TheRPGSite

I've seen/heard people say it's "everything a player does with their character". The activity of their character.

I've also seen/heard people say "a player's ability to make meaningful character choices that impact the setting". So the party clears the dungeon and the King makes the now 12th-Level Fighter 'General of his armies' so now the Fighter can go after the Orc hordes threatening the kingdom.

Is it the first thing or the second or both or WTF? People have been crying about the loss of agency for decades. Are GMs evil or misguided or confused? Is this entitled SJW shade or are GMs really stepping on player toes?

Give me notes, because a recent TPK running the original Ravenloft raised issues.

For me, player agency is the ability of the player to control his/her character's thoughts/words/actions within the rules of the game. The latter part is important, because I'm OK with PCs being mind-controlled or impacted by NPCs using social skills so long as the game rules are followed. What I don't like--and feel is a violation of player agency--is a GM going into narration mode and setting up a situation by dictating what the player character thinks/says/does to push to story the GM has in mind. The GM should lay out the situation and let the player make those decisions, whether freely or while dealing with influences imposed on the character through the game's rules.

QuoteWTF IS Player Agency?

When the players setup a PI firm and start LARPing that they Sherlock Holmes now.  8)

Player Agency is an assumption that the player will have some say over the fate of their character. Some ability to shape the ultimate fate of their character. This is something that my last GM was pretty good about enabling.

It's all about collaboration. Giving a player a voice. Rather than just having the character solely be the victim of the GM's whims.

Some people handle this level of collaboration better than others. And it mostly comes into play when you have players who have a bigger vision of their character than just the character being a murderhobo.

Personally, I like players having goals for their character's ultimate endgame. It helps a GM make getting there all that much more enjoyable.

In the anime fantasy game I am mentoring. I'm playing a Warlock character based on D&D. The character's ultimate fate I envisioned for her is rather grim and somewhat hentai horror. But it is the direction that I felt the character would ultimately end up. An unhappy ending. Both the GM and the other player knows this. And they are helping make the ride getting to that end be as satisfying as possible.

Quote from: Theory of Games on December 20, 2020, 11:30:03 AM
I've seen/heard people say it's "everything a player does with their character". The activity of their character.

I've also seen/heard people say "a player's ability to make meaningful character choices that impact the setting". So the party clears the dungeon and the King makes the now 12th-Level Fighter 'General of his armies' so now the Fighter can go after the Orc hordes threatening the kingdom.

Is it the first thing or the second or both or WTF? People have been crying about the loss of agency for decades. Are GMs evil or misguided or confused? Is this entitled SJW shade or are GMs really stepping on player toes?

Give me notes, because a recent TPK running the original Ravenloft raised issues.

Let's modify your second statement: "A player's ability to make meaningful character choices that impact the character."  No player or character has the right to demand agency over the setting.  Good GMs often meet players halfway (or more) when it comes to setting concerns, when possible, but it's a privilege, not a right.  Also, there are times when a player wants the character to do something that the character can't, won't, or wouldn't (see charm spells, hold person, player vs character knowledge, etc.).  So, like HappyDaze said above, the player's agency is contingent on the rules and circumstances.  But major decisions that affect a character should always be either made by the player or as the consequence of a player choice where a player knows the stakes (walking into a normal room outside of a dungeon with no signs that there is danger or any consequence would be a poor trigger for a serious penalty on characters.  Putting on an unidentified magic belt, on the other hand, has an obvious risk associated so that the character can suffer the consequences without any remorse).

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on December 20, 2020, 12:04:42 PM
In the anime fantasy game I am mentoring. I'm playing a Warlock character based on D&D. The character's ultimate fate I envisioned for her is rather grim and somewhat hentai horror. But it is the direction that I felt the character would ultimately end up. An unhappy ending. Both the GM and the other player knows this. And they are helping make the ride getting to that end be as satisfying as possible.

Hmmm, let's make a mental picture. Starting with..."hentai horror"... and having an "unhappy ending"... all while "making the ride getting to that end be as satisfying as possible." Not sure if this roleplay is game thing or sex thing.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 20, 2020, 12:14:15 PM

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on December 20, 2020, 12:04:42 PM
In the anime fantasy game I am mentoring. I'm playing a Warlock character based on D&D. The character's ultimate fate I envisioned for her is rather grim and somewhat hentai horror. But it is the direction that I felt the character would ultimately end up. An unhappy ending. Both the GM and the other player knows this. And they are helping make the ride getting to that end be as satisfying as possible.

Hmmm, let's make a mental picture. Starting with..."hentai horror"... and having an "unhappy ending"... all while "making the ride getting to that end be as satisfying as possible." Not sure if this roleplay is game thing or sex thing.

The correct answer is both.  :)

Quote from: Theory of Games on December 20, 2020, 11:30:03 AM
I've seen/heard people say it's "everything a player does with their character". The activity of their character.

I've also seen/heard people say "a player's ability to make meaningful character choices that impact the setting". So the party clears the dungeon and the King makes the now 12th-Level Fighter 'General of his armies' so now the Fighter can go after the Orc hordes threatening the kingdom.

Is it the first thing or the second or both or WTF?

It's the second thing.

However, I don't like the example. That's not player agency, it's the GM deciding something for the character. In my mind, clearing dungeons and leading armies have very little connection. So the promotion seems to be an example of GM choice not player agency.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 20, 2020, 11:37:41 AM
For me, player agency is the ability of the player to control his/her character's thoughts/words/actions within the rules of the game. The latter part is important, because I'm OK with PCs being mind-controlled or impacted by NPCs using social skills so long as the game rules are followed. What I don't like--and feel is a violation of player agency--is a GM going into narration mode and setting up a situation by dictating what the player character thinks/says/does to push to story the GM has in mind. The GM should lay out the situation and let the player make those decisions, whether freely or while dealing with influences imposed on the character through the game's rules.

I fully endorse your caveat. And to elaborate, Pendragon with it's passions and traits, is an example of a system sometimes imposing controls on what the character feels or does rather than leaving such things entirely up to the whim of the player.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 20, 2020, 12:14:15 PM
Hmmm, let's make a mental picture. Starting with..."hentai horror"... and having an "unhappy ending"... all while "making the ride getting to that end be as satisfying as possible." Not sure if this roleplay is game thing or sex thing.

Not doing this for titilation. This was decided by talking with the group. I wanted this character to end up sacrificing herself to her patron for the sake of the group. Creepy girl the rest of the group somewhat distrusts redeeming herself in the end.

The GM and other player suggested the hentai influence. And I didn't have any objections.

All of the people involved in the campaign are adults.

I'm sure others have similar examples, maybe even this exact one.

In the Sinsiter Secret of Saltmarsh, the pirates have a ship in a cave. When we played it, we took that ship and had some fun aventures revolving around the boat, sailing around, having a great time.

Player agency, IMO, is when the players grab the reins of the direction of the session/campaign and start driving it around for themselves. They're no longer looking for 'rails'.

This is, again IMO, the bedrock difference between TTRPGs and computer games. We still are in the position where a computer game has to have it's story plotted out, but a human GM can improvise and react to a much (much) wider amount of character actions.

Player agency is when their decisions matter. That the GM is willing to engage with their decisions and have the world react as (ideally) we'd expect it to.

Quote from: Theory of Games on December 20, 2020, 11:30:03 AM
Give me notes, because a recent TPK running the original Ravenloft raised issues.

In a Cyberpunk 2020 game, a corp hunting for us found our safehouse, and sent an AV6 to level it. The flyer pulled up and we had a few turns to get the hell out before it hosed down the apartment with it's minigun.

I had my character say "fuck it", hang out the window and blast it with his assault rifle. The results were as you'd expect. I had to roll up a new character. I've had players do these kinds of "last stands" even when it didn't appear that they needed to. I think this pique comes from a player wanting the assurance that their decisions do matter. That the GM isn't going to coddle them or magically save their character from a terrible decision.

I'm wondering now about the details of your TPK.

