TheRPGSite

For example, in Pendragon there are Personality Traits. These are used to define the Character.
A "saving roll" can be used to determine if a Character acts according to the Trait as opposed to how the Player wants.
In real life we see people with addictions, there are a list of classic Sins that real people do.
What is the issue with modelling a game character's actions based on the character Traits?
The Player acts as the Character's will but the body does what it does.
As in real life, people avoid temptation as a way to not do things they feel are wrong (or against their Traits).
Why do many/most games assume that Characters have unbreakable will power?

Why don't more games include a Trait like mechanic? (Or do they and I just missed it?)
=

Quote from: Greentongue;1032133Why don't more games include a Trait like mechanic? (Or do they and I just missed it?)
=

They do it called having a 3 Charisma. (or 3 Wisdom, etc.)

To answer the main question in the subject:  Because games aren't real life.  

To the extent that the players want the game to be more like real life, they'll want to surrender at least some aspects of player agency for the very reason you give.  To the extent that the players do not, they will be more resistant to it.

Also, "player agency" is not limited to having control over your will.  I'd say that is not even the main focus of player agency. Rather, player agency is being allowed to make decisions.  Those decisions don't have to succeed.  If you are in a game that has a mechanic where your character can succumb to a flaw, then it is not losing player agency to sometimes roll against that mechanic and lose control.  It is losing player agency, for example, if the GM just decides that you don't get to roll against the normal mechanic.*  It is not losing player agency if you decide that your guy just fails.  You made the decision whether or not to fight the temptation--agency.  Then the dice decided you failed.  The character lost agency; the player did not.

* Yes, technically I realize that the GM could decide the outcome here, making the roll superfluous, based on the idea that the situation was so dire you couldn't possibly succeed.  The player still tried to fight the temptation, but the character was doomed no matter what the player did.  What would really be across the line is if the GM decided that your character jumped in whole hog, not even trying to resist.

Quote from: Greentongue;1032133For example, in Pendragon there are Personality Traits. These are used to define the Character.
A "saving roll" can be used to determine if a Character acts according to the Trait as opposed to how the Player wants.
In real life we see people with addictions, there are a list of classic Sins that real people do.
What is the issue with modelling a game character's actions based on the character Traits?
The Player acts as the Character's will but the body does what it does.
As in real life, people avoid temptation as a way to not do things they feel are wrong (or against their Traits).
Why do many/most games assume that Characters have unbreakable will power?

Why don't more games include a Trait like mechanic? (Or do they and I just missed it?)
=

Well GURPS is full of personality traits that the player is supposed to roleplay, and require will rolls to resist. Resisting traits generally should be done when there's a conflicting motivation that the PC also has, not so much OOC player impulses. Resisting your PC's traits frequently without good reason is considered bad roleplaying (and can be penalized with negative consequences). Such disadvantages are designed to materially limit "player agency" and to significantly represent characters with certain behavior.

Unless they get added during especially traumatic play (e.g. in a horror game where part of the point is to terrorize PCs and drive them mad), it's usually up to the players (during point-buy character creation) to decide whether their characters have any of those or not, so players who want to have "full player agency" should just not choose those kinds of disadvantages for their PCs.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1032142To answer the main question in the subject:  Because games aren't real life.  

To the extent that the players want the game to be more like real life, they'll want to surrender at least some aspects of player agency for the very reason you give.  To the extent that the players do not, they will be more resistant to it.

Also, "player agency" is not limited to having control over your will.  I'd say that is not even the main focus of player agency. Rather, player agency is being allowed to make decisions.  Those decisions don't have to succeed.  If you are in a game that has a mechanic where your character can succumb to a flaw, then it is not losing player agency to sometimes roll against that mechanic and lose control.  It is losing player agency, for example, if the GM just decides that you don't get to roll against the normal mechanic.*  It is not losing player agency if you decide that your guy just fails.  You made the decision whether or not to fight the temptation--agency.  Then the dice decided you failed.  The character lost agency; the player did not.

* Yes, technically I realize that the GM could decide the outcome here, making the roll superfluous, based on the idea that the situation was so dire you couldn't possibly succeed.  The player still tried to fight the temptation, but the character was doomed no matter what the player did.  What would really be across the line is if the GM decided that your character jumped in whole hog, not even trying to resist.

I agree with this. Let's put a trope-y scenario up. A Paladin has to choose between Law and Good. Say, the law of the land is that theft is punishable by cutting off someone's hand. A thief steals a loaf of bread to feed his family. (I said this would be tropey) the paladin catches him. Should the paladin let the guy go, or turn him in for theft, knowing that he might have his hand cut off? Putting a dice mechanic on the decision makes the choice for the player. (Or at least heavily influences it)

Now, the OP's scenario is a bit different. An addiction is something that affects a person both physically and psychologically. So a will roll might be appropriate, when a character is deciding to indulge their addiction to the detriment of other goals. Say saving money up for a castle or whatnot.

I don't mind some loss of control... Willpower rolls, Magical compulsion, Sanity loss, disease, addictions and obsessions, possession by spirits, drug-induced malleability/confusion/delusion, imprisonment... but no one I know likes it when the GM just tells you what your PC wants/feels/thinks/chooses with no such reason.

You both appear to be describing character agency.  Player agency has more to do with exercising control over the fiction of the setting.

An example of player exercising player agency would be a player saying something like "I reach out to my street contracts and find someone who will sell me a map of the secret sewer entrance to the castle," when the GM has not established that any such entrance exists.  If the GM allows this action, then they are encouraging player agency.   If the GM disallows this action, then they are limiting player agency.  Another example would be a player creating a character that is a member of the Order of Assassins, when then GM has established that any such Order exists.  Essentially "player agency" means that players are able to contribute facts about setting to the game, which has traditionally been the purview of the GM.

I personally am generally okay with allowing some player agency, with the understanding that any player contribution requires GM permission, and may require some degree of modification before being allowed.  For example, in my last campaign one of the players wanted to play a member of a psychic race from the 3.5 D&D Psionics Handbook.  I didn't want to incorporate this entire race into my campaign, but since the race was essentially a form of modified human, I worked with the player to create a unique character who had been subject to wizardly shenanigans and as a result had all of the abilities of this species and psionic powers, making the player happy without forcing me to add a whole new species to my world.

Edit:  I run HERO System, which has two Complications -- Enraged and Psychological Limitation -- that both remove character agency, but since a player chooses to take complications and gets points for them, it's not removing player agency.  They defined their character that way.

When an alcoholic has the opportunity to drink, does he have a choice or is he compelled to drink beyond his control? That is a question that society struggles with to a large degree. If someone is being tortured, does the victim have a choice to tell the torturer what he wants to hear or is the victim forced to talk? If a married man is seduced by a beautiful woman, must be give in to temptation or can he resist and if he can't resist, then can he be blamed for his infidelity?

Along these lines, is there even such a thing as choice or are we but machines that react to stimuli in an irresistible way based on our hardware and programming? These are pretty deep philosophical questions.

The assumption that most of us live under is that we have choices, but that the above scenarios are hard choices. The problem with hard choices in an RPG is that the player doesn't suffer for make no hard choices like the character does and the player doesn't gain from giving into temptation like the character would. It would be nice if people could role play those hard choices and have the character occasionally show limited to his resolve. Many players will be inclined to brush off such hard choices, since doing so takes no effort for them and they prefer the benefits of resisting.

There are games that model willpower and difficult to resist compulsions. Vampire: the Masquerade does this with Willpower and Virtues. Even D&D does it with Willpower saving throws - which are typically only required for magical urges, you don't usually have to make a Willpower save to get up from bed in the morning or to resist the flirtations of a comely barmaid, even though a real person effectively does both.

I feel torn myself. I like to be able to choose my character's actions but I also don't like it when people no-sell what would be incredibly hard decisions for characters. Maybe there should be the equivalent of Willpower rolls for making hard decisions, but there should be some option available to allow for characters will huge resolves of Willpower not to have to fall to temptation.

One time I was playing a priest character who was extremely devoted to his highly lawful religious, which included a vow of celibacy and chastity. Our party had to go to a brothel to talk to the people there as a part of our mission. My character ended up talking to this high class prostitute there and the DM said that I fell in love with her. Then henceforth I had to act out my love for her, and of course she turns out to be be evil and caused all sorts of trouble for the party, which pissed me off because it completely went against what my character would do. The DM later said that it was part of the module he was running that she was so beautiful and charismatic that anybody who had sex with her would fall in love with her. My character didn't have sex with her, he just talked, but since he was the only male character exposed to her and the DM wanted to play out that plot element, he had me fall in love with her.

Anyway, that was a case where my agency was removed in such a way that I thought it violated rather that preserved realism and I wish I could have been given some option (even a feat or something) that allowed me to resist temptation.

Well, for starters, the OP has seriously misunderstood how Pendragon works, and I'm too fucking lazy to type out a correction.

Secondly, games are about presenting interesting choices to the players.

Thirdly, people differ on what constitutes an interesting choice, which is why not all games are the same.

It seems to me that the absence of good choices in life is the reason player agency is so important in rpgs.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1032163Well, for starters, the OP has seriously misunderstood how Pendragon works, and I'm too fucking lazy to type out a correction.

I understand that the Traits can be used to track tendencies and not as Save Rolls however, you do modify them on a success or failure, so at some level, it is forcing action/reaction.

My main point is about players representing characters but not accepting character flaws driving action/reaction out of the players control.
=

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1032142To answer the main question in the subject:  Because games aren't real life.

This.  Next question?

Quote from: David Johansen;1032165It seems to me that the absence of good choices in life is the reason player agency is so important in rpgs.

If there are obviously good and bad choices, they aren't really choices.

Because real life doesn't always give it.

Because we play RPGs to do things we don't, and very often can't, do in Real Life.

Because RPGs are a group activity of shared imagination players often want a share in building that imaginary world, not just reacting to it but also contributing to it.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1032142Also, "player agency" is not limited to having control over your will.  I'd say that is not even the main focus of player agency. Rather, player agency is being allowed to make decisions.  Those decisions don't have to succeed.  If you are in a game that has a mechanic where your character can succumb to a flaw, then it is not losing player agency to sometimes roll against that mechanic and lose control.  It is losing player agency, for example, if the GM just decides that you don't get to roll against the normal mechanic.*  It is not losing player agency if you decide that your guy just fails.  You made the decision whether or not to fight the temptation--agency.  Then the dice decided you failed.  The character lost agency; the player did not.

Bada boom bada BINGO!

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032150You both appear to be describing character agency.  Player agency has more to do with exercising control over the fiction of the setting.

