let's go!

The internet is not a great place to have in-depth conversations about totally subjective things. 90% of the debate argument is definitional, and this entire thread, is about definitions, which makes it so much worse, and also so much more subjective, because in order to create new definitions, they have to be built on the foundations of the old definitions, which people also don't agree on.

[JNAProductions]

The problem is that people define things very, very generally, and when you get specific about those generalities, you end up in very dark and murky waters.

'I don't like when [X].'
Oh. I do [X] all the time, here's why, when and how.
'Oh, that's just DMing. That's fine.'
B- But...But you just you don't like it? But also sometimes it's fine?
'Shall we derail the thread about it?'
Let's go!

The internet is not a great place to have in-depth conversations about totally subjective things. 90% of the debate argument is definitional, and this entire thread, is about definitions, which makes it so much worse, and also so much more subjective, because in order to create new definitions, they have to be built on the foundations of the old definitions, which people also don't agree on.

It would help your example if you actually used specific examples.

[Vahnavoi]

What oversight does a GM have? Only the players willingness to keep playing.

You have never thought of this too deeply, have you?

I've noted elsewhere that a game master's ability to pitch any game they want, and the ability of players to refuse, is equivalent to classic Ultimatum game. Based on which we can reasonably predict that games which sound blatantly unfair will be rejected by most players. Additionally, we also know that people naturally carry metagame information from game to game and that people have natural tendency to weigh negative experiences more than positive ones. In practice, these two put together mean that a game master has to be fair towards their players vast majority of the time if they want to keep being a game master - because perceived bad acting can make players refuse to play in perpetuity. This puts limits to what kind of a game the game master can pitch.

Game theoretically, this situation is similar to iterated Prisoner's dilemma. If you are in an open-ended situation where you don't know how many games you are going to play with the same people, doing whatever the Hell you want is no longer a dominant strategy you should always go for. Instead, another strategy rears its head: tit-for-tat. In plain terms, this means that fresh players will begin from assumption of trust and then continue to trust a game master if the game master continues to be trustworthy. Violations of trust will be met with withdrawal of trust and refusal to play. On the game master's side, following the same strategy entails beginning with a game that gives players their fair share and sense of agency, and then continuing to hold games according to that principle. If players start to go outside the bounds of agency, the game master should withdraw trust and stop playing with those players.


That's the abstract. On a more practical level: laws of the land, rules of the event venue and social relationships between players don't cease to exist when you put your game master's hat. You can be held accountable for the games you run not just by your players, but also by all the people your players tell of your games, the people who give you the place to run your games, the law enforcement of your country, etc.. It's ironic that you can get there are people who hate GM-lead games because of their bad experiences, but don't actually seem to understand that your own clueless characterization of what a game master can do and why actively contributes to that problem.

[Cluedrew]

No, when I refer to "authored" I don't mean the world - I mean the path that hte players take.

OK, well assuming a hard line between the two*, so let's focus in on just the path.

Linear Path: All events are arranged in a single fixed sequence.
Sandbox Path: All events are available to experience in any order.

At these extremes I'm not sure either formula sounds pretty fun, with a lack of choices in the linear path and a lack of consequences in the sandbox. Maybe that gets fixed at the scene and sub-scene level while the inter-scene graph remains unchanged. Or maybe people decide to mix it up a bit.

New Linear Path: All events are arranged in order, but there are chains of alternate events that travel in sequence before rejoining.
New Sandbox Path: Events are arranged in many short linear chains, the chains are available in any order.

And then I can start coming up with more ways to hybridize these structures. (And that isn't even including a tree path, which is kind of like the linear path except it breaks off part way through.) I can make the chains in the sandbox longer, introduce side chains on the linear adventure that can be skipped or done later, or even have one primary chain of events in the sandbox with a bunch of little side chains off to the side that actually have most of the content in the game.

So in a giant flow chart a choice and a progression are fundamentally different structures, but over the entire campaign saying all games boil down to one of those two seems overly simplified.

* A bold assumption, but I think it is good enough for what I want to say here.

[Cheesegear]

I've read a few of these threads in an as many weeks, and I've come across a central theme:

The DM should engage with - but not necessarily reward - player creativity.

How much, should a DM engage with player creativity?

...How long is a piece of string?

[JNAProductions]

I've read a few of these threads in an as many weeks, and I've come across a central theme:

The DM should engage with - but not necessarily reward - player creativity.