Quote from: Theory of Games on December 20, 2020, 11:30:03 AM
I've seen/heard people say it's "everything a player does with their character". The activity of their character.

I've also seen/heard people say "a player's ability to make meaningful character choices that impact the setting". So the party clears the dungeon and the King makes the now 12th-Level Fighter 'General of his armies' so now the Fighter can go after the Orc hordes threatening the kingdom.

Is it the first thing or the second or both or WTF? People have been crying about the loss of agency for decades. Are GMs evil or misguided or confused? Is this entitled SJW shade or are GMs really stepping on player toes?

Give me notes, because a recent TPK running the original Ravenloft raised issues.

I suppose you could use it the first way, but I've only ever seen it used the second way. When someone says "player agency", they mean the opposite of a railroad.

Edit: Your example has nothing to do with player agency, tho. That's just an in-game reward. You don't increase agency by handing out bigger rewards. I think Eirikrautha highlighted the mistake you're making -- it's not about influencing the setting. That can be an end result, but it's really orthogonal to the concept.  Player agency is about being able to make meaningful choices. Sandbox campaigns and open-ended dungeon designs with multiple paths are classic examples of giving players agency. Scene-based adventures where no matter what the players do the climax will be the same, or paths where you have to go from A to B to C to D are examples of setups where the players lack agency.

IMHO, Player Agency is the constant and consistent war against Boxed Text.

During the days of the RPGA and AD&D 2e, modules would have absolutely ridiculous set-ups for the PCs which could not be avoided. Crap like "for no apparent reason your character and the rest of the party members all take their clothes off and walk naked into the Sheriff of Raven's Bluff  jail cells" or "the Magic-Users of the party decide that it is a good idea to leave their spell books behind for this adventure" or "each party member leaves behind their weapons, armor, and all magic items before meeting with the Chief of the Orc warband". These ham-fisted railroad starts would usually be written in Boxes for the adventure requiring the DM to read them aloud, hence Boxed Text.

If you wanted to play in a RPGA module, then your character had to do whatever stupid shit was in the Boxed Text, no matter how nonsensical it was. If you didn't you, you also didn't get to play in the adventure.

End result was that all Player Agency was removed from the adventure just to get the game started.

I understand that this defining something with negative space, but it is how I think of it.

Player Agency is a bullshit term that should be tossed out of an airlock along with anyone babbling about it.

I wrote up a bunch of tedious garbage trying to nail down what player agency is in CRPGs vs. TTRPGS and blah blah blah.


Here's the gist of it:
A player has agency in a game* when they feel as though their back-and-forth with the GM is a conversation**, one in which what they say matters to the GM. That's all. It's about mutual respect and understanding.


*agency here is a wishy-washy bullshit term that people use to say that a game is good because their stupid ideas are taken seriously. Technically, even tic-tac-toe gives its players agency, but that game is boring as fuck and not what players actually want.

**Defined here as the mutually agreeable exchange of thoughts and feelings.

Edit: I found a simpler definition:
Player agency is when players feel powerful.

Edit to the edit: I kind of just want to say "fuck it" to this whole topic now. I think Lordmalachdrim had it right.

Quote from: jeff37923 on December 20, 2020, 02:30:37 PM
IMHO, Player Agency is the constant and consistent war against Boxed Text.

Don't forget the crap GM's who tell you what your character is thinking and doing in order to set up the next scene in their would-be novel.

For me Player Agency is just if I can play my character or not.

If the DM tells me what my character does then it is not Player Agency.

The idea that some don't consider player agency as critical concept to RPGs is . . . bizarre. And I'm glad I am not playing your games. But I also suspect we are defining things differently.

Fundamentally, tabletop RPGs are about the asking each player repeatedly and often the question, "What do you do?"

If the players answer is somewhat logical, and somewhat feasible, they should be allowed to attempt to succeed at doing it/getting the result they are hoping for.

That to me, is player agency.

(There are variations on that fundamental question such as "Where do you go?" or "What does player character want?")

Sandbox gaming by definition require high levels of player agency, because the question "What do you do?" often looks at larger concepts or time frames. But more rigid roleplaying still require some degree of player agency.

Quote from: jeff37923 on December 20, 2020, 02:30:37 PM
IMHO, Player Agency is the constant and consistent war against Boxed Text.

During the days of the RPGA and AD&D 2e, modules would have absolutely ridiculous set-ups for the PCs which could not be avoided. Crap like "for no apparent reason your character and the rest of the party members all take their clothes off and walk naked into the Sheriff of Raven's Bluff  jail cells" or "the Magic-Users of the party decide that it is a good idea to leave their spell books behind for this adventure" or "each party member leaves behind their weapons, armor, and all magic items before meeting with the Chief of the Orc warband". These ham-fisted railroad starts would usually be written in Boxes for the adventure requiring the DM to read them aloud, hence Boxed Text.

If you wanted to play in a RPGA module, then your character had to do whatever stupid shit was in the Boxed Text, no matter how nonsensical it was. If you didn't you, you also didn't get to play in the adventure.

End result was that all Player Agency was removed from the adventure just to get the game started.

I understand that this defining something with negative space, but it is how I think of it.

That's a good example of what I was referring to when I mentioned the GM going into narration mode. Fuck boxed text (beyond location/item descriptions).

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 20, 2020, 03:33:41 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on December 20, 2020, 02:30:37 PM
IMHO, Player Agency is the constant and consistent war against Boxed Text.

Don't forget the crap GM's who tell you what your character is thinking and doing in order to set up the next scene in their would-be novel.

Here I agree, but again, I do make exceptions for when mechanics within the game (e.g., social skill use, mind-control, or compulsions) might override what the player might otherwise want the PC to think/do.

For example, if you play a character in a game that took a flaw that the try to bed every chick that comes along, your character might accept the attentions of a frisky NPC even if the player knows it's likely a bad idea (usually some kind of check to resist is involved, depending on system). The player still made the choice to have such a flaw in the first place, so this loss of control is actually respecting their player agency.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 20, 2020, 04:31:41 PM
Here I agree, but again, I do make exceptions for when mechanics within the game (e.g., social skill use, mind-control, or compulsions) might override what the player might otherwise want the PC to think/do.

Everyone understands that magic whammies and the like can affect things.

No, I mean ones who just out of the blue declare what your character thinks, feels and does because they need certain things to happen for their would-be novel to play out as they intend.

The shit ones who throw hissy fits when your characters don't act the way they think they should. Example, I had a GM rage-quit in the middle of a session because my PC, who'd just been kidnapped away from their wife and newborn baby into another dimension and then told by the wizard who did it that I'd need to perform a service (whatever the adventure was supposed to be) before he'd send me home. So I punched him unconscious, tied him up, gagged him and dragged his sorry ass to the front gate of the wizard's enemy and said "this guy is all yours if you can send me home."

Apparently this was the GM's pet NPC didn't figure I'd do anything other than posture a bit before having to relent because the wizard was the only (from the GM's perspective) way home because my lateral move of going to his enemy never even occurred to him and that's when he blew his top and quit.

I mean asshole GM's like that.

ETA: I guess that GM just utterly misread my remark that "I would do ANYTHING to get back to my wife and baby" as "I'd jump through any GM created hoop to get back to my wife and baby" and not how I meant it which was "I will make a deal with the devil himself it gets me back to my wife and baby."

Quote from: lordmalachdrim on December 20, 2020, 02:31:55 PM
Player Agency is a bullshit term that should be tossed out of an airlock along with anyone babbling about it.

Well, that's just like, your opinion, man. :)

Quote from: Thondor on December 20, 2020, 04:03:08 PM
Sandbox gaming by definition require high levels of player agency, because the question "What do you do?" often looks at larger concepts or time frames. But more rigid roleplaying still require some degree of player agency.

Way back, I sometimes would ask my players what they wanted to do. One of my players joking said "Take over the world!". In hindisight, it was a great response. My question lacked context. It was too broad. Nowadays, I like to sandbox, and if the players take the initiative, I'm a happy camper. But I'm also willing to put some context out there. Give them some choices to get them started.