An example of player exercising player agency would be a player saying something like "I reach out to my street contracts and find someone who will sell me a map of the secret sewer entrance to the castle," when the GM has not established that any such entrance exists.  If the GM allows this action, then they are encouraging player agency.   If the GM disallows this action, then they are limiting player agency.  Another example would be a player creating a character that is a member of the Order of Assassins, when then GM has established that any such Order exists.  Essentially "player agency" means that players are able to contribute facts about setting to the game, which has traditionally been the purview of the GM.

Nope.  Player agency has nothing to do with exercising GM powers.

And now comes three hundred posts of "definition bingo" and goal-post moving.

I agree with Big Green, personally.  But this thread is done for.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1032212And now comes three hundred posts of "definition bingo" and goal-post moving.

I agree with Big Green, personally.  But this thread is done for.

Eh, this came up not all that long ago, everyone just said "Nope, Agency is choice, PERIOD" and we kind of all just moved on.

I guess it is about the Gamest / Simulest divide.
=

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1032142To answer the main question in the subject:  Because games aren't real life. ... player agency is being allowed to make decisions.

Pretty much this. I do this for entertainment, and quite rarely am I looking for catharsis.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032180If there are obviously good and bad choices, they aren't really choices.

You would think so. But, amazingly, some people do make a habit of choosing poorly.

(Imagine the scene in Scary Movie where Carmen Electra is looking at the signs saying "Safety" and "Death".)

Quote from: CRKrueger;1032188Nope.  Player agency has nothing to do with exercising GM powers.

Well, you're wrong. So...I don't know what else to say.  I've been in plenty of arguments with the storygamer types who whinge constantly about player agency, and that's what they are talking about.  I mean, you can say "Nope" all you want, but you don't know what you're talking about.  The whole concept of "player agency" is meant as a challenge to the very assumption that "GM powers" belong exclusively to the GM, so saying it has "nothing to do" with exercising GM powers only demonstrates that you literally have no understanding of the issue and your entire frame of reference is useless.

Have fun with that.

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032294Well, you're wrong. So...I don't know what else to say.  I've been in plenty of arguments with the storygamer types who whinge constantly about player agency, and that's what they are talking about.  I mean, you can say "Nope" all you want, but you don't know what you're talking about.  The whole concept of "player agency" is meant as a challenge to the very assumption that "GM powers" belong exclusively to the GM, so saying it has "nothing to do" with exercising GM powers only demonstrates that you literally have no understanding of the issue and your entire frame of reference is useless.

Googling "player agency" turns up a slew of discussions, articles, podcasts, etc with many different ideas about what "agency" means. There is no one agreed definition, except at the high level of "what players can or can't choose to do and affect".

Here in this thread, Greentongue the OP spelled out the context he was asking about pretty clearly, and it was not about storygaming or players having "agency" over traditionally-GM-domain things.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1032215Eh, this came up not all that long ago, everyone just said "Nope, Agency is choice, PERIOD" and we kind of all just moved on.

Good enough.  Personally, just hearing terms like "player agency" tends to give me explosive flatulence.

SPLUURRRRRKKKK!!!  sorry

* wrings out underwear *

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032294Well, you're wrong. So...I don't know what else to say.  I've been in plenty of arguments with the storygamer types who whinge constantly about player agency, and that's what they are talking about.  I mean, you can say "Nope" all you want, but you don't know what you're talking about.  The whole concept of "player agency" is meant as a challenge to the very assumption that "GM powers" belong exclusively to the GM, so saying it has "nothing to do" with exercising GM powers only demonstrates that you literally have no understanding of the issue and your entire frame of reference is useless.

Have fun with that.

Crom DAMN it, we need that fucking popcorn smiley back!!!

I like the breakdown between "character agency" and "player agency". That makes much more sense and allows for better discussions. Unfortunately, I have generally seen them convoluted as the same thing when clearly they are not.

To me, "character agency" is all about roleplaying. If you choose to play a drunk gunfighter, then your PC has a hard time resisting the juice. If your PC gets charmed, you get to play a charmed PC. If your PC belongs to a culture who hates elves, then at bare minimum, you get to play a PC with a bias against elves.

What's the appeal of roleplaying if the dice dictate what you feel and do?

"Roll to care about the quest-giver's request"

"Roll to be brave enough to enter the dungeon"

"Roll to contemplate your life decisions as the ogre bears down on you"

Wouldn't it be more interesting to, y'know, roleplay that stuff? Make decisions about who your character is? Define your character through those choices?

Why give your agency over to the idiot-god of the dice? Do you routinely flip coins to make major life decisions like Two-Face?

Games have rules for exhaustion, dsisease, death, curses... Do we really need rules to dictate impulse control? Cortisol levels?

Like I'm all for realism and grit but come on

I understand you might get tired of your players always being like "I stoically choose the difficult and heroic option because GOOD GUY" and it's not actually hard for them in real life. Stop running for boring assholes. Find a player who's like "My character is addicted to opium and has poor impulse control" and have yourself a ball. It worked for me!

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032294Well, you're wrong. So...I don't know what else to say.  I've been in plenty of arguments with the storygamer types who whinge constantly about player agency, and that's what they are talking about.  I mean, you can say "Nope" all you want, but you don't know what you're talking about.  The whole concept of "player agency" is meant as a challenge to the very assumption that "GM powers" belong exclusively to the GM, so saying it has "nothing to do" with exercising GM powers only demonstrates that you literally have no understanding of the issue and your entire frame of reference is useless.

Have fun with that.

Nope, you are wrong.  Though given your source material, it wouldn't be the first time that an overly narrowed definition was hijacked by that crowd to try to mean less than it is.  Have fun with that, if you can call what that is fun.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1032307Good enough.  Personally, just hearing terms like "player agency" tends to give me explosive flatulence.

SPLUURRRRRKKKK!!!  sorry

* wrings out underwear *

The only thing I find more cringey than intellectual wankery over elfgames, is mocking intellectual wankery over elfgames. There's a sweet spot.

If a person is a GM worth their salt, why shouldn't they put some skull work into how they can make their games more cool and fun? Or is that overthinking things?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1032328The only thing I find more cringey than intellectual wankery over elfgames, is mocking intellectual wankery over elfgames. There's a sweet spot.

I have to agree here.  It may not be the intent, but posts mocking give the impression of "ONE TRUE WAYISM!" and in my experience, t'ain't no such animal.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1032328If a person is a GM worth their salt, why shouldn't they put some skull work into how they can make their games more cool and fun? Or is that overthinking things?

In my experience if everyone is having fun, and adding more detail just adds to it?  I don't think it's a bad thing.

But that's just my experience, which is purely anecdotal and not claimed to be fact in any way.

Quote from: Azraele;1032325What's the appeal of roleplaying if the dice dictate what you feel and do?

"Roll to care about the quest-giver's request"

"Roll to be brave enough to enter the dungeon"

"Roll to contemplate your life decisions as the ogre bears down on you"

Wouldn't it be more interesting to, y'know, roleplay that stuff? Make decisions about who your character is? Define your character through those choices?

Why give your agency over to the idiot-god of the dice? Do you routinely flip coins to make major life decisions like Two-Face?

Games have rules for exhaustion, dsisease, death, curses... Do we really need rules to dictate impulse control? Cortisol levels?

Like I'm all for realism and grit but come on

I understand you might get tired of your players always being like "I stoically choose the difficult and heroic option because GOOD GUY" and it's not actually hard for them in real life. Stop running for boring assholes. Find a player who's like "My character is addicted to opium and has poor impulse control" and have yourself a ball. It worked for me!

The idea is it makes the character more "real", as if they actually exist as their own person, where even you can't tell them what to do. They have their own personality. The more the game trends in that direction, the more you're like their conscience that is along for the ride, or one of the angels or devils on their shoulder telling them what to do.

Quote from: Simlasa;1032149I don't mind some loss of control... Willpower rolls, Magical compulsion, Sanity loss, disease, addictions and obsessions, possession by spirits, drug-induced malleability/confusion/delusion, imprisonment... but no one I know likes it when the GM just tells you what your PC wants/feels/thinks/chooses with no such reason.

This is my view too.

I'm on the fence about things such as 5e traits and flaws, and the inspiration mechanic that goes with it. My gut feeling is I dont like them; I'd rather players just to RP their guy as much or as little as they like. I am a big believer in "show not tell/write down" your PC's personality.

Hero does a good job with making flaws occur on 8 or less, 11 or less, or 14 or less depending on how often you want that flaw to occur in game (and more often = more points). Thus, it becomes an interesting situation whether your flaw affects the game, and whether it hits at a really bad time.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1032328The only thing I find more cringey than intellectual wankery over elfgames, is mocking intellectual wankery over elfgames. There's a sweet spot.

If a person is a GM worth their salt, why shouldn't they put some skull work into how they can make their games more cool and fun? Or is that overthinking things?

It's the overly intellectually pretentious vocabulary.

Why not "choices?"  Or "meaningful choices?"

As George Orwell said, always use the smallest word that works.

Quote from: Azraele;1032325What's the appeal of roleplaying if the dice dictate what you feel and do?

"Roll to care about the quest-giver's request"

"Roll to be brave enough to enter the dungeon"

"Roll to contemplate your life decisions as the ogre bears down on you"

Wouldn't it be more interesting to, y'know, roleplay that stuff? Make decisions about who your character is? Define your character through those choices?

Why give your agency over to the idiot-god of the dice? Do you routinely flip coins to make major life decisions like Two-Face?

Games have rules for exhaustion, dsisease, death, curses... Do we really need rules to dictate impulse control? Cortisol levels?

Like I'm all for realism and grit but come on

I understand you might get tired of your players always being like "I stoically choose the difficult and heroic option because GOOD GUY" and it's not actually hard for them in real life. Stop running for boring assholes. Find a player who's like "My character is addicted to opium and has poor impulse control" and have yourself a ball. It worked for me!

Read Le Morte d'Arthur.  Then read Pendragon 5th edition, including the designer's notes chapter.  All will be made clear.

There's a similar breakdown in wargames.
Some wargames give the player perfect knowledge and control over his troops. All commands get through, all commands are obeyed. But there are other (generally less popular) wargames that throw a lot of fog onto the battlefield, add 'friction' to the game to represent the vagaries of actual battles. Some treat the players orders to the troops as little more than suggestions, that might not even reach their intended ears.
I generally prefer the latter... games like 5150 and Chain of Command... where I have less than perfect control, because it just feels more plausible and requires more than just showing up with the most obsessively min-maxed army.

Quote from: Greentongue;1032133Why is Player Agency so critical when Real Life doesn't always give it?

Because real life doesn't always give it.

If I want a long boring story with few real choices and no point to it, I have my life, I don't need to sit around a table of geeks with a book of rules to get it.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1032327Nope, you are wrong.