How much, should a DM engage with player creativity?

...How long is a piece of string?

How much is fun for the table?
You want to engage with players that interact with the setting or whatever the focus is, but at the same time, you shouldn't focus on one player to the exclusion of others. Everyone should have fun at the table.

So, got any specific examples to back up your generalities?

[NichG]

I've read a few of these threads in an as many weeks, and I've come across a central theme:

The DM should engage with - but not necessarily reward - player creativity.

How much, should a DM engage with player creativity?

...How long is a piece of string?

That's not really where the thread started though, that's just a forum argument that tends to drift into anything vaguely related and grabs focus.

This isn't inherently a moral argument, it's a question of how to think about a space of experiences and styles and preferences, and a question of whether that tends to break down on certain lines better than others.

So it's not 'how much should a DM engage with player creativity?', it's 'does the effect of integrating player decisions in a way that they have predetermined potential impact lead to a qualitatively different feel than if player decisions are integrated in a way where their cumulative impact can be unbounded?'

[Cheesegear]

So, got any specific examples to back up your generalities?

Railroads are bad 'cause players want to do stuff.
Backstories are good 'cause players want to do stuff.
Emergent gameplay good 'cause players want to do stuff.

But how much 'doing of stuff' should a DM allow?
Remember how long that piece of string is? About that much.

[JNAProductions]

Railroads are bad 'cause players want to do stuff.
Backstories are good 'cause players want to do stuff.
Emergent gameplay good 'cause players want to do stuff.

But how much 'doing of stuff' should a DM allow?
Remember how long that piece of string is? About that much.

Railroads are bad because they involve deceiving players or forcing them outright into doing things they'd rather not.
Backstories can be good because they can show the DM what the player is interested in, have ready-to-go hooks that the character will bite, and can help develop personality for the player character.
Emergent gameplay, as-in not having a preset path for the party to follow, is good for players who like that style, and bad for players who don't.

[Cheesegear]

So it's not 'how much should a DM engage with player creativity?', it's
'does the effect of integrating player decisions in a way that they have predetermined potential impact lead to a qualitatively different feel than if player decisions are integrated in a way where their cumulative impact can be unbounded?'

I feel like you just said the first thing - my thing - with more words.

Railroads are bad because they involve deceiving players or forcing them outright into doing things they'd rather not.

Players want to do stuff.

Backstories can be good because they can show the DM what the player is interested in, have ready-to-go hooks that the character will bite, and can help develop personality for the player character.

Players want to do stuff.

Emergent gameplay, as-in not having a preset path for the party to follow, is good for players who like that style, and bad for players who don't.

...But then you went for a weaksauce 'it depends', and now we're back to the piece of string where nobody is going to agree on how long that string should be. While we're at it, did anyone even decide on what colour the string is, yet?

[JNAProductions]

I feel like you just said the first thing - my thing - with more words.

Players want to do stuff.

Players want to do stuff.

...But then you went for a weaksauce 'it depends', and now we're back to the piece of string where nobody is going to agree on how long that string should be. While we're at it, did anyone even decide on what colour the string is, yet?

So, I have two players. We'll call them Jack and Jill.

Jack is new to TTRPGs. He loves movies, though, and was sold on trying a session of D&D because he gets to be an action hero. Jack isn't very good at taking the initiative, partly because he's new, and partly because that's just who he is.
I, as the DM, learn this by talking to him. So I think of a plot, various events and encounters to flesh it out, and give Jack the pitch. We'll say the plot's about an invading demonic army.
I tell Jack "My general idea is for the party, including you, to be working against an invading army of demons. It won't be super complicated, but I've got a lot of stuff planned that should be fun, and let you feel like an action hero. Sound good?"
Jack agrees.

Jill is a veteran TTRPG player. She loves making deep, complex characters, who get strongly affected by the world around them, and in turn affect the world. She's great at taking the initiative, and has DMed too.
I, as the DM, learn this by talking to her. So, because she's a veteran player, I get a lot of her input on the setting creation. I don't necessarily agree with everything she says, but we work out something that will be fun for me to run and her to play in-she knows the broad strokes of the world, but not the little secrets I hide away in it.
When we start, she begins play in Citytropolis, where there's a lot of tension about ready to boil over. Her character, being a peacemaker, tries to calm the city down-does she succeed, or fail? That's up to her ideas and her luck with the dice. Depending on how well she does, we carry on from there, with her PC guiding the action-not simply going through a plot I made.