In my own experience, the only people who have used that exact term in any of my games were the ones who have come into a campaign with a written multi-page background that introduced elements that had nothing to do with the setting established for the game (and that they were aware of, and agreed to, before character generation began) and used in an effort to introduce game and setting breaking material that they wanted their character to be or have.

Most recent encounter with this was a guy who read and understood the introductory materials for the 5e Eberron game I had started, and then wanted to create a Paladin/Warlock (at first level, already multiclassed) who gained power from a deity he created in his ten page background that was supposed to be one of vengeance and not related to religion in Eberron and expected me to create a planar portal that allowed this god to slip into and influence the setting for thousands of years, that was his character's bride. He also wanted several different magic items created in the setting with game breaking power, all detailed in his background, based upon his character's past reincarnated deeds as the character had lived multiple lives as a champion of revenge.

When I advised that I was not accepting ten page character backgrounds from any player in the campaign and would not entertain it, and I wanted at most to see three paragraphs (past, present, a potential desired future) beyond the typical traits determined at chargen (Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws), he rage quit and accused me of denying his player agency. And that he didn't want to play in what would clearly be my narration of a novel I wanted to write.

It turned out to be a better game without him in it.

And I've seen more examples of this behavior beyond this fellow, but I nip it in the bud whether I lose that player or not. Seems to me there are more players that accuse GMs of attempted novelization that are actually more guilty of that particular accusation than the GMs they accuse.

I forgot. There was actually one thing that did relate to the setting that was in his ten page background story. His bride-god had actually caused The Mourning as an act of vengeance upon humanity for its crimes.

Quote from: Dropbear on December 20, 2020, 07:33:53 PM
In my own experience, the only people who have used that exact term in any of my games were the ones who have come into a campaign with a written multi-page background that introduced elements that had nothing to do with the setting established for the game (and that they were aware of, and agreed to, before character generation began) and used in an effort to introduce game and setting breaking material that they wanted their character to be or have.

That's not player agency, that's player entitlement. Agency is about the freedom to make meaningful choices in the game. Entitlement is expecting everything you want to come true.

It's the difference between "oh, you mean I can go anywhere?" and "I demand a staff of the magi at first level!".

Quote from: Pat on December 20, 2020, 07:51:53 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on December 20, 2020, 07:33:53 PM
In my own experience, the only people who have used that exact term in any of my games were the ones who have come into a campaign with a written multi-page background that introduced elements that had nothing to do with the setting established for the game (and that they were aware of, and agreed to, before character generation began) and used in an effort to introduce game and setting breaking material that they wanted their character to be or have.

That's not player agency, that's player entitlement. Agency is about the freedom to make meaningful choices in the game. Entitlement is expecting everything you want to come true.

It's the difference between "oh, you mean I can go anywhere?" and "I demand a staff of the magi at first level!".

My point being the term is not often used to illustrate player agency, but rather player entitlement.

Quote from: Dropbear on December 20, 2020, 07:56:22 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 20, 2020, 07:51:53 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on December 20, 2020, 07:33:53 PM
In my own experience, the only people who have used that exact term in any of my games were the ones who have come into a campaign with a written multi-page background that introduced elements that had nothing to do with the setting established for the game (and that they were aware of, and agreed to, before character generation began) and used in an effort to introduce game and setting breaking material that they wanted their character to be or have.

That's not player agency, that's player entitlement. Agency is about the freedom to make meaningful choices in the game. Entitlement is expecting everything you want to come true.

It's the difference between "oh, you mean I can go anywhere?" and "I demand a staff of the magi at first level!".

My point being the term is not often used to illustrate player agency, but rather player entitlement.

I've never seen it used that way. I suspect you're overgeneralizing based on a couple of bad experiences.

Quote from: Pat on December 20, 2020, 08:00:10 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on December 20, 2020, 07:56:22 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 20, 2020, 07:51:53 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on December 20, 2020, 07:33:53 PM
In my own experience, the only people who have used that exact term in any of my games were the ones who have come into a campaign with a written multi-page background that introduced elements that had nothing to do with the setting established for the game (and that they were aware of, and agreed to, before character generation began) and used in an effort to introduce game and setting breaking material that they wanted their character to be or have.

That's not player agency, that's player entitlement. Agency is about the freedom to make meaningful choices in the game. Entitlement is expecting everything you want to come true.

It's the difference between "oh, you mean I can go anywhere?" and "I demand a staff of the magi at first level!".

My point being the term is not often used to illustrate player agency, but rather player entitlement.

I've never seen it used that way. I suspect you're overgeneralizing based on a couple of bad experiences.

More than a couple, about eight times now and that was just the most recent experience. And that term has been bandied about each time. I'm aware of the meaning of the term, but based upon my experience with those who are quick to use it, many are not.

Quote from: Dropbear on December 20, 2020, 08:02:44 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 20, 2020, 08:00:10 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on December 20, 2020, 07:56:22 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 20, 2020, 07:51:53 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on December 20, 2020, 07:33:53 PM
In my own experience, the only people who have used that exact term in any of my games were the ones who have come into a campaign with a written multi-page background that introduced elements that had nothing to do with the setting established for the game (and that they were aware of, and agreed to, before character generation began) and used in an effort to introduce game and setting breaking material that they wanted their character to be or have.

That's not player agency, that's player entitlement. Agency is about the freedom to make meaningful choices in the game. Entitlement is expecting everything you want to come true.

It's the difference between "oh, you mean I can go anywhere?" and "I demand a staff of the magi at first level!".

My point being the term is not often used to illustrate player agency, but rather player entitlement.

I've never seen it used that way. I suspect you're overgeneralizing based on a couple of bad experiences.

More than a couple, about eight times now and that was just the most recent experience. And that term has been bandied about each time. I'm aware of the meaning of the term, but based upon my experience with those who are quick to use it, many are not.

Most likely, it caught on in a local group near you.

I'd be curious to know if anyone else has experienced something similar, because it was a surprise to me.

Quote from: Pat on December 20, 2020, 08:04:26 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on December 20, 2020, 08:02:44 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 20, 2020, 08:00:10 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on December 20, 2020, 07:56:22 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 20, 2020, 07:51:53 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on December 20, 2020, 07:33:53 PM
In my own experience, the only people who have used that exact term in any of my games were the ones who have come into a campaign with a written multi-page background that introduced elements that had nothing to do with the setting established for the game (and that they were aware of, and agreed to, before character generation began) and used in an effort to introduce game and setting breaking material that they wanted their character to be or have.

That's not player agency, that's player entitlement. Agency is about the freedom to make meaningful choices in the game. Entitlement is expecting everything you want to come true.

It's the difference between "oh, you mean I can go anywhere?" and "I demand a staff of the magi at first level!".

My point being the term is not often used to illustrate player agency, but rather player entitlement.

I've never seen it used that way. I suspect you're overgeneralizing based on a couple of bad experiences.

More than a couple, about eight times now and that was just the most recent experience. And that term has been bandied about each time. I'm aware of the meaning of the term, but based upon my experience with those who are quick to use it, many are not.

Most likely, it caught on in a local group near you.

I'd be curious to know if anyone else has experienced something similar, because it was a surprise to me.

I would not discount that, honestly, but I don't know for sure. I stopped hanging at the two local shops that host games last year before Covid hit, mainly because of the prevalence of pre-written novelized character backgrounds and amount of 300 lb. twenty-something neckbeard League of Legends addicts that were staring at my lady's tits throughout the whole game.

Now I strictly game with the guys I have known forever on Friday nights.

I find it easier to understand in the negative.  If I say my character does this, when "this" is something both physically and game-mechanically possible, and the DM says "no you don't" then that's a violation of player agency.  Players control only their own characters, while DMs control the entire rest of the world.  If the DM dictates player decisions, then the players have nothing left to do but watch, which is no fun at all.  Player agency is really freakin' important.