No, you're wrong.  Wow, look how easy it is to do this.  You're wrong.  Nope, you're wrong.  Wrong wrong wrong.  Wrongity wrong wrong.  WRONG!  Try again, Steve, because you're wrong.

Make a real argument.

QuoteThough given your source material, it wouldn't be the first time that an overly narrowed definition was hijacked by that crowd to try to mean less than it is.

Hijacked?  Who, other than that crowd, gives a shit about "player agency?"  As far as I know, that crowd is the crowd that introduced "agency" into the discussion.

Quote from: Azraele;1032325Why give your agency over to the idiot-god of the dice? Do you routinely flip coins to make major life decisions like Two-Face?

Games have rules for exhaustion, dsisease, death, curses... Do we really need rules to dictate impulse control? Cortisol levels?

Like I'm all for realism and grit but come on

I understand you might get tired of your players always being like "I stoically choose the difficult and heroic option because GOOD GUY" and it's not actually hard for them in real life. Stop running for boring assholes. Find a player who's like "My character is addicted to opium and has poor impulse control" and have yourself a ball. It worked for me!

Not everyone who wants to play a character addicted to opium with has poor impulse control can easily relate to such a character.
Having a mechanic that provide a frame work for that seems helpful not a plague on gaming.
=

When I hear the term player agency I don't mean having full control over your characters personality and behaviour (pendragon traits don't intefere with player agency) but having the ability to meaningfully influence events so you don't get the situation I had recently where the gm said "you can't succeed at that point, the module says I need that guy later on".

Quote from: Greentongue;1032389Not everyone who wants to play a character addicted to opium with has poor impulse control can easily relate to such a character.
Having a mechanic that provide a frame work for that seems helpful not a plague on gaming.
=

Providing a framework  /= The dice playing your character

The first is fine

The second is indeed a plague on gaming

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032379No, you're wrong.  Wow, look how easy it is to do this.  You're wrong.  Nope, you're wrong.  Wrong wrong wrong.  Wrongity wrong wrong.  WRONG!  Try again, Steve, because you're wrong.

Make a real argument.

Pot, meet kettle.  I'm returning the favor you demonstrated when you entered the conversation.  I made an argument in my opening post, which you said was "wrong" and then promptly ignored. Oh, you had some text, but none of it pertained to what I said.   So go back there and address my argument, or I'm done with you.

Beside, in my second post, I wasn't talking to you.  I was talking about you for the benefit of anyone else that might have thought I considered your answer useful.  Capiche?

Another reason why player agency feels so important is because, despite all the research showing the effects of certain chemicals on behavior, most everyone THINKS they're in control of themselves all the time.

Even the addict thinks they're choosing to remain an addict by their free choice and that they can stop any time they want... they just don't want to stop right now. That's why getting an addict to admit they're NOT in control is such an important step in overcoming the addiction.

No one experiences giving in to say, nicotine addiction, as losing control... from their perspective they've chosen to give into the craving.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1032407Pot, meet kettle.  I'm returning the favor you demonstrated when you entered the conversation.  I made an argument in my opening post, which you said was "wrong" and then promptly ignored. Oh, you had some text, but none of it pertained to what I said.   So go back there and address my argument, or I'm done with you.

You're delusional, petty and ridiculous.  I didn't say you were wrong, I said you were talking about character agency, not player agency.  You just said "You're wrong" like a stupid, dull-witted blockhead, and now I see you did that because you're a petty, infantile little child of a man, and not at all worth talking to.  Enjoy your life of being a useless, ignorant cretin, you dumb sack of crap.

QuoteBeside, in my second post, I wasn't talking to you.  I was talking about you for the benefit of anyone else that might have thought I considered your answer useful.  Capiche?

How very Mean Girls of you, you sad, pathetic little shit.

Well, for the benefit of our audience:  Everyone, gather round, listen up.  Steven Mitchell is a fucking idiot  and he has no idea what he's talking about.  None of  you really does.  You're all talking in circles at each other, because you're all ignorant.  There's nothing inherently wrong with being ignorant, unless you're a small, petty little man with a fragile ego like this idiot Steven Mitchell, who is such a pathetic failure of a human being, with such a fragile, easily shattered ego that he turns into a little fucking bitch when someone offers a polite correction.  Don't be like Steve, be a grown-up, be an adult.

What's being called "player agency" in this thread is not what the people who introduced that term into the lexicon mean by "player agency."  You all are talking about playing the game.  It's a stupid, pointless conversation.  Here, let me wrap it all up for you:

Q:  Is a player in control of their character's actions?  

A: Yes, otherwise why are we calling them players?  What are they playing if not their characters?

Q: Is it ever okay for the GM to take away a player's control of their character?

A: That depends on the rules of the system being used.

Q: Is it ever okay for the GM to take away a player's control of their character outside of the rules?

A: Taking control of a player's character and making decision for that character against the player's wishes and outside the structure of the rules is a dick move and it you do that, you're a shitty DM and a bad person.  A DM should never tell a player "Your character wouldn't do that."  If you disagree with me on this point, the  you are a shitty DM and a bad person.  No reasonable person disagree on this point, it's fucking obvious and boring.

This argument was settled decades ago, in the early days of D&D.  

Q: Is calling a player exercising control over their character "player agency" meaningful?

A: No, it adds nothing to the discussion.  It's pointless jargon, and it means now -- thanks to fucking useless idiotic children like Steven "Most Useless Fucker On the Planet" Mitchell -- that we have no term for discussing the player ability to add facts to the setting.  Thanks Steven, you useless fucker.

What's with the influx of dimwits like Skepticultist recently? Can we institute some sort of poll test as part of the registration processes to weed people like him out?

Let's cut to the chase and make a chart so we can roll up our characters and make one big roll to see if we were successful in the campaign, and let the GM narrate to us all what happened?

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032429Well, for the benefit of our audience:  Everyone, gather round, listen up.  Steven Mitchell is a fucking idiot  and he has no idea what he's talking about.  None of  you really does.  You're all talking in circles at each other, because you're all ignorant.

The only person I see going in circles is you bitching about terminology. But have at it. It's no skin off my teeth.

QuoteWhat's being called "player agency" in this thread is not what the people who introduced that term into the lexicon mean by "player agency."  You all are talking about playing the game.  It's a stupid, pointless conversation.  Here, let me wrap it all up for you:

Interesting. Who decided for us what terms to use? What authority do they have? Why should we even care?

Quote from: Azraele;1032325What's the appeal of roleplaying if the dice dictate what you feel and do?

Different strokes.

Quote from: Azraele;1032325Wouldn't it be more interesting to, y'know, roleplay that stuff? Make decisions about who your character is? Define your character through those choices?

Have you ever heard of morale checks? The characters of the game, rather than the players, decide they've had enough and run for their lives even though the player controlling them doesn't like it. Why? Because it makes sense and because folks find that a fun part of a game.

Quote from: Azraele;1032325Why give your agency over to the idiot-god of the dice? Do you routinely flip coins to make major life decisions like Two-Face?

Why hyperbole so much?


Pendragon does great things by taking away player agency. So does the Song of Ice and Fire RPG in its diplomacy rules. Sometimes your character is compelled to do things that are disadvantageous. That's fun stuff.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1032350It's the overly intellectually pretentious vocabulary.

Why not "choices?"  Or "meaningful choices?"

As George Orwell said, always use the smallest word that works.

Because people are dumb and need a way to distinguish between actual choices (i.e. "meaningful" ones) and selecting between whims (i.e. what people commonly consider "choices").

Choosing between Pepsi and Coca-cola, preferences aside, isn't a real choice.

Choosing between death by fire and getting laid by the princess isn't a real choice.

Games often present meaningless choices to players: the right one and the wrong one. Choosing between two bad options or choosing between two ambiguous options is far more difficult and interesting.

Quote from: Ulairi;1032433What's with the influx of dimwits like Skepticultist recently? Can we institute some sort of poll test as part of the registration processes to weed people like him out?

Bite me, you witless fucking shitstain.  You get in the ring with me, and I will show the world that you're a dumb, irrational and boring turd.  I don't even know you, but I know that nobody posts crap like this unless theyre a pathetic, conformist dullard.  Only stupid, useless and worthless fucking shits post these kind of "hey mob, let's bully the new guy" posts.  You're a fucking pathetic little girl, Ulairi.  A pathetic little girl.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1032448The only person I see going in circles is you bitching about terminology. But have at it. It's no skin off my teeth.

Then you're an idiot.  Because I'm not bitching about terminology, I'm pointing out that the entire conversation in this thread is pointless, witless yammering.

Literally the only point you have made in this thread is this: "Putting a dice mechanic on the decision makes the choice for the player."  Thank god you were here to state the obvious.  I don't know what we'd do if you weren't here to spell out completely obvious things to us.

But please, keep being petty little bitches and getting your panties in a twist because someone dared to suggest that you're using a term wrong and it's leading to a pointless conversation in which you fucking turd-eating fucks rehash the same old, tired arguments and make witless observations like "taking away player choice takes away player choice."

If you dumbfucks actually bothered to learn what these terms mean, then you might actually have an interesting conversation, but since you insist on defining them to mean things we already have terms for, you just end up having the same pointless, stupid conversation over and over and over and (the moderator says take a chill. Rob Conley aka estar).

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032458Bite me, you witless fucking shitstain.  You get in the ring with me, and I will show the world that you're a dumb, irrational and boring turd.  I don't even know you, but I know that nobody posts crap like this unless theyre a pathetic, conformist dullard.  Only stupid, useless and worthless fucking shits post these kind of "hey mob, let's bully the new guy" posts.  You're a fucking pathetic little girl, Ulairi.  A pathetic little girl.



Then you're an idiot.  Because I'm not bitching about terminology, I'm pointing out that the entire conversation in this thread is pointless, witless yammering.

Literally the only point you have made in this thread is this: "Putting a dice mechanic on the decision makes the choice for the player."  Thank god you were here to state the obvious.  I don't know what we'd do if you weren't here to spell out completely obvious things to us.

But please, keep being petty little bitches and getting your panties in a twist because someone dared to suggest that you're using a term wrong and it's leading to a pointless conversation in which you fucking turd-eating fucks rehash the same old, tired arguments and make witless observations like "taking away player choice takes away player choice."

If you dumbfucks actually bothered to learn what these terms mean, then you might actually have an interesting conversation, but since you insist on defining them to mean things we already have terms for, you just end up having the same pointless, stupid conversation over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over until we all die.

Somebody put on his grumpy pants this morning.

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032458Bite me, you witless fucking shitstain.  You get in the ring with me, and I will show the world that you're a dumb, irrational and boring turd.  I don't even know you, but I know that nobody posts crap like this unless theyre a pathetic, conformist dullard.  Only stupid, useless and worthless fucking shits post these kind of "hey mob, let's bully the new guy" posts.  You're a fucking pathetic little girl, Ulairi.  A pathetic little girl.