Jack wouldn't be good with emergent gameplay. He's the kind of player who likes a more guided experience. Maybe he'll learn to take the initiative as he plays more, maybe not-either way, he's having fun, and that's important.
Jill wouldn't be good WITHOUT emergent gameplay. She's the kind of player who, if offered a game that was just a straight run through a module, would turn that game down, because that's not what she's interested in.

In other words, people are different. Different strokes, different folks, and all that.

[NichG]

I feel like you just said the first thing - my thing - with more words.

I removed the 'should'. What I said has nothing at will with what is good or bad, what one ought to do, whether to approve of someone doing something, etc.

[Tanarii]

Have you managed to reconcile "player wanting to make decisions for the content" =/= player agency yet? If not, there's no further point in discussing what railroading is until you understand what player agency actually is.

[Thrudd]

Talking about authored, emergent, linear, sandbox gameplay, etc., is essentially a discussion about what sorts of considerations GMs might have regarding their choice of content. Especially in D&D, the DM is only given loose guidelines and suggestions about how to do this - that's why there are so many discussions about how different people do it. Everyone agrees that the DM can do almost anything they want for any or no reason...we're talking about what we think they should do, the how and the why of content selection and presentation.

It is believed by many of us that if the players are made aware of the GM's rationale and method of content selection, they will better understand their role in the game, what is expected of them and in what ways they can meaningfully interact with the content (aka, how much/what type of agency they have). I think it's safe to say that for most of us, knowing how a game actually works makes the game more fun.

Example Game pitch 1 - I have designed a story that will be revealed through a series of scenarios and set-piece encounters, about a great threat that needs to be stopped. Each of your characters will have a reason to be involved in the story connected with some element of the short character description I asked you to provide. In each scene, you will find out the next location you need to reach. There will also be extra clues and secrets that you may or may not find in each scene, the more clues and secrets you find, you will have more advantages later. Characters can be resurrected if they die between set-pieces, but if you perform well enough in most of the encounters and uncover enough of the secrets, you might even defeat the big boss and save the world at the end!

-I think everyone agrees this is a fully linear/authored game. The players here will know they have no control over whether or not to pursue the adventure, where or when the fights will take place. They know they will be choosing their combat tactics, their performance in encounters will have bearing on the later encounters, and they will be able to interact and explore within the bounds of each scenario to find optional clues and secrets. They know they won't lose their characters before the end, but could lose the final battle. While it isn't everyone's cup of tea, I feel like this is a completely acceptable way to run a game. It has a definite end-point, and if the story and set-pieces are well designed, it could be plenty of fun. Having told the players how it works, way more fun and less stress for the DM, imo, not needing to worry about hiding the "rails" or fighting to keep the players "on track".

[OldTrees1]

While it isn't everyone's cup of tea, I feel like this is a completely acceptable way to run a game. It has a definite end-point, and if the story and set-pieces are well designed, it could be plenty of fun. Having told the players how it works, way more fun and less stress for the DM, imo, not needing to worry about hiding the "rails" or fighting to keep the players "on track".

Yes, that is not my cup of tea, but some players would enjoy that completely acceptable way to run the game.

[Vahnavoi]

It's actually very general game structure, for example a classic scout contest track follows the same rules: each activity point is marked on a map, the points have to be reached in order, side tasks are hidden along the routes between points. However, in reality this structure allows for great deal of emergence, because contestants have to use their own pathfinding skills to go from point to point. Similarly progress within activity points varies immensely based on player skill. Players are very much agents of their own progress and success, so this game structure really doesn't entail the kind of game master chokehold that people think of when they complain about (or defend) railroading.

For a similar reason, I sometimes say that genuine railshooters are less railroaded than tabletop game with a game master enforcing a script. In the shooter, you can actually lose, almost at any point. You have to keep your eyes on the game, actually aim and shoot the targets, to progress. The authored structure of the game puts constraints on your actions, but you unquestionably have to act and your decisions of how to act have tangible effect on the game.

The point, to some discussers here, would be this: don't confuse questions of player agency for questions of if a game is authored or emergent. Even if the dichtomy between authored and emergent games holds on some level, player agency is not dichtomous along the same line.