If you wish to know about player agency in games: https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/107893/what-player-agency

Now for an example of what it is like to NOT have any agency:
Around 15 years ago, I was asked to join a group by a novice GM (first timer).  I only stayed for half the session. It went like this:
GM: Okay so you defeated the cultists who-
ME: I take the sword.
GM: Well, when you try to take it, it disappears.
GM: So, after a good night's rest-
ME: Wait! I wanted to buy something at the inn.
GM: No. After a good night's rest, you head back onto your journey to the City. Half way there in the middle of the night you are suddenly attacked by cultists.
GM: What do you attack with?
ME: You mean, what do I do?
GM: No. You have all been waylayed. So there's no choice but to fight.
ME: I surrender.
GM: You can't.
ME: WHY NOT??
GM: Because it's NOT PART OF MY STORY! So, what do you fight with?
...
I still have no fucking clue what that meant!
If you think players should have NO AGENCY or such a thing doesn't exist, then all an RPG becomes is an RNG combat simulator (or worse!). Random encounters aside, At the halfway break, I asked the GM when I could make a decision. His reply was: I want to run this campaign like a module, so I can't let you make any decisions. I heard the group disintegrated after the second session, because he refused to allow a PC to heal another PC, which ended with the wounded PC dying in another pre-planned fight.
Now you know what NO AGENCY looks like. How does it feel?
IT SUCKS.

Quote from: consolcwby on December 20, 2020, 09:19:21 PM

Around 15 years ago, I was asked to join a group by a novice GM (first timer).  I only stayed for half the session. It went like this:
GM: Okay so you defeated the cultists who-
ME: I take the sword.
GM: Well, when you try to take it, it disappears.
GM: So, after a good night's rest-
ME: Wait! I wanted to buy something at the inn.
GM: No. After a good night's rest, you head back onto your journey to the City. Half way there in the middle of the night you are suddenly attacked by cultists.
GM: What do you attack with?
ME: You mean, what do I do?
GM: No. You have all been waylayed. So there's no choice but to fight.
ME: I surrender.
GM: You can't.
ME: WHY NOT??
GM: Because it's NOT PART OF MY STORY! So, what do you fight with?

You just gave a great example of a crap GM, no special terminology needed.

Quote from: lordmalachdrim on December 20, 2020, 10:44:52 PM

Quote from: consolcwby on December 20, 2020, 09:19:21 PM

Around 15 years ago, I was asked to join a group by a novice GM (first timer).  I only stayed for half the session. It went like this:
GM: Okay so you defeated the cultists who-
ME: I take the sword.
GM: Well, when you try to take it, it disappears.
GM: So, after a good night's rest-
ME: Wait! I wanted to buy something at the inn.
GM: No. After a good night's rest, you head back onto your journey to the City. Half way there in the middle of the night you are suddenly attacked by cultists.
GM: What do you attack with?
ME: You mean, what do I do?
GM: No. You have all been waylayed. So there's no choice but to fight.
ME: I surrender.
GM: You can't.
ME: WHY NOT??
GM: Because it's NOT PART OF MY STORY! So, what do you fight with?

You just gave a great example of a crap GM, no special terminology needed.

I noticed that novice was used to describe the GM. Probably the root cause.

For me I try to be receptive to the GMs style and/or talent.  I don't mind a certain level of railroading particularly if they have put a lot of work into the campaign.  I tend to try to follow the GMs prompts that they want the story to go in a certain direction.  I don't try to trip them up.  What do people think of that?

Agency is having the ability to make meaningful decisions for your character, as stated.

So getting railroaded means no agency. Having meaningless decisions (the quantum ogre left/right path) lacks agency.

Sometimes too much agency can be bad -- you need SOME guidance.

Player agency is a bit of a crap term that means being able to make decisions as a player, which have meaningful effects on your character in the game. So the GM isn't just ignoring what you (the player) have decided. Those decisions are still set up by the GM and the PC's interaction with the world, but the decisions are important. They have in-game effects that are meaningful (e.g. avoiding/meeting the quantum ogre, being able to get off the railroad, not taking the "mission", avoiding the inevitable double-cross, etc)

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 20, 2020, 03:33:41 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on December 20, 2020, 02:30:37 PM
IMHO, Player Agency is the constant and consistent war against Boxed Text.

Don't forget the crap GM's who tell you what your character is thinking and doing in order to set up the next scene in their would-be novel.

There is one situation, at least in D&D, where you have to do this: when a PC has been hit with a mind-affecting spell. Especially the charm spells. It's annoying, but if you have good players, they roll with it.

"Agency" in the context of discussing fictional characters is a buzzword invented by Portland Hipsters to advance a Motte and Bailey fallacy that certain literary tropes should be off limits and characters belonging to "protected classes" are only ever allowed to be good guys.  In effect Protected characters are required to have an invisible force field around them and nothing bad can ever  happen to them.

In the context of an RPG, the Motte is the reasonable assertion that DMs shouldn't railroad or force their characters into dumb situations.  The Bailey they are actually advancing is that their characters must be perfect, flawless Mary Sues who would never fall to such petty tricks as a mind-control spell.

Quote from: Dropbear on December 20, 2020, 07:56:22 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 20, 2020, 07:51:53 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on December 20, 2020, 07:33:53 PM
In my own experience, the only people who have used that exact term in any of my games were the ones who have come into a campaign with a written multi-page background that introduced elements that had nothing to do with the setting established for the game (and that they were aware of, and agreed to, before character generation began) and used in an effort to introduce game and setting breaking material that they wanted their character to be or have.

That's not player agency, that's player entitlement. Agency is about the freedom to make meaningful choices in the game. Entitlement is expecting everything you want to come true.

It's the difference between "oh, you mean I can go anywhere?" and "I demand a staff of the magi at first level!".

My point being the term is not often used to illustrate player agency, but rather player entitlement.

There is no term--no matter how well defined and aligned with a concept that actually appears as a recognizable behavior in play--that cannot be perversely twisted by bad players and/or bad GMs to attempt to justify their own behavior.  Plus, it is almost as if there is a group of people in RPGs that want to twist language to support an agenda ...

Technically, there are two levels to player agency:

1. You have control over your character but not the setting (as other have said clearly above).

2. You have control over what the group agrees beforehand that you have control over--no more, no less.  That is, player agency in a story game is very different than player agency in an RPG.  Player agency in a railroad is much more limited but still technically there, as compared to a sandbox.  You might have signed up for the railroad and find it fun, but there is still some defined level of control over the character even so. 

As to whether it is a useful term or not, I'm on the fence.  Maybe it is useful in talking about what happens in prep and group planning when defining what the group wants.  After the game starts, if it arises it indicates a problem.  In a good game, you shouldn't ever need to talk about it in play.

Edit:  If a player identifies as "entitled twit" by using/misusing "player agency", the term has served at least one useful purpose. :)

Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 05, 1975, 01:06:26 PM
There is one situation, at least in D&D, where you have to do this: when a PC has been hit with a mind-affecting spell. Especially the charm spells. It's annoying, but if you have good players, they roll with it.

And you already know that wasn't what I was referring to (and already noted that as a point where it was okay). And that what I'm referring to is in line with "you do as the NPC asks happily and without question even though he's a snide condescending asshole to you after he called on you for help. No you can't demand double and no you can't refuse."

So, you already knew this. Why bring it up?

Quote from: lordmalachdrim on December 20, 2020, 10:44:52 PM

Quote from: consolcwby on December 20, 2020, 09:19:21 PM

Around 15 years ago, I was asked to join a group by a novice GM (first timer).  I only stayed for half the session. It went like this:
GM: Okay so you defeated the cultists who-
ME: I take the sword.
GM: Well, when you try to take it, it disappears.
GM: So, after a good night's rest-
ME: Wait! I wanted to buy something at the inn.
GM: No. After a good night's rest, you head back onto your journey to the City. Half way there in the middle of the night you are suddenly attacked by cultists.
GM: What do you attack with?
ME: You mean, what do I do?
GM: No. You have all been waylayed. So there's no choice but to fight.
ME: I surrender.
GM: You can't.
ME: WHY NOT??
GM: Because it's NOT PART OF MY STORY! So, what do you fight with?