Then you're an idiot.  Because I'm not bitching about terminology, I'm pointing out that the entire conversation in this thread is pointless, witless yammering.

Literally the only point you have made in this thread is this: "Putting a dice mechanic on the decision makes the choice for the player."  Thank god you were here to state the obvious.  I don't know what we'd do if you weren't here to spell out completely obvious things to us.

But please, keep being petty little bitches and getting your panties in a twist because someone dared to suggest that you're using a term wrong and it's leading to a pointless conversation in which you fucking turd-eating fucks rehash the same old, tired arguments and make witless observations like "taking away player choice takes away player choice."

If you dumbfucks actually bothered to learn what these terms mean, then you might actually have an interesting conversation, but since you insist on defining them to mean things we already have terms for, you just end up having the same pointless, stupid conversation over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ovever and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over an.

Pumpkin, I think it's time to take a nap because you're getting grumpy. Why don't you have a snack, go to the potty, then we can put you down for a nap and see if you wake up on the good side of the bed.

I know you're excited because you're on your Easter break from school and when you get excited you can get tired and then you're cranky. Let's go take a nap and after your nap you can go outside and play with your friends, okay pumpkin?

Look, not everybody is smart like Skeptcultist. Some people are just getting into the hobby. Some have some experience, but are still rounding out their mental toolbox. If you're going to get upset that some people are talking about a topic that you've got all figured, out, then move the fuck on. Let people re-tread the ground you've already trod, because they can't trod it until the trod it.

There's a big difference between explaining something and the other person understanding it. I'd been GMing for literally decades, but this video by Extra Credits (back when they were good) laid out some topics about choice in games that really helped me out.

[video=youtube_share;lg8fVtKyYxY]https://youtu.be/lg8fVtKyYxY[/youtube]

If the goal is to cuss and discuss topics, to help others improve their Gming skills, and maybe think of things from a new angle, great. If you're here to demonstrate how very clever you are, and shut down discussion because you've already got it all figured out, then don't expect me to take you very seriously.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1032471I'd been GMing for literally decades, but this video by Extra Credits (back when they were good) laid out some topics about choice in games that really helped me out.

Nice video.
=

Quote from: tenbones;1032440Let's cut to the chase and make a chart so we can roll up our characters and make one big roll to see if we were successful in the campaign, and let the GM narrate to us all what happened?

Been done.  It's called the Traveller Character Generation System.  Think about it:  The player bets his character's life in the hope of a skill.  Four - or one - year later, he bets it again, until death or completion of the character.

Quote from: Crawford Tillinghast;1032479Been done.  It's called the Traveller Character Generation System.  Think about it:  The player bets his character's life in the hope of a skill.  Four - or one - year later, he bets it again, until death or completion of the character.

/scratches off his first attempt at Narrative RPG Design.

It's all been done.


/raises eyebrow at Skepticultist

Lighten up, Francis.

Quote from: Crawford Tillinghast;1032479Been done.  It's called the Traveller Character Generation System.  Think about it:  The player bets his character's life in the hope of a skill.  Four - or one - year later, he bets it again, until death or completion of the character.

Wow, is that an oversimplification.

Quote from: jeff37923;1032481Wow, is that an oversimplification.

Disagree with the "over" part.  It's just a quick way to skip the DCC "funnel" adventure.  "OK, this is the character who survived the funnel.  You now have one or more levels behind you and are ready to face the campaign."

Quote from: Crawford Tillinghast;1032486Disagree with the "over" part.  It's just a quick way to skip the DCC "funnel" adventure.  "OK, this is the character who survived the funnel.  You now have one or more levels behind you and are ready to face the campaign."

I'm not saying you are wrong, but the way you have said it just sucks the fun right of doing it that way. Sometimes it is the journey and not the end result and sometimes it is the end result and not the journey (or why I made character death in Traveller chargen the decision of the player all those years ago).

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1032471Look, not everybody is smart like Skeptcultist. Some people are just getting into the hobby. Some have some experience, but are still rounding out their mental toolbox. If you're going to get upset that some people are talking about a topic that you've got all figured, out, then move the fuck on. Let people re-tread the ground you've already trod, because they can't trod it until the trod it.

There's a big difference between explaining something and the other person understanding it. I'd been GMing for literally decades, but this video by Extra Credits (back when they were good) laid out some topics about choice in games that really helped me out.

[video=youtube_share;lg8fVtKyYxY]https://youtu.be/lg8fVtKyYxY[/youtube]

If the goal is to cuss and discuss topics, to help others improve their Gming skills, and maybe think of things from a new angle, great. If you're here to demonstrate how very clever you are, and shut down discussion because you've already got it all figured out, then don't expect me to take you very seriously.

Good video, thanks.

Quote from: Skarg;1032296Googling "player agency" turns up a slew of discussions, articles, podcasts, etc with many different ideas about what "agency" means. There is no one agreed definition, except at the high level of "what players can or can't choose to do and affect".

Here in this thread, Greentongue the OP spelled out the context he was asking about pretty clearly, and it was not about storygaming or players having "agency" over traditionally-GM-domain things.

Yeah, I think Skarg is most on-point here.

To Skepticultist - Chill out. You're welcome to post here, but the hysterics don't win you any favors.

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032150You both appear to be describing character agency.  Player agency has more to do with exercising control over the fiction of the setting.

An example of player exercising player agency would be a player saying something like "I reach out to my street contracts and find someone who will sell me a map of the secret sewer entrance to the castle," when the GM has not established that any such entrance exists.  If the GM allows this action, then they are encouraging player agency.   If the GM disallows this action, then they are limiting player agency.

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032150Edit:  I run HERO System, which has two Complications -- Enraged and Psychological Limitation -- that both remove character agency, but since a player chooses to take complications and gets points for them, it's not removing player agency.  They defined their character that way.

OK, so what about a system like Pendragon where players are *required* to take the equivalent of Psychological Limitations?  Since the players are required to make their character subject to passions, does that remove player agency?  That's what the OP is talking about.

I find that a lot of players prefer having full control over their character. Even in the HERO system where they get points for it, many players prefer to role-play out their Psych Lims by character choices - rather than being overridden by the GM telling them what they do when a Psych Lim applies.

Quote from: tenbones;1032480/scratches off his first attempt at Narrative RPG Design.

It's all been done.

Quote from: jeff37923;1032487I'm not saying you are wrong, but the way you have said it just sucks the fun right of doing it that way. Sometimes it is the journey and not the end result and sometimes it is the end result and not the journey (or why I made character death in Traveller chargen the decision of the player all those years ago).

Sorry, didn't mean to be disparaging.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032453Because people are dumb and need a way to distinguish between actual choices (i.e. "meaningful" ones) and selecting between whims (i.e. what people commonly consider "choices").

Choosing between Pepsi and Coca-cola, preferences aside, isn't a real choice.

Choosing between death by fire and getting laid by the princess isn't a real choice.

Games often present meaningless choices to players: the right one and the wrong one. Choosing between two bad options or choosing between two ambiguous options is far more difficult and interesting.

Plus, the "other thing" being banded as an alternative--players bringing things into the game world--already has a perfectly good piece of jargon for it, "Narrative Rights".  Jargon, is insider language by definition, and only useful for discussing the finer points of the concepts.  

At the table, it's all but meaningless, assuming the GM has his head screwed on halfway straight.    "Here, player X, do you want to get set on fire by the princess or laid by the dragon?"  "Can I just die instead?"  :)

Quote from: Crawford Tillinghast;1032492Sorry, didn't mean to be disparaging.

Oh no, we're cool.

I mean, hey, you're not being a sperglord like Skepticultist so it is OK.

Quote from: jhkim;1032491
OK, so what about a system like Pendragon where players are *required* to take the equivalent of Psychological Limitations?  Since the players are required to make their character subject to passions, does that remove player agency?  That's what the OP is talking about.

I find that a lot of players prefer having full control over their character. Even in the HERO system where they get points for it, many players prefer to role-play out their Psych Lims by character choices - rather than being overridden by the GM telling them what they do when a Psych Lim applies.

6E HERO made a cosmetic change in that:  You are given extra points and assigned a certain number of "complications" (the new word for disadvantages) and can use the extra points to buy stuff, or buy off the complications.  Thus you can get the "Courtly Knight" package of complications.  I don't know enough about Pendragon to say, but I doubt you can buy off the complications and still be a knightly character;  You shouldn't be able to in Arthurian HERO.

HERO psych limits can be graded:  A need, a compulsion, or an obsession.  The last is where you cross over into physical limits:  The character cannot deny their requirement.  It is past the point of unthinkable.

OK, what about a character who has a compulsion or obsession with being seen as a hero, one of the good guys, that stems from a sense of desperately wanting to be liked and accepted?

Quote from: jeff37923;1032510OK, what about a character who has a compulsion or obsession with being seen as a hero, one of the good guys, that stems from a sense of desperately wanting to be liked and accepted?

Then you get Detective Lassiter from Psych. ;)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1032212And now comes three hundred posts of "definition bingo" and goal-post moving.

I agree with Big Green, personally.  But this thread is done for.

I think you called it. But I suspect he's gone for the duration

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032458...But please, keep being petty little bitches and getting your panties...

Just a random sampling of the total. Skepticultist, you lost your temper. No one ever comes out looking like the adult in the conversation when they do something like this. I'm sure, in your mind, it was completely irrational that people would not see the brilliance of your points and equally horrid that they were dismissive of your extensive expertise. Perhaps that truly is the case. Likely, the rest of us will never know. Simply put, you. did. not. make. your. case. There is a gap between what you thought you said and what actually came out in digital ink. It would have, frankly, been foolish for people to accept what you stated as wisdom, because to do so they would have to be telepathic and be reacting to what you thought you stated, and not what you did state (and that's assuming that you are right, which again, we'll probably never know). I am sure you have, while perusing the internet, seen someone get themselves neck deep into an online argument, not realize that they failed to connect the dots of their point, and instead of going back and completing the linkage, just kept digging. Apparently you are solidly invested in never acknowledging that that person could ever be you, but that's what the rest of us saw.

I hope you can come back and have a meaningful conversation here, but just remember, here you are expected to back up your case. And (as you've clearly demonstrated) there are no censors. So you will get called out and taken to task. It often leads to pointless arguments, but it can also lead to some real trial-by-fire fire-hardened positions. Hope to see (the best side of) you soon.