You just gave a great example of a crap GM, no special terminology needed.

Except that it's a term that helps identify a specific issue or aspect of cram GMing, which does not represent the totally of WTF being a "crap GM" entails. Calling someone a "crap GM" doesn't tell me absolutely ANYTHING about WTF that "crap GM" needs to fix. Telling me that he/she/xir keeps denying "player agency" in order to force their characters down his predestined story path or scenario tells me what that GM's specific issue is, or at least helps narrow it down. Telling me that he/she/xir is a "crap GM" is just a value judgement. It doesn't elucidate anything.

Mind control spells are an interesting case.  While they are legit mechanically and generally accepted, I still feel they reduce/remove player agency, which I think makes the game less fun.  I tend not to use such spells as a GM and don't include them in the games I write.

Quote from: Mishihari on December 21, 2020, 11:43:26 AM
Mind control spells are an interesting case.  While they are legit mechanically and generally accepted, I still feel they reduce/remove player agency, which I think makes the game less fun.  I tend not to use such spells as a GM and don't include them in the games I write.

I don't necessarily feel that they reduce player agency any more than other adverse hostile acts do. Mind control that temporarily takes over a character (or even non-magical social skills that charm/deceive/intimidate a PC into acting contrary to the player's wishes) isn't different in my eyes than taking an injury that prevents your character from taking the actions that you want them to take. However, much like long-lasting or permanent injuries, I do tend to avoid long-term mind-control/reprogramming of PCs.

Quote from: Mishihari on December 21, 2020, 11:43:26 AM
Mind control spells are an interesting case.  While they are legit mechanically and generally accepted, I still feel they reduce/remove player agency, which I think makes the game less fun.  I tend not to use such spells as a GM and don't include them in the games I write.

Same.  Some players enjoy acting out the loss of agency from mind control--as long as it is not too long or too extreme.  I did a particularly wild version of it once where every single character swapped minds with another character and was asked to play in their character's body with the personality of another character as it had been established in the game up to that point.  It took them several hours of game play to get the process reversed.  The players talked for a few minutes after that session and unanimously agreed that it was:  "A great session.  Glad we did it.  Lots of fun.  Never do that to us again." :)

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 21, 2020, 12:02:04 PM
I don't necessarily feel that they reduce player agency any more than other adverse hostile acts do. Mind control that temporarily takes over a character (or even non-magical social skills that charm/deceive/intimidate a PC into acting contrary to the player's wishes) isn't different in my eyes than taking an injury that prevents your character from taking the actions that you want them to take. However, much like long-lasting or permanent injuries, I do tend to avoid long-term mind-control/reprogramming of PCs.

The bolded is the reason I rewrote the social skills in my game system.

I HATE the "Diplomancer"... the 3.5e abuse of a giant diplomacy bonus and the Epic Level Handbook rules to instantly turn enemies into fanatical followers of you with a single skill check and where a good roll and "give me your kingdom" will cause a king to surrender their crown without question.

So instead the best result possible for a persuasion attempt is "takes what you say in the best possible way." So that king you told to give up his kingdom presumes that you're making some type of joke, not that you're trying to steal his kingdom with honeyed words.

By contrast, "your majesty, I implore you to send men to help reinforce the town of Southfort. If it falls then your realms are certainly next," taken in the best possible light is that you are legitimately warning him of a true danger to his realm and suggesting the course you feel will best protect his kingdom. He may still feel he has a better plan of action to take, but he acknowledges the threat and that something must be done. Now you just need to argue for why reinforcing Southfort is a better option than marshalling his forces at his own border (arguments he will also take in the best possible light because you've already persuaded him to be "friendly."

Likewise, a successful deceit check means that those hearing your words believe that YOU believe what you're saying, but the king's guards aren't just going to act on "the King is really a Red Dragon! Kill him now!" regardless of how well you roll. Now if the king has been behaving unusually in recent days they'll take the accusation more credibly, but an instant changing of behavior against reason just is not going to happen.

Likewise, "The King is really a Red Dragon and I have proof!"... well those same guards will believe you believe that and the request (don't act until you've heard me give my proof) doesn't require actions that go against their reason or beliefs and so is far more likely to be effective (particularly if your goal isn't to get the guards to turn on their king but to keep everyone distracted while your party is doing something else).

Conversely, used against PC's I have no problems regarding player agency with "He sounds believable" or "He does seem to believe the course he's suggesting will be in your best interests." That's just conveying information that the GM may not have the interpersonal skill to convey on their own, but its still ultimately the PCs choice on how to act on the information provided.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 21, 2020, 12:27:07 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 21, 2020, 12:02:04 PM
I don't necessarily feel that they reduce player agency any more than other adverse hostile acts do. Mind control that temporarily takes over a character (or even non-magical social skills that charm/deceive/intimidate a PC into acting contrary to the player's wishes) isn't different in my eyes than taking an injury that prevents your character from taking the actions that you want them to take. However, much like long-lasting or permanent injuries, I do tend to avoid long-term mind-control/reprogramming of PCs.

The bolded is the reason I rewrote the social skills in my game system.

I HATE the "Diplomancer"... the 3.5e abuse of a giant diplomacy bonus and the Epic Level Handbook rules to instantly turn enemies into fanatical followers of you with a single skill check and where a good roll and "give me your kingdom" will cause a king to surrender their crown without question.

So instead the best result possible for a persuasion attempt is "takes what you say in the best possible way." So that king you told to give up his kingdom presumes that you're making some type of joke, not that you're trying to steal his kingdom with honeyed words.

By contrast, "your majesty, I implore you to send men to help reinforce the town of Southfort. If it falls then your realms are certainly next," taken in the best possible light is that you are legitimately warning him of a true danger to his realm and suggesting the course you feel will best protect his kingdom. He may still feel he has a better plan of action to take, but he acknowledges the threat and that something must be done. Now you just need to argue for why reinforcing Southfort is a better option than marshalling his forces at his own border (arguments he will also take in the best possible light because you've already persuaded him to be "friendly."

Likewise, a successful deceit check means that those hearing your words believe that YOU believe what you're saying, but the king's guards aren't just going to act on "the King is really a Red Dragon! Kill him now!" regardless of how well you roll. Now if the king has been behaving unusually in recent days they'll take the accusation more credibly, but an instant changing of behavior against reason just is not going to happen.

Likewise, "The King is really a Red Dragon and I have proof!"... well those same guards will believe you believe that and the request (don't act until you've heard me give my proof) doesn't require actions that go against their reason or beliefs and so is far more likely to be effective (particularly if your goal isn't to get the guards to turn on their king but to keep everyone distracted while your party is doing something else).

Conversely, used against PC's I have no problems regarding player agency with "He sounds believable" or "He does seem to believe the course he's suggesting will be in your best interests." That's just conveying information that the GM may not have the interpersonal skill to convey on their own, but its still ultimately the PCs choice on how to act on the information provided.

For a thankfully brief time, my daughter dated an asshole who was a powergamer. In order to get me to meet her "new" boyfriend, she asked me to run a game for the two of them. I agreed, and the guy brought in a diplomancer build character. First use of the diplomancer social overwhelm power went like this:

Boyfriend:  "I walk up to the Duke and say, 'Gimmee all your livestock, bitch'"
Me as DM:  "Are you sure that you want to use those exact words?"
Boyfriend:  "Yeah" rolls some dice, "A 17 plus 51 gives me a 68!"
Me as DM:  "OK, that is pretty high. The Duke frowns at you, then motions to his two guards who approach you menacingly. Roll initiative."
Boyfriend:  "What the Hell?! That was a high roll! Add in the skill and feat bonus my character should have the Duke handing him the keys to the kingdom?!"
Me as DM:  "You just called the Duke a bitch and demanded that he give you his livestock. Your high roll means that he thinks you are a jester with a poor sense of humor. Sadly, he has to have his guards beat you up a bit in order to save his dignity because he is the Duke, but he holds no ill will towards you."
Daughter:   "Dad, you're being a dick."
Me as DM:  "Maybe, but I'm playing in response to the character's exact words to the Duke."

The rest of the session went with his PC missing about 2/3rds of his HP to subdual damage from diplomancer targets who reacted positively, but in accordance to his character's role-played conversation regardless of how high or low his character rolled. First and last game with that boyfriend of my daughter.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 21, 2020, 12:27:07 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 21, 2020, 12:02:04 PM
I don't necessarily feel that they reduce player agency any more than other adverse hostile acts do. Mind control that temporarily takes over a character (or even non-magical social skills that charm/deceive/intimidate a PC into acting contrary to the player's wishes) isn't different in my eyes than taking an injury that prevents your character from taking the actions that you want them to take. However, much like long-lasting or permanent injuries, I do tend to avoid long-term mind-control/reprogramming of PCs.

The bolded is the reason I rewrote the social skills in my game system.

I HATE the "Diplomancer"... the 3.5e abuse of a giant diplomacy bonus and the Epic Level Handbook rules to instantly turn enemies into fanatical followers of you with a single skill check and where a good roll and "give me your kingdom" will cause a king to surrender their crown without question.

So instead the best result possible for a persuasion attempt is "takes what you say in the best possible way." So that king you told to give up his kingdom presumes that you're making some type of joke, not that you're trying to steal his kingdom with honeyed words.

By contrast, "your majesty, I implore you to send men to help reinforce the town of Southfort. If it falls then your realms are certainly next," taken in the best possible light is that you are legitimately warning him of a true danger to his realm and suggesting the course you feel will best protect his kingdom. He may still feel he has a better plan of action to take, but he acknowledges the threat and that something must be done. Now you just need to argue for why reinforcing Southfort is a better option than marshalling his forces at his own border (arguments he will also take in the best possible light because you've already persuaded him to be "friendly."

Likewise, a successful deceit check means that those hearing your words believe that YOU believe what you're saying, but the king's guards aren't just going to act on "the King is really a Red Dragon! Kill him now!" regardless of how well you roll. Now if the king has been behaving unusually in recent days they'll take the accusation more credibly, but an instant changing of behavior against reason just is not going to happen.

Likewise, "The King is really a Red Dragon and I have proof!"... well those same guards will believe you believe that and the request (don't act until you've heard me give my proof) doesn't require actions that go against their reason or beliefs and so is far more likely to be effective (particularly if your goal isn't to get the guards to turn on their king but to keep everyone distracted while your party is doing something else).

Conversely, used against PC's I have no problems regarding player agency with "He sounds believable" or "He does seem to believe the course he's suggesting will be in your best interests." That's just conveying information that the GM may not have the interpersonal skill to convey on their own, but its still ultimately the PCs choice on how to act on the information provided.

Conversely, I have a problem with PCs that are impervious to all social skills used against them as though they were all autistic. I like games where there are resistances/defenses to social skills (preferably different resistances/defenses for different social skills) and situational modifiers too. However, once those odds are calculated, I'm OK with the dice dictating outcome. However, this does mean that your game system needs to be better than D&D at calculating those odds and modifiers (having a good GM is, of course, necessary as well).

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 21, 2020, 12:02:04 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on December 21, 2020, 11:43:26 AM
Mind control spells are an interesting case.  While they are legit mechanically and generally accepted, I still feel they reduce/remove player agency, which I think makes the game less fun.  I tend not to use such spells as a GM and don't include them in the games I write.

I don't necessarily feel that they reduce player agency any more than other adverse hostile acts do. Mind control that temporarily takes over a character (or even non-magical social skills that charm/deceive/intimidate a PC into acting contrary to the player's wishes) isn't different in my eyes than taking an injury that prevents your character from taking the actions that you want them to take. However, much like long-lasting or permanent injuries, I do tend to avoid long-term mind-control/reprogramming of PCs.

Yeah, while mind control abilities do technically take control of the character away from the player, there's a difference between "this ability makes your character behave a certain way (because that's the way that ability works)" and "your character does X because I'm the GM and I WANT your character to do X because it fits my story and I didn't plan for you to come up with an actual counter strategy to my BS scenario".

You could arguably say that both technically remove "player agency", but the first can be rationally justified with in-game reasons that make internally consistent sense (same way that an enemy knocking out your character with a blow to the head technically "removes" player agency as well, since a KOed character can no longer take action), while the second one is just arbitrary GM nonsense. And "arbitrary GM nonsense" is precisely what people complain about when they bring up "but, muh player agency!".

On the topic of social skills and mind control... I think that somewhere between "I make the [insert important sounding title] my bitch, because I have an absurd Diplomacy skill" and "you can't do anything no matter how high your Diplomacy skill is, because muh RP" the truth lies. I get that some players may sometimes try to get away with some ridiculous stuff, but extremely persuasive people and master bullshittiers are a thing IRL (I've met a few), and if social skills don't do anything, then WTF is the point of having them or devoting a bunch of points into them?

Another thing relevant to this topic is that sometimes there's a disconnect between what the player THINKS they can do (or should be allowed to do) and what the GM is willing to let happen. And either one of those parties can be an asshole about it in my experience.

One thing I've noticed some GMs do (and I have been guilty of this myself) is that, instead of stopping the player and explaining to them in PLAIN language (rather than innuendo or "are you sure..." quips) that that shit simply will NOT fly in their campaign, and try to suggest to them a more reasonable approach to achieve whatever it is they're trying to do, they instead retreat to an adversarial GM role and goat them into trying that shit. And when the player does it, they bring down the hammer on them with extreme prejudice and impunity, and escalate the situation rather than attempt to defuse it and refocus play. Which may sound reasonable (and psychologically satisfying in a vindictive sense) on the surface when dealing with a seemingly unreasonable player, but can also stop a session dead on its tracks. Then all the effort of coming together and making arrangements to finally get to play is wasted.

Granted, some players just wont listen, but I think that being upfront about expectations and suggesting alternatives that are in line with player wishes, character abilities and what the GM is willing to allow in their campaign, is more effective than being adversarial about it and tossing away an entire game session over one playing being a smartass.

Quote from: jeff37923 on December 21, 2020, 01:23:16 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 21, 2020, 12:27:07 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 21, 2020, 12:02:04 PM
I don't necessarily feel that they reduce player agency any more than other adverse hostile acts do. Mind control that temporarily takes over a character (or even non-magical social skills that charm/deceive/intimidate a PC into acting contrary to the player's wishes) isn't different in my eyes than taking an injury that prevents your character from taking the actions that you want them to take. However, much like long-lasting or permanent injuries, I do tend to avoid long-term mind-control/reprogramming of PCs.

The bolded is the reason I rewrote the social skills in my game system.

I HATE the "Diplomancer"... the 3.5e abuse of a giant diplomacy bonus and the Epic Level Handbook rules to instantly turn enemies into fanatical followers of you with a single skill check and where a good roll and "give me your kingdom" will cause a king to surrender their crown without question.

So instead the best result possible for a persuasion attempt is "takes what you say in the best possible way." So that king you told to give up his kingdom presumes that you're making some type of joke, not that you're trying to steal his kingdom with honeyed words.

By contrast, "your majesty, I implore you to send men to help reinforce the town of Southfort. If it falls then your realms are certainly next," taken in the best possible light is that you are legitimately warning him of a true danger to his realm and suggesting the course you feel will best protect his kingdom. He may still feel he has a better plan of action to take, but he acknowledges the threat and that something must be done. Now you just need to argue for why reinforcing Southfort is a better option than marshalling his forces at his own border (arguments he will also take in the best possible light because you've already persuaded him to be "friendly."

Likewise, a successful deceit check means that those hearing your words believe that YOU believe what you're saying, but the king's guards aren't just going to act on "the King is really a Red Dragon! Kill him now!" regardless of how well you roll. Now if the king has been behaving unusually in recent days they'll take the accusation more credibly, but an instant changing of behavior against reason just is not going to happen.