Quote from: Greentongue;1032133For example, in Pendragon there are Personality Traits. These are used to define the Character.
A "saving roll" can be used to determine if a Character acts according to the Trait as opposed to how the Player wants.
In real life we see people with addictions, there are a list of classic Sins that real people do.
What is the issue with modelling a game character's actions based on the character Traits?
The Player acts as the Character's will but the body does what it does.
As in real life, people avoid temptation as a way to not do things they feel are wrong (or against their Traits).
Why do many/most games assume that Characters have unbreakable will power?

Why don't more games include a Trait like mechanic? (Or do they and I just missed it?)
=

I think if you turn the books and squint, you can see similar things in all sorts of games.
As to the general question about agency (any type of agency)-- If I come to a table and someone says, "want to play a game?" If I say "sure" and sit down, I am not expecting the game to be "roll 1d20 and add 5, if the total is 13+, you win." In most games, the 'active' part of the game for the player is the making of decisions. Therefore, the times when the decision-making power of the player (either through dice taking the reigns, such as torture/addiction/charm) or non-addressable-through-decision-deception (illusions or the like where circumventing them is adjudicated by dice rolls/saving-throws) should be, if not rare, at least well defined. Thus a game usually only has those mechanics that the designers considered most relevant (such as morale and illusions in D&D, or willpower/virtues in White Wolf games).

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1032339The idea is it makes the character more "real", as if they actually exist as their own person, where even you can't tell them what to do. They have their own personality. The more the game trends in that direction, the more you're like their conscience that is along for the ride, or one of the angels or devils on their shoulder telling them what to do.

That's the concept as it was pitched to me. I've never seen it do that in play. Not even in games like Vampire or Exalted which are designed around that principle.

What I generally see happen is constant argument between player and GM about when its appropriate to roll the impulse control dice and a dickering over how to interpret the result.

I find it's best to have players who simply want to make "bad" choices in-game, which have fun out-of-game consequences.

I mean, how rational is it exactly to go into a monster-haunted dungeon for gold? If your players are already going that far, they're basically already playing characters who make disastrous life choices.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032452Different strokes.

If we're ever going to get away from neurotically typing "Just IMHO" "Only my $0.02!" and the dreadful "In my humble opinion..." we need to accept the courtesy that something said by someone is, in fact, their opinion by definition. When I type a response or a post of any variety, I am stating my opinion, not objective truth. Of course different people like different things; in this very forum, in this very post, people are talking about the different RPGs they're playing. The interesting part of the discussion is why.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032452Have you ever heard of morale checks? The characters of the game, rather than the players, decide they've had enough and run for their lives even though the player controlling them doesn't like it. Why? Because it makes sense and because folks find that a fun part of a game.

I make morale checks all the time.... For NPCs. Players can choose to be as brave (or suicidal) as they care to. I have never had a player complain that their character was "too brave", but I'd certainly get an earful if I told them they weren't.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032452Why hyperbole so much?

It's a rhetorical technique to highlight the absurdity of the design decisions. I mean, that's pretty much contained in the term hyperbole. Points for not only accurately identifying it, but using the proper term; that's a refreshing mastery of language!

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032452Pendragon does great things by taking away player agency. So does the Song of Ice and Fire RPG in its diplomacy rules. Sometimes your character is compelled to do things that are disadvantageous. That's fun stuff.

I disagree that its fun, as do the people I run for. Of course, we often willingly choose to make boneheaded decisions because it's what the character would do (or because its fun, which has always sufficed as justification for me). In other words, the need for such mechanics isn't present at our games. Perhaps your players aren't as awesome and fun as mine? I tend to luck out that way... ;-)

Quote from: Azraele;1032547If we're ever going to get away from neurotically typing "Just IMHO" "Only my $0.02!" and the dreadful "In my humble opinion..." we need to accept the courtesy that something said by someone is, in fact, their opinion by definition. When I type a response or a post of any variety, I am stating my opinion, not objective truth. Of course different people like different things; in this very forum, in this very post, people are talking about the different RPGs they're playing. The interesting part of the discussion is why.

I think you're being obtuse now. "Different strokes" doesn't mean "IMHO", it's shorthand for "guess what? Some people have fun that is different from yours. It's a preference, and doesn't take more explanation than 'this is a thing I like that doesn't need justification."

Quote from: Azraele;1032547I make morale checks all the time.... For NPCs. Players can choose to be as brave (or suicidal) as they care to. I have never had a player complain that their character was "too brave", but I'd certainly get an earful if I told them they weren't.

That's neat but doesn't even bear mentioning. Other people have fun that looks very different from yours but is just as awesome.

Quote from: Azraele;1032547It's a rhetorical technique to highlight the absurdity of the design decisions. I mean, that's pretty much contained in the term hyperbole. Points for not only accurately identifying it, but using the proper term; that's a refreshing mastery of language!

Publik skool didn' do me rong.

Quote from: Azraele;1032547I disagree that its fun, as do the people I run for. Of course, we often willingly choose to make boneheaded decisions because it's what the character would do (or because its fun, which has always sufficed as justification for me). In other words, the need for such mechanics isn't present at our games. Perhaps your players aren't as awesome and fun as mine? I tend to luck out that way... ;-)

Your opinion is utterly meaningless outside of your own head, of course.

We actually don't "need" those or any mechanics. These are games, after all. We, however, sometimes choose to play specific games because we enjoy them for a variety of reasons.

Your group, bound by its "needs" that require satisfaction, is clearly inferior. :D

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032548We actually don't "need" those or any mechanics. These are games, after all. We, however, sometimes choose to play specific games because we enjoy them for a variety of reasons.

Your group, bound by its "needs" that require satisfaction, is clearly inferior. :D

The OP, to be fair, was pretty biased against opposing tastes. i.e.

Quote from: Greentongue;1032133Why do many/most games assume that Characters have unbreakable will power?

Why don't more games include a Trait like mechanic? (Or do they and I just missed it?)

The simple answer is - more games don't include it because more players don't like it. In my experience, most players don't want trait-like mechanics.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032548I think you're being obtuse now. "Different strokes" doesn't mean "IMHO", it's shorthand for "guess what? Some people have fun that is different from yours. It's a preference, and doesn't take more explanation than 'this is a thing I like that doesn't need justification."

That's a fair tack to take. But here's my question; how does removing the agency of making choices for your character lead to a more enjoyable experience? I'm a lot more interested in picking your brain about that point.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032548That's neat but doesn't even bear mentioning. Other people have fun that looks very different from yours but is just as awesome.

Clearly, I missed the boat on this one. As did everyone I ever played with. Perhaps you have a story, or an example of this awesomeness? A time when removing player choice led to a better experience than allowing a player to choose how their character felt or acted? (I'm willing to accept your definition of "better" for the sake of exploring the POV)

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032548Your opinion is utterly meaningless outside of your own head, of course.

I don't agree with this. I wouldn't share my opinion out here, outside of my head, if I felt it was worthless. Would you?

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032548We actually don't "need" those or any mechanics. These are games, after all. We, however, sometimes choose to play specific games because we enjoy them for a variety of reasons.

We do require mechanics for a game to take place, yes. As long as we're discussing games, we should assume that some variety of mechanics are necessary (or merely necessary as a rhetorical "given" considering the topic)

I comprehend that there is some reason you, specifically, like games that remove certain decisions from the hands of players (and possibly GMs) and places them in the hands of random number generators. As I said, what fascinates me is your reasoning.

For argument's sake, lets not draw a parallel between "making choices" in the sense of player/GM choice controlling action initiation ("My character tries to/acts like...") or feeling ("My character feels/thinks...") and a declaration of outcome (My character succeeds/fails at...).

Let's assume that this divide is meaningful (it is, to me specifically) and that the outcome declaration in the hands of randomizing agents is a generally accepted benefit to the games under discussion.

(At least, when that outcome is in doubt. Rolling to get out of bed is stupid)

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032548Your group, bound by its "needs" that require satisfaction, is clearly inferior. :D

Oh it is on now XD

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032458Then you're an idiot.  Because I'm not bitching about terminology, I'm pointing out that the entire conversation in this thread is pointless, witless yammering.

You made your point and more, now move on with the conversation.

Everybody else quit responding to Skepticultist unless he does move on with the conversation. Otherwise the thread will be closed.

To the OP: Player Agency that mimics the lack of "real life" personal agency is totally possible. As long as everyone agrees that the method would be fun AND everyone agrees to get into it.

There are some games out there where the designer tried to award this kind of behavior/choice in the game. "Get 12 XP when you mutilate yourself and then drink a 5th of vodka..." To me, they all feel super hollow and artificial. Instead, I would rather a player who wants to portray a self-destructive personality just do so.

At some point, RPGers need to see The Play as some kind of reward unto itself (I am speaking to the in character make-believe pretending part). Otherwise, we are leaning super hard on the "game" part. I love this hobby for the hybrid of both parts.

Quote from: trechriron;1032554There are some games out there where the designer tried to award this kind of behavior/choice in the game. "Get 12 XP when you mutilate yourself and then drink a 5th of vodka..." To me, they all feel super hollow and artificial. Instead, I would rather a player who wants to portray a self-destructive personality just do so.

At some point, RPGers need to see The Play as some kind of reward unto itself (I am speaking to the in character make-believe pretending part). Otherwise, we are leaning super hard on the "game" part. I love this hobby for the hybrid of both parts.

I go back and forth on that kind of "reward for playing the bad choices" mechanic.  Where I am at now, is that I think I like it if the mechanical reward is not all that great, but still a little useful.  You have your character do the thing because it is in character and sounds fun.  Then the GM tosses you the minor reward as much as for recognition of doing that, as anything else.  Even better if the minor reward lets you do more things like it.  Also, that means that when you don't want to have your character doing the obvious thing, it's about the character.  The reward is too minor to chase just for the reward.  Otherwise, sometimes you'll get players trying to do the crazy thing while coming up with crazy reasons why they don't suffer any consequences, just to get the reward.  That's too much work if the reward is minor.

Granted, in the right group, other players reacting with appreciation is greater recognition than any mechanical reward.  I frequently have shy players, where a little bit of grease to keep the process going is not a bad thing.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1032555... I frequently have shy players, where a little bit of grease to keep the process going is not a bad thing.

That's a good point. I could see a mechanic where the players right down 3 secrets. The GM knows them of course. Whenever they play one out, the GM hands them an XP and says "well played". Then the others guess their secret. This would be a means of teaching people how to a) portray characters in a believable way and b) encourage others to pay attention. It might also pull some shy people out of their shells. Essentially "gamifying" the roleplay of negative traits.

I would expect my experienced players to not need the training wheels, but I also would not criticize a group using these types of rules to encourage play.

Quote from: Azraele;1032544I mean, how rational is it exactly to go into a monster-haunted dungeon for gold?

When you're working for minimum wage, what would you risk for $100,000,000?