Likewise, "The King is really a Red Dragon and I have proof!"... well those same guards will believe you believe that and the request (don't act until you've heard me give my proof) doesn't require actions that go against their reason or beliefs and so is far more likely to be effective (particularly if your goal isn't to get the guards to turn on their king but to keep everyone distracted while your party is doing something else).

Conversely, used against PC's I have no problems regarding player agency with "He sounds believable" or "He does seem to believe the course he's suggesting will be in your best interests." That's just conveying information that the GM may not have the interpersonal skill to convey on their own, but its still ultimately the PCs choice on how to act on the information provided.

For a thankfully brief time, my daughter dated an asshole who was a powergamer. In order to get me to meet her "new" boyfriend, she asked me to run a game for the two of them. I agreed, and the guy brought in a diplomancer build character. First use of the diplomancer social overwhelm power went like this:

Boyfriend:  "I walk up to the Duke and say, 'Gimmee all your livestock, bitch'"
Me as DM:  "Are you sure that you want to use those exact words?"
Boyfriend:  "Yeah"

Yep. I don't mind characters that can use skills to influence NPCs. Not everyone is a skilled persuader in real life. But that's just begging the DM to step in and interpret the roll so it's not completely ludicrious.

Quote from: jeff37923 on December 21, 2020, 01:23:16 PM
For a thankfully brief time, my daughter dated an asshole who was a powergamer. In order to get me to meet her "new" boyfriend, she asked me to run a game for the two of them. I agreed, and the guy brought in a diplomancer build character. First use of the diplomancer social overwhelm power went like this:

Dont blame yourself, that dude was no power gamer.

Quote from: VisionStorm on December 21, 2020, 09:41:51 AM
Except that it's a term that helps identify a specific issue or aspect of cram GMing, which does not represent the totally of WTF being a "crap GM" entails. Calling someone a "crap GM" doesn't tell me absolutely ANYTHING about WTF that "crap GM" needs to fix. Telling me that he/she/xir keeps denying "player agency" in order to force their characters down his predestined story path or scenario tells me what that GM's specific issue is, or at least helps narrow it down. Telling me that he/she/xir is a "crap GM" is just a value judgement. It doesn't elucidate anything.

If you had asked me back in the day what sucked about that GM I would have said the game was on rails. Simple and done. Now a days I would look at you for a few minutes for having said he/she/X and just walk away saying your perfect for each other.

What Agency should mean, very simply, is that the player character's actions have consequences, and this MUST apply (for agency to be real) to both good and bad actions, that is, good or bad consequences.

If your character can't die in combat, or can't die without player consent, or something like that, the character has no agency.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 21, 2020, 03:07:40 PM
...Yep. I don't mind characters that can use skills to influence NPCs. Not everyone is a skilled persuader in real life. But that's just begging the DM to step in and interpret the roll so it's not completely ludicrious.

At a minimum, I require the player to at least articulate what type of approach their character is doing to get their desired result, " I distract the guard by complaining about x..." Or "I appeal to the King by accusing his advisor of treachery, and then show him the letter with his advisors seal..."

Give the table something to imagine, and the GM something to work with.

Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2020, 07:06:52 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 21, 2020, 03:07:40 PM
...Yep. I don't mind characters that can use skills to influence NPCs. Not everyone is a skilled persuader in real life. But that's just begging the DM to step in and interpret the roll so it's not completely ludicrious.

At a minimum, I require the player to at least articulate what type of approach their character is doing to get their desired result, " I distract the guard by complaining about x..." Or "I appeal to the King by accusing his advisor of treachery, and then show him the letter with his advisors seal..."

Give the table something to imagine, and the GM something to work with.

As someone who tends to roleplay in the third person (i.e. "my character does this.") I heartily approve this message.

Honestly, third person is a habit I got into decades ago as the primary GM for my groups as we matured enough to go beyond murderhoboing and started having to deal with PC love interests. There is little I find more uncomfortable than trying to pretend to have a romantic attraction to an overweight dude across a table while others watch.

"The princess returns your affections," may be less immersive, but it is INFINITELY less awkward.

By the time I actually got to play regularly (basically college where there were multiple campus groups) it was so ingrained that trying to play in the first person felt unnatural.

Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2020, 07:06:52 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 21, 2020, 03:07:40 PM
...Yep. I don't mind characters that can use skills to influence NPCs. Not everyone is a skilled persuader in real life. But that's just begging the DM to step in and interpret the roll so it's not completely ludicrious.

At a minimum, I require the player to at least articulate what type of approach their character is doing to get their desired result, " I distract the guard by complaining about x..." Or "I appeal to the King by accusing his advisor of treachery, and then show him the letter with his advisors seal..."

Give the table something to imagine, and the GM something to work with.

That is part of the Player Agency problem. Most of the players that I have seen use munchkin builds like the diplomancer don't want to role-play or puzzle out ways for their characters to succeed, they want to game the system so that they can "win" the game in their mind. Player Agency be damned as long as the character build they have can consistently "win". It is like the player character version of Box Text against the DM.

(This is also a great arguement for why a GM is needed for games in order to make impartial rulings so that the game is fun for everyone.)

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 21, 2020, 04:52:23 PM
What Agency should mean, very simply, is that the player character's actions have consequences, and this MUST apply (for agency to be real) to both good and bad actions, that is, good or bad consequences.

If your character can't die in combat, or can't die without player consent, or something like that, the character has no agency.

I hate to pick nits, but character agency is different from player agency. Player agency means making choices which affect the game in a meaningful way, such as not killing a tied-up prisoner, even though he is the baddie or killing him, proving to all that Chaos reigns supreme and takes no prisoners! Character agency... unless we're talking high level, 'I have just built my keep and collect taxes now' kind of character, there shouldn't be much except on a very local scale.
Other than that, I agree. PCs must be able to face risk to gain reward as well as facing the consequences to that risk or reward. As I used to tell my players: "Want the best equiptment? Do it the old fashioned way ~ EARN IT! And don't expect anything over +2  to be NOT cursed! Because it probably is. More than likely."
;D

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 21, 2020, 04:52:23 PM
If your character can't die in combat, or can't die without player consent, or something like that, the character has no agency.

Did you mean "player" agency? Character agency is a completely separate thing (or possibly not a thing at all, depending on your point of view).

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 21, 2020, 08:58:10 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 05, 1975, 01:06:26 PM
There is one situation, at least in D&D, where you have to do this: when a PC has been hit with a mind-affecting spell. Especially the charm spells. It's annoying, but if you have good players, they roll with it.

And you already know that wasn't what I was referring to (and already noted that as a point where it was okay). And that what I'm referring to is in line with "you do as the NPC asks happily and without question even though he's a snide condescending asshole to you after he called on you for help. No you can't demand double and no you can't refuse."

So, you already knew this. Why bring it up?

I wasn't trying to crap on your parade, Chris, so calm down, lol.

I think Pundit has the right of it. Agency means the characters enjoy the fruits of their labors, but also the consequences of bad decisions. And you should let them have both :)

Player agency means the players can decide they aren't interested in the underground dungeon.  They'd rather hang out at the tavern and drink ale, and then go check out the 2 for 1 special at the local brothel.

Quote from: Razor 007 on December 22, 2020, 09:38:07 AM
Player agency means the players can decide they aren't interested in the underground dungeon.  They'd rather hang out at the tavern and drink ale, and then go check out the 2 for 1 special at the local brothel.

Until they run out of gold and have to do something for money.

Then it's either the underground dungeon, or they are the 2 for 1 special at the local brothel. :) Or whatever they choose to do for money.

This Player Agency demarcation often comes up in brinskmanship epics ("Gotta Save the World Again, or Else!") or mission-based play ("Alpha squad, this is what is expected of you by oh-seven-hundred hours,"). Naturally what your character does should face coherent results; 'actions have consequences'. But some players feel constrained by the premise's structure of expectations.

Yet here is the conceptual problem: Constraint is Not Absence. You still should have choice within said constraint.