Quote from: Azraele;1032547I disagree that its fun, as do the people I run for. Of course, we often willingly choose to make boneheaded decisions because it's what the character would do (or because its fun, which has always sufficed as justification for me). In other words, the need for such mechanics isn't present at our games. Perhaps your players aren't as awesome and fun as mine? I tend to luck out that way... ;-)

I'm sorry you and your group are so stupid you don't comprehend the thematic elements of Le Morte d'Arthur as realized in Pendragon, but need to stomp around trumpeting about how you are masters of your own fate.

John Galt is a poor role model.  If you're so fucking insecure you can't stand the notion of your little paper man not following your every whim, you need to grow up.





See?  I can do it too.  I just leave the "passive" part out of "passive-agressively insulting other people's preferences and play styles."

Quote from: jhkim;1032550The simple answer is - more games don't include it because more players don't like it. In my experience, most players don't want trait-like mechanics.

It seems people don't want things that make them uncomfortable.
The feeling that they don't have a say usually does that.
Agreeing to it before the game doesn't seem to matter.
=

Quote from: Crawford Tillinghast;1032511Then you get Detective Lassiter from Psych. ;)

Now I have to check out another TV show.....:D

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1032559When you're working for minimum wage, what would you risk for $100,000,000?

Depends on the GM.

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OOMwNaZVvfw/V4xwxH2oLeI/AAAAAAAABcw/7zjeXJJbqsIJRqjxErp8p28VO3nFJ3MYwCLcB/s1600/fp_vs_slime_final_A4.jpg)

Minimum wage can look mighty good when you're being dissolved by a green slime.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1032560See?  I can do it too.  I just leave the "passive" part out of "passive-agressively insulting other people's preferences and play styles."

It's better that way.

Your favourite game sucks, and you are wrong and stupid and probably don't even bring snacks.

See? That's much more fun than that drongo's wall of text.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1032471Look, not everybody is smart like Skeptcultist. Some people are just getting into the hobby. Some have some experience, but are still rounding out their mental toolbox. If you're going to get upset that some people are talking about a topic that you've got all figured, out, then move the fuck on. Let people re-tread the ground you've already trod, because they can't trod it until the trod it.

Right, which is why ignorant asshats like you who don't know what you're talking about are not helpful.  I'm the only person in this thread willing to tell OP that he's using the wrong terminology.  You, rather than help me educate OP, are insisting on waving your fucking ignorance like a flag and then getting upset and attacking people who know you're wrong.

QuoteThere's a big difference between explaining something and the other person understanding it. I'd been GMing for literally decades, but this video by Extra Credits (back when they were good) laid out some topics about choice in games that really helped me out.

The fact that you posted this video, which is about video games, really demonstrates how much you don't get what "player agency" is about.  This video has NOTHING to do with the issue of player agency, because player agency isn't an issue with video games.  Video games are produced, packaged and sold to the consumer complete, and the player in a video game has no ability to input ideas into the game's fiction because the game's fiction is settled before the game is released.

The OP's question is inherently confused because he doesn't understand what player agency is.  If he means "Why is character agency such a critical issue when real people don't always have agency?", which you are all assuming he does because none of you morons knows what player agency refers to anymore than he does, then his error is thinking this is a critical issue.  It's not.  It's long and well established that constantly nullifying a player's control of their character outside of the rules of the game and choices made by the player to surrender control is on the list of Things Shitty DM's Do.  I don't know the full list or it's exact order, but it includes "Shitty DMs constantly tell players what their characters do in non-trivial ways."

Anything beyond that is just a discussion of which rules system you prefer for handling such issues, and whether those systems achieve the effect they are aiming for (if its even a consideration), or if they fail, and your personal opinions on those -- and it is, as you say, beginner's stuff.  It is not a critical issue.

What is a critical issue, that is an issue around which there is a lot of debate, is the issue of player agency, which in this case means the ability of the player to exert control over the meta-game, the creation and presentation of the setting, the adventure, the non-player characters, etc.

For example, at one extreme is the video game, where the player is completely limited to the setting, adventure and NPCs presented by the game designer.  In an RPG context, imagine a DM picks Basic D&D as the game, assigns the players pre-generated characters, then runs Keep on the Borderlands except the characters may never leave the "Wilderness" map except to go to the Keep or the Caves of Chaos sub-maps, or to a terrain appropriate battle mat for random wilderness encounters (and the encounter with the hermit and his panther).  Also, the player may only take actions described in the book.  If it's not in the book, you can't do it. No extrapolating either.

At the other end of the extreme is total player agency, where essentially the gamemaster (if there even is a gamemaster) simply says "I'm running a game.  What happens?" and the players contribute everything about the setting, the nature of the adventure, the nature of their adversaries, etc.  So one player might declare his character is the last of the Lizard People, and he's on a quest to reach the moon to find a device hidden there by his people to restart their race, while another might declare that sentient, magical Prismatic Ponies exist in this world, and that his character is one of them and uses Friendship Magic, and a third player says it's a gritty modern cyber-noir story about corporate intrigue.  And then the GM runs that.

Neither extreme really works -- one is too boring for the players, the other is too frustrating for the GM -- but many players are tired of suffering through bad, boring campaigns written by GMs who don't know how to create good stories, and want a solution other than "run your own game," while GMs rightfully fear having Dragonkin and Tieflings crammed down their throat as soon as they loosen their grip on setting control. Which is what makes it a critical issue.

QuoteIf the goal is to cuss and discuss topics, to help others improve their Gming skills, and maybe think of things from a new angle, great. If you're here to demonstrate how very clever you are, and shut down discussion because you've already got it all figured out, then don't expect me to take you very seriously.

lol.

I personally love these mechanics that induce succumbing to temptation, loss of control, in my PCs. I don't find many GMs handle them with any sort of tact, or even bother with modeling succumbing or disorientation, however. Often (diagnosed from my inner armchair therapist) it is an issue of participants (from GM to players) having deep seated control issues. I can't fix that, and I am not being paid to do therapy at the table.

But as for how to make such loss of control palatable? I find a good sugar to make the medicine go down to be an offer between two bad choices once we've established a PC has crossed a mechanical threshold. At least there's a choice, a form of resistance and struggle, instead of what should be outright "storytime" narration.

So for example, I cannot stand when GMs use Charm Person like Domination (mindless automaton), with the added implication that the PC is the responsible agent for all that happens. My personal example is my Paladin is Charmed by a Vampire, treated like a mindless automaton (already a misuse of how Charm Person works), made to do gross violations of his church and clergy against his will with no save, and (somehow) falls as a Paladin as if it was his choice. It was basically a lone failed roll, drawn out exposition -- which wastes gaming time -- and devoid of pathos beyond "Fuck your character, hur, hur, hur! :D" It's lazy GM-ing and a waste of a good horror moment.

What you can do with a Vampire charming a Paladin is befriending them into choices between small, ever building, violations -- or friendship disappointment from that seductive stranger -- that snowball into a larger consequence. Now that, that works with Charm Person as written, works with players picking their poison, and a grand horrific reveal. It doesn't do stupid-evil reveals "Mwa ha ha! I reveal I'm a vampire, now I'll make your paladin commit sacrilege and fall!" And it doesn't take 10 minutes of game time where players make no choices beyond watching bad storytelling against one player's PC, which is essentially listening to a GM's inner-14 y.o. sadism fapping.

There is good form and bad form on how to manage these things: If you as a GM find yourself in such a long, uninterrupted exposition, about your puppeteering someone's PC, you are wasting game time. If you as a GM find your PCs succumbing to a mechanic that is not actual direct possession and domination, but more like fears, urges, compulsions, and temptations -- play them as such, including whatever is left of a PC's feeble thing called will. That means let players make real choices between similar options, even if, no, especially if!, they are between several bad ones.

There's nothing wrong with players losing control of their character. But it's often a matter of degree, not binary, not between full autonomy and mindless automata. And there is no "story pathos" in watching a GM 'play with action figures by themselves'.

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032596The OP's question is inherently confused because he doesn't understand what player agency is.  If he means "Why is character agency such a critical issue when real people don't always have agency?", which you are all assuming he does because none of you morons knows what player agency refers to anymore than he does, then his error is thinking this is a critical issue.  It's not.  It's long and well established that constantly nullifying a player's control of their character outside of the rules of the game and choices made by the player to surrender control is on the list of Things Shitty DM's Do.

Thanks for the coherent answer. Yes, I tripped up on the terminology.
I did mean character agency and think player agency is the point of having a live game instead of reading a book.
=

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1032560See?  I can do it too.  I just leave the "passive" part out of "passive-agressively insulting other people's preferences and play styles."

Ah Gronan; I'll have you know I read this post and chuckled luxuriantly over my glass of Musigny Grand Cru.

But I remain aloof in my invulnerable snoobery: you've been gaming longer than I've been alive, and even you refused to relay a single argument, or even shred of anecdotal evidence to support your stance.

It's simply precious

But since you amuse me so, with your pants-defecating and beer-swilling, I'll deign to offer you this wager: Do you see that handsome mug in the corner over my posts? That's me darling. And that fabulously bred name underneath? Me as well. If you have an anecdote, argument or other actual answer to my original point, I'll grant you specific permission to put my sparkling self in your memoirs under the heading "assholes I've proven WRONG on the INTERNET"

For the sake of you rum-pickled memory, I'll repeat that point: "It is never preferable for the dice to dictate the choices of a character"

I jovially anticipate your response. Now if you'll excuse me, my impeccable mane won't coif itself...

Quote from: Azraele;1032629

I'm going to be honest, I've completely lost track of what you two were fighting about, what with the much more extremely loud foxtrot going on over on the other side of the thread. So for all I know, you are the bigger man in this exchange. I am also all for the Herbertian living well being the best revenge. However, if you have to tell the target of said subtle revenge that you are doing so (all the whilst name-dropping fancy booze), it kinda takes away the supposed respectability of the action.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1032635I'm going to be honest, I've completely lost track of what you two were fighting about, what with the much more extremely loud foxtrot going on over on the other side of the thread. So for all I know, you are the bigger man in this exchange. I am also all for the Herbertian living well being the best revenge. However, if you have to tell the target of said subtle revenge that you are doing so (all the whilst name-dropping fancy booze), it kinda takes away the supposed respectability of the action.

I mocked his mocking of other people's play styles.

He responded by apparently mixing Ex-Lax and Red Bull.

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032596Right, which is why ignorant asshats like you who don't know what you're talking about are not helpful.  I'm the only person in this thread willing to tell OP that he's using the wrong terminology.  You, rather than help me educate OP, are insisting on waving your fucking ignorance like a flag and then getting upset and attacking people who know you're wrong.

Jesus fucking christ! Someone mixed up player agency and character agency! Incorrect terminology! Everybody flip out and insult each other!

Let me guess, you're the guy who calls the police and reports a murder when a GM jokes about killing off the players.

QuoteThe fact that you posted this video, which is about video games, really demonstrates how much you don't get what "player agency" is about.  This video has NOTHING to do with the issue of player agency, because player agency isn't an issue with video games.  

Correct! I'm glad you're paying attention. I posted it as an example of something I didn't quite grasp until explained to me in that way. And I found it relevant because it was about players making choices in games. The fundamental building block of RPGs.

QuoteThe OP's question is inherently confused because he doesn't understand what player agency is.  

No, his question wasn't confused at all. You just came along and nit picked terminology for whatever chip on your shoulder reason.

Quotelol.

lulz.

It's good to see you've cooled off a bit. Why don't you try engaging with the original topic for a while. You might have something to contribute.

Afaics a character might have agency without player agency if character made decisions without player input. Like when I played the Heavy Gear video game, I wanted to run off with the traitor lieutenant and make babies but the character decided to duel her to death. :(

Afaics player agency is player making decisions that affect the game. Insisting it only means metagame agency seems like being a massive jerkwad. Reminds me of people insisting only the Forgeist defintions of gamism narrativism and simulationism are permissable.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1032635I'm going to be honest, I've completely lost track of what you two were fighting about, what with the much more extremely loud foxtrot going on over on the other side of the thread. So for all I know, you are the bigger man in this exchange. I am also all for the Herbertian living well being the best revenge. However, if you have to tell the target of said subtle revenge that you are doing so (all the whilst name-dropping fancy booze), it kinda takes away the supposed respectability of the action.

If I wanted the moral high ground, I almost certainly wouldn't have referred to myself as a snob.

Quote from: Altheus;1032394When I hear the term player agency I don't mean having full control over your characters personality and behaviour (pendragon traits don't intefere with player agency) but having the ability to meaningfully influence events so you don't get the situation I had recently where the gm said "you can't succeed at that point, the module says I need that guy later on".

I don't even have a term for that as I lump it in with "horrible" GM and/or scenario design.

Quote from: Azraele;1032398Providing a framework  /= The dice playing your character

The first is fine

The second is indeed a plague on gaming

Seems to me different people and different game situations have different lines between those two.

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032429... What's being called "player agency" in this thread is not what the people who introduced that term into the lexicon mean by "player agency." ...

I must not have been at the agora that day. And if only I had surfed to the lexicon instead of the Internet (where it's being used in many different ways) I could have shared in your righteous rectitude.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1032644Jesus fucking christ! Someone mixed up player agency and character agency! Incorrect terminology! Everybody flip out and insult each other!

Listen here, asshat.  You are describing yourself.  All I did was politely point out that people were mixing up terminology, and you, Steven and the other little bitches are the ones who decided to turn rude and aggressive and come after me.  So go fuck yourself, you shit-eating hypocritical fuckstain.  I'm not "flipping out" because you used the wrong terminology, I'm fucking angry because I tried to offer a polite correction and got mobbed up by a bunch 0of useless twat shitstains who are so pathetically insecure they can't handle being corrected.

Don't fucking try to tell me about my behavior when you're clearly so fucking blind to your own, you whorespawn, mentally deficient, cockroach-fucking troglodyte piece of shit.

QuoteLet me guess, you're the guy who calls the police and reports a murder when a GM jokes about killing off the players.

No, but you're the kind of fucking oxygen-stealing waste of life that fucks little children, you mongoloid monkey-fucker.

QuoteCorrect! I'm glad you're paying attention. I posted it as an example of something I didn't quite grasp until explained to me in that way. And I found it relevant because it was about players making choices in games. The fundamental building block of RPGs.

But it's about VIDEO GAMES, you dumb sack of shit.

QuoteNo, his question wasn't confused at all. You just came along and nit picked terminology for whatever chip on your shoulder reason.

Eat shit and die you stupid fucking cockroach.  You are too stupid to have a discussion.  Do the world a favor and drink a bottle of bleach.

QuoteIt's good to see you've cooled off a bit. Why don't you try engaging with the original topic for a while. You might have something to contribute.

Why don't you go kill yourself, you subhuman slimebucket.

Quote from: Skarg;1032661I must not have been at the agora that day. And if only I had surfed to the lexicon instead of the Internet (where it's being used in many different ways) I could have shared in your righteous rectitude.

"A lot of other idiots don't pay attention and use terminology they don't understand, and I'm such a stupid chucklefuck rather than recognize that kind of behavior only makes having meaningful conversations harder, I'm going to use it as justification for remaining an ignorant piece of shit and further confusing the conversation.  Because I, Skrag, am a dumb motherfucker."

The fact that lots of other shitheads are also confused is a piss-poor argument for not educating yourself, you intellectually lazy sack of crap.

If I come of as self-righteous, it's only because I am so clearly mentally superior to you fucking halfwits with your constant excuses for your ignorance.

Quote from: Azraele;1032551That's a fair tack to take. But here's my question; how does removing the agency of making choices for your character lead to a more enjoyable experience? I'm a lot more interested in picking your brain about that point.

Assuming you might also be interested in hearing someone else's perspective:

It opens up a few different modes or roleplaying, which I've found entertaining whether playing a PC or NPC, or when playing with others who are doing so (especially when otherwise their play might be more generic and/or gamey). I don't these as more enjoyable, but different modes of play that offer different things. I still also enjoy playing without such restrictions, and with strong roleplayers (especially ones more interested in roleplaying than "succeeding" or "competing"), I think they often don't need a mechanic and can do as good or better without the mechanics. However sometimes/often as a player (or GM running an NPC) even though I don't need mechanics and dice, I like consulting the dice/mechanics and find it useful when I don't have a clear intuition how the character would be in each case, and I enjoy the uncertainty and experience of playing what the dice/mechanics show my character's reactions are like.

For players who enjoy the mode of being prompted by such traits and playing dice-dictated reactions, it offers that.

Also, sometimes without mechanics, I find that some players over-play their traits and/or have/feel expectations that characters with known traits should always be under the sway and/or ham up those traits, which can sometimes feel off and annoying to me.

Quote from: Azraele;1032551Clearly, I missed the boat on this one. As did everyone I ever played with. Perhaps you have a story, or an example of this awesomeness? A time when removing player choice led to a better experience than allowing a player to choose how their character felt or acted? (I'm willing to accept your definition of "better" for the sake of exploring the POV)
...
I comprehend that there is some reason you, specifically, like games that remove certain decisions from the hands of players (and possibly GMs) and places them in the hands of random number generators. As I said, what fascinates me is your reasoning.

I've had and seen several characters whose development rose out of such mechanics in ways that wouldn't have happened in a mode without them (not that something else wouldn't have happened without them).

Mainly it can be quite good for characters who don't have a strong roleplayer (or not enough attention from one, in the case of NPCs or games with multiple PCs per player). Without such mechanics, it seems to me a character can often end up being pretty generic, flat, and/or gamey in their responses to things, but mechanical traits can help them have more defined personalities and different responses than they otherwise would. I've seen them make a big difference in players who were otherwise not very engaged with roleplaying their characters other than as figures with abilities who show up to hit things etc.

I often have several NPCs with a player group, and such traits help me remember to consider their natures and exhibit them and do things I wouldn't always have time/attention to think instead of being the generic throng.

I've found it useful for myself too in helping me play character traits that are not in my habitual nature. If I have to roll not to be a blabbermouth, that helps me actually do that, and has been really hilarious because in real life I have a great aversion to substanceless chatter.

Similarly, I gave myself a "being a dumbass" trait, which was also really interesting and challenging to have to play, because (as you guys can see from my posts) I clearly have an ego thing about trying to be smart about things and being hostile to what I think is dumb-assery, so having to try to be a dumb-ass and not being able to not if I roll 11 or less was really fun and interesting (though I could only stand limited amounts of it!).

It was also really fun playing a very subtly suggestible PC who had a chance to believe what others were saying and get confused, in a way that I don't think the other players really figured out what was happening - I guess it was a bit like the film Being There.

It's also been interesting/fun/challenging for me and others to play characters with various vices and flaws and not being able to determine ourselves when/if our characters can override them and how severe their effects are has provided an interesting sort of challenge that's different from just roleplaying them, and a freedom from feeling like we're not roleplaying right if we aren't always roleplaying some weakness (because it's defined as only sometimes applying, or whatever).

It also seems appropriate for things your character is trying to beat and relates to as external, such as an addiction.

Quote from: S'mon;1032649Afaics a character might have agency without player agency if character made decisions without player input. Like when I played the Heavy Gear video game, I wanted to run off with the traitor lieutenant and make babies but the character decided to duel her to death. :(

Afaics player agency is player making decisions that affect the game. Insisting it only means metagame agency seems like being a massive jerkwad. Reminds me of people insisting only the Forgeist defintions of gamism narrativism and simulationism are permissable.

Well, you're a dumb idiot, you dumb idiot.  Your entire attitude is pig-headed, stupid and wrong.  This is exactly how dumb motherfuckers go through life.

If you refuse to engage with the definitions the Forge folk use for gamism, narrativism and simulationism (what the fuck?  is this the 90s?  GSN is a dead theory, how out of date are you?) then guess what:  You will never understand the argument those people are making, and will continue to be a dumb motherfucker.

You can't understand what other people are talking about unless you make an effort to understand what they mean by the words they use.  Insisting that they use your definitions to express their ideas makes you a fucking useless toolbag.

And note, I'm not saying you have to agree with their ideas, because GNS Theory is stupid as fuck, and the entire storygames crowd has no fucking idea what they are talking about and their theories are total garbage BUT a dumb motherfucker like you will never be able to explain why, because you're too willfully ignorant to even make the effort to understand what the fuck those people are saying, let alone understand it well enough to argue against it.

People like you are like people who tell automechanics that they are wrong about how cars work because you insist on using your own definitions, so when they say a car needs gas to go, you respond "Cars don't run on farts, you idiots."  That's the level of retardation dumb, ignorant pieces of shit like you are operating on.

That is literally how stupid you sound.  "Hur hur, cars don't run on farts! Why you so dumb?"

This is what happens when somebody snorts Alka-Seltzer and chases it with one of his mother's grape-flavored cigarillos.

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032667You can't understand what other people are talking about unless you make an effort to understand what they mean by the words they use.  Insisting that they use your definitions to express their ideas makes you a fucking useless toolbag.

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are the one here who is rejecting the OP's definition of 'player agency' (as player choice/freedom to act) and positing your own definition (as player metagame agency).