The restriction of play time, space, degree, or goals does not prevent play choice within said arena. Just as a dungeons' walls, floors, and ceilings limits directions, or a social status' expectations and responsibilities limits access and freedom, so does progression- (mysteries, prophecies, one-way journeys) or mission-based play (expectations, orders, requests) limits sequentiality and goals. However within such space there should be meaningful choices (re: within-the-fiction risk) to enliven the accomplishment, to be different enough to incur different consequences.

If you don't have buy-in to the premise, that's something to be addressed before starting -- and readdressed during if there is balking after agreement ("don't wanna, here's the likely bad results elsewhere. still don't wanna?").

If you do have buy-in but the player feels too constrained, ask yourself if there is obvious interactables that could lead to differnt results? If yes, make them "more obvious" until the player gets it. Yes, some of us are much better at lateral thinking than others and we may feel we may 'lead our players on' instead of letting them play themselves. But have faith, players are very good at surprising GMs, and they will probably come up with an unanticipated solution.

i.e. A crime scene is a restricted time and space whose time details are often eroding, and whose space will eventually have to be "closed" (reopen to non-detective work). A detective is a status whose expectations and responsibilities grant special access and freedoms to this defined time and space. These are constraints. And yet, how would you describe player agency within it? Ask the player similarly, can they imagine player agency within it?

If they cannot and beeline to weird non sequiturs of "I go take a long vacation far away," or "I sip coffee just outside of the crime scene with my eyes closed and headphones on," that's a sign of not buying-in (or extreme lack of imagination). And that's the key: The Decisions Within the Constraint. Most people intuitively know how to find Player Agency for their Character's Agency within such a framework. The Character Agency can make good or bad decisions inside and out the constraint -- the Player Agency is asking "is there anything meaningful to choose while in here?"

e.g. A list of unavoidable, always lethally hostile, balanced CR Encounters is NOT giving Player Agency, even if the Character Agency (in combat manner or its continuation) seems to remain. Change those three preceding factors and suddenly you got a way more interesting game, even if it is in a dungeon.

Quote from: spon on December 22, 2020, 08:15:22 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 21, 2020, 04:52:23 PM
If your character can't die in combat, or can't die without player consent, or something like that, the character has no agency.

Did you mean "player" agency? Character agency is a completely separate thing (or possibly not a thing at all, depending on your point of view).

I don't think I agree. Character agency in this case is their ability to affect and be affected by the world. It doesn't just mean that the character should be powerful. A low level character has agency if they can kill someone, rather than that someone being impossible to kill by plot immunity, or if they can die and likewise are not protected. If that is lost, then the character itself actually can't take actions in the world that has any meaning.

Character and player agency are definitely two different things.  To illustrate, if a character attacks an enemy, doing enough damage to kill him and he doesn't die, then that's a loss of character agency.  If the player says "I do this" and the GM says "No you don't" then that would be a loss of player agency.  In other words, a loss of player agency means that the GM is inetrfering with the player's ability to make decisions for his character.  A loss of character agency is also a loss of player agency because the player only acts in the game through his player - the character is unable to affect things so now the player's decisions don't matter.

Player agency is what's usually discussed because player agency makes the game fun.   I've never even thought of "character agency" before, so I'm mulling this as I go.  Character agency is only important in that it also impacts player agency.  I.e. we don't discuss fun for the character because it's a fictional construct.  I don't think it much matters whether player agency is lost because the GM interferes with choices or because the GM interferes with outcomes, neither is fun, so it makes sense to frame the discussion in terms of player agency rather than the other.

Identifying loss of character agency is a lot less clear cut than a loss of player agency.  If the GM says "No, you don't," that's crystal clear.  If a character's attacks don't kill an enemy, maybe he had more health than you thought, or magical protection, or legit, in-game divine favor, or whatever.

The term "character agency" also sounds peculiar to me because I usually think of agency in terms of free will, and a character by definition can't have free will - the player is controlling him.

Quote from: RandyB on December 22, 2020, 09:40:59 AM

Quote from: Razor 007 on December 22, 2020, 09:38:07 AM
Player agency means the players can decide they aren't interested in the underground dungeon.  They'd rather hang out at the tavern and drink ale, and then go check out the 2 for 1 special at the local brothel.

Until they run out of gold and have to do something for money.

Then it's either the underground dungeon, or they are the 2 for 1 special at the local brothel. :) Or whatever they choose to do for money.

Ha!!!  Well said.

Player v Character Agency can split when there is world view (e.g. alignment) or motivation/compulsion friction (e.g. oodles of 1980s-90s mechanics). You as a player may not want to, but your character like-to-definitely will (and vice versa). Not only can it arise -- unintended or not -- from GM-Created Situation but also PC-Created Situation. In fact, one can say some of the most popular games showcase this divide: D&D, CoC, WoD, GURPS, HERO, etc.

It's ethos & stability stuff atop typical loss of control effects.

I feel the issue is when players want to say "I don't see any interesting decisions to make here," and shorten it into "I have no player agency." Sometimes that is true objectively, GM structure is too confining to be meaningfully playable (i.e. trying to roleplay solitary confinement without recourse to change the context state). Sometimes that is true subjectively, Player at a loss to see other options and is rejecting the premise. And other times it is an excuse, Player bored at accepted premise's execution and tries to reject it In-Character during play.

That last one is bad form. It is more honest to go Out-of-Character and have The Talk about one's frustration. Resolving OOC issues IC just causes problems. But so does using jargon as a dismissive short-hand; without trying to explain your perspective you are not making an effort to communicate. There is an art to useful feedback.

Quote from: Mishihari on December 22, 2020, 02:17:22 PM

If the player says "I do this" and the GM says "No you don't" then that would be a loss of player agency.  In other words, a loss of player agency means that the GM is inetrfering with the player's ability to make decisions for his character.

Except not.

There are numerous times a GM spot on to tell the player "No. Your character can not do that"
Usually when the player is trying to have the character do something either outside the rules, or just not physically possible, or not possible within the time allotted, etc. The DM says "No." and should explain why and if possible offer alternatives. Or in other cases, allow the action, but at penalty for success.

This came up here and over on BGG a year or three ago. Essentially a player in a cyberpunk RPG tells the GM their character dives behind a bar and grabs a shotgun. Except the GM has not said there is a shotgun behind the bar. Because there is not one there. Naturally over on BGG the GM is in the wrong to say "no".

Similar would be a player in a fantasy RPG telling the DM they open a chest and find a vorpal sword +10.

Quote from: Omega on December 23, 2020, 12:42:24 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on December 22, 2020, 02:17:22 PM

If the player says "I do this" and the GM says "No you don't" then that would be a loss of player agency.  In other words, a loss of player agency means that the GM is inetrfering with the player's ability to make decisions for his character.

Except not.

There are numerous times a GM spot on to tell the player "No. Your character can not do that"
Usually when the player is trying to have the character do something either outside the rules, or just not physically possible, or not possible within the time allotted, etc. The DM says "No." and should explain why and if possible offer alternatives. Or in other cases, allow the action, but at penalty for success.

This came up here and over on BGG a year or three ago. Essentially a player in a cyberpunk RPG tells the GM their character dives behind a bar and grabs a shotgun. Except the GM has not said there is a shotgun behind the bar. Because there is not one there. Naturally over on BGG the GM is in the wrong to say "no".

Similar would be a player in a fantasy RPG telling the DM they open a chest and find a vorpal sword +10.

I think there's an important difference between a GM making a determination and a GM telling a player what their character does.

Is there a shotgun behind the counter? GM determination. Does my character attempt to dive behind the counter? Player decision.

Quote from: Omega on December 23, 2020, 12:42:24 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on December 22, 2020, 02:17:22 PM

If the player says "I do this" and the GM says "No you don't" then that would be a loss of player agency.  In other words, a loss of player agency means that the GM is inetrfering with the player's ability to make decisions for his character.

Except not.

There are numerous times a GM spot on to tell the player "No. Your character can not do that"
Usually when the player is trying to