BTW could you at least provide a link to a good source where 'player agency' is discussed as meaning what you're defining it to mean? Googling, I see definitions like this (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/71265/what-is-player-agency-and-what-is-it-good-for) at number 1:

What is Agency?
I personally define agency by three criteria:

The player has control over their own character's decisions.
Those decisions have consequences within the game world.
The player has enough information to anticipate what those consequences might be before making them.

ie what everyone else here is taking it to mean.

Quote from: Skarg;1032665It opens up a few different modes or roleplaying, which I've found entertaining whether playing a PC or NPC, or when playing with others who are doing so (especially when otherwise their play might be more generic and/or gamey). I don't these as more enjoyable, but different modes of play that offer different things. I still also enjoy playing without such restrictions, and with strong roleplayers (especially ones more interested in roleplaying than "succeeding" or "competing"), I think they often don't need a mechanic and can do as good or better without the mechanics. However sometimes/often as a player (or GM running an NPC) even though I don't need mechanics and dice, I like consulting the dice/mechanics and find it useful when I don't have a clear intuition how the character would be in each case, and I enjoy the uncertainty and experience of playing what the dice/mechanics show my character's reactions are like.

For players who enjoy the mode of being prompted by such traits and playing dice-dictated reactions, it offers that.

Similar to this, but not exactly the same fun, is the enjoyment and challenge of playing something dictated by the dice--sometimes out of the blue.  Specifically, the challenge is in the characterization.  It's similar to the enjoyment of playing a pre-gen or randomly generated character, but reacting to in play events, turned up to 11.   Suddenly having had your trait put into a crazy situation, that twists it in funny ways, how do you portray that?  This is particularly fun when it interacts with some other compulsion.  

For example, we had a character with a brash but helpful attitude that got a low-level charmed status.  The player went off on how the charm kept getting twisted as he tried to do brash actions to help his new "friend".  (It helped that the NPC charmer, played by me, was a bit gullible.)

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032663Listen here, asshat.  You are describing yourself.  All I did was politely point out that people were mixing up terminology, and you, Steven and the other little bitches are the ones who decided to turn rude and aggressive and come after me.  So go fuck yourself, you shit-eating hypocritical fuckstain.  I'm not "flipping out" because you used the wrong terminology, I'm fucking angry because I tried to offer a polite correction and got mobbed up by a bunch 0of useless twat shitstains who are so pathetically insecure they can't handle being corrected.

Don't fucking try to tell me about my behavior when you're clearly so fucking blind to your own, you whorespawn, mentally deficient, cockroach-fucking troglodyte piece of shit.



No, but you're the kind of fucking oxygen-stealing waste of life that fucks little children, you mongoloid monkey-fucker.

 

But it's about VIDEO GAMES, you dumb sack of shit.



Eat shit and die you stupid fucking cockroach.  You are too stupid to have a discussion.  Do the world a favor and drink a bottle of bleach.



Why don't you go kill yourself, you subhuman slimebucket.

(https://www.olsonhousecoffee.com/product_images/uploaded_images/decaf-coffee-1.jpg)

I'm just boggled that you seem so wound up over all this.

Quote from: S'mon;1032670Googling, I see definitions like this (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/71265/what-is-player-agency-and-what-is-it-good-for) at number 1:

What is Agency?
I personally define agency by three criteria:

The player has control over their own character's decisions.
Those decisions have consequences within the game world.
The player has enough information to anticipate what those consequences might be before making them.

ie what everyone else here is taking it to mean.

And regardless, almost the entire first page of google results includes some variation of that phrase "I personally define agency..." so it appears that there isn't even a consensus within the ttrpg blogging community (with all the official authority that entails).

Can we not make Estar close the topic, please?

Quote from: Skarg;1032665An actual response to the questions asked.

That is an extremely informative and enlightening perspective; thank you Skarg!

If I take your meaning, the appeal is more "Mechanics as RP inspiration" than "Mechanics as substitute for agency". This makes we want to write a "How does this NPC react to..." chart for recurring characters. That would address the issue of all the NPCs feeling "samey" after a while; shake things up a little but retain a core characterization. I like it!

I still fail to grasp the appeal to a player character though. If they're telling you what you do, rather than what you can do, that feels like an intrusion on the premise of roleplaying... This is going to require some pondering

Let me re-read and consider your post in depth and I'll get back to you on this. You left me a lot to chew on...

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032294Well, you're wrong. So...I don't know what else to say.  I've been in plenty of arguments with the storygamer types who whinge constantly about player agency, and that's what they are talking about.  I mean, you can say "Nope" all you want, but you don't know what you're talking about.  The whole concept of "player agency" is meant as a challenge to the very assumption that "GM powers" belong exclusively to the GM, so saying it has "nothing to do" with exercising GM powers only demonstrates that you literally have no understanding of the issue and your entire frame of reference is useless.

Have fun with that.

You think you're revealing new information?  Storygamers and Forge-style narrativists have been attempting to redefine the language for years.

In the context of roleplaying games, storygamer's ideas about Player Agency over the "story" or "shared fiction" matter about as much as a novelist's ideas about Character Agency.

Quote from: Azraele;1032684If I take your meaning, the appeal is more "Mechanics as RP inspiration" than "Mechanics as substitute for agency".
...
I still fail to grasp the appeal to a player character though. If they're telling you what you do, rather than what you can do, that feels like an intrusion on the premise of roleplaying...

Yes, though different traits can work in somewhat different ways, and I also see some value in adding mechanics that do limit what you can do, which is a different quality of them, and I could see choosing to only use certain types as a matter of taste/choice.

For example, I think it can be fun/interesting too to have various mechanics where a PC has to react (or not react) in a certain way or range of ways.

(I imagine we've all had the players who insist that their character is utterly fearless and in control of themselves for the purpose of doing whatever they as a player want the PC to do. I've even had players say "I do not fall unconscious! I remain standing and take another swing at the monster!" when the combat mechanics said they were unconscious from major damage... and in some cases I've then allowed an extra Willpower roll to see if they manage to do that.)

At some point there's a line between the PC and the player in their experience of the situation, their goals, and their ability to do (or maybe to choose to do) things. Players/GMs/systems can choose to define where those lines are in a variety of ways, and I see that as a matter of taste with a sliding scale and multiple sliders for different things, such as:

* how free are players to choose when/whether to violate the OOC player agreements of play style? (e.g. player-vs-player restrictions)
* how free are players to alter or deviate from their PC's established personality/goals/friendships/etc?
* how free are players to choose when/whether their PC follows their specified beliefs & moral codes or not?
* how free are players to choose when/whether their PC behaves according to listed personality traits & weaknesses or not?
* how free are players to choose when/whether their PC is brave enough to face something?
* how free are players to choose when/whether they're terrified by supernatural horrors or not?
* how much are players allowed to use OOC player knowledge to inform their PC's choices?
* can players suggest or dictate that their PC does actions in an extra-colorful cool way without listed skills supporting that, and is there an added risk/difficulty or is it rewarded or is it fluff that does nothing?
* can players suggest or dictate specific results of their PCs' actions?
* can players suggest or dictate that their character has extra unlisted ability to prevail or survive something? (e.g. the "do you consent to have your PC die" systems...)
* can players suggest or dictate things about the game world outside their character?

It seems to me those are all independent sliders which different players may or may not have strong feelings about.

Another perspective is that sometimes they can be catered to independently for some players. e.g. In GURPS, if a player hates being limited by traits, I'll tend to guide them to not take such traits as mechanically-limiting ones, and perhaps even have them take traits that give them extra freedoms. Another player in the same game might be fine with taking such traits, or might have a playstyle where I want them to behave or not behave in a certain way so I find it makes sense to give their PC certain mechanically-limiting traits to represent those.  And for players who aren't hostile to point-buy trade-offs, they may appreciate the point-value trade-offs that go along with those options. And GURPS offers so many options that it's not like anyone needs to take any behavior-limiting traits (and/or you can give PCs points for their player's innate characteristics, if you know them - e.g. Andy the player just is paranoid and almost always plays his characters that way, so he may as well get the trait and doesn't need a mechanic adding to it).

Quote from: Opaopajr;1032601I personally love these mechanics that induce succumbing to temptation, loss of control, in my PCs. I don't find many GMs handle them with any sort of tact, or even bother with modeling succumbing or disorientation, however. Often (diagnosed from my inner armchair therapist) it is an issue of participants (from GM to players) having deep seated control issues. I can't fix that, and I am not being paid to do therapy at the table.

But as for how to make such loss of control palatable? I find a good sugar to make the medicine go down to be an offer between two bad choices once we've established a PC has crossed a mechanical threshold. At least there's a choice, a form of resistance and struggle, instead of what should be outright "storytime" narration.

So for example, I cannot stand when GMs use Charm Person like Domination (mindless automaton), with the added implication that the PC is the responsible agent for all that happens. My personal example is my Paladin is Charmed by a Vampire, treated like a mindless automaton (already a misuse of how Charm Person works), made to do gross violations of his church and clergy against his will with no save, and (somehow) falls as a Paladin as if it was his choice. It was basically a lone failed roll, drawn out exposition -- which wastes gaming time -- and devoid of pathos beyond "Fuck your character, hur, hur, hur! :D" It's lazy GM-ing and a waste of a good horror moment.

What you can do with a Vampire charming a Paladin is befriending them into choices between small, ever building, violations -- or friendship disappointment from that seductive stranger -- that snowball into a larger consequence. Now that, that works with Charm Person as written, works with players picking their poison, and a grand horrific reveal. It doesn't do stupid-evil reveals "Mwa ha ha! I reveal I'm a vampire, now I'll make your paladin commit sacrilege and fall!" And it doesn't take 10 minutes of game time where players make no choices beyond watching bad storytelling against one player's PC, which is essentially listening to a GM's inner-14 y.o. sadism fapping.

There is good form and bad form on how to manage these things: If you as a GM find yourself in such a long, uninterrupted exposition, about your puppeteering someone's PC, you are wasting game time. If you as a GM find your PCs succumbing to a mechanic that is not actual direct possession and domination, but more like fears, urges, compulsions, and temptations -- play them as such, including whatever is left of a PC's feeble thing called will. That means let players make real choices between similar options, even if, no, especially if!, they are between several bad ones.

There's nothing wrong with players losing control of their character. But it's often a matter of degree, not binary, not between full autonomy and mindless automata. And there is no "story pathos" in watching a GM 'play with action figures by themselves'.

How exactly would you present a player with bad choices? Wouldn't the player know they are charmed rather than just talking to a friend? Your post sounds intriguing but I don't understand what you're getting at.

Evidently a few lack basic reading comprehension.

Skepticultist don't derail another thread's conversation like you did here. One of the few ways to get banned here is persistent threadjacking.

Those of you who continued to respond to Skepticultist after my clear directive not too. I suggest you read this to brush up on your reading comphrension (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GMYIAC8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1).

Thread now closed. Move on to other topics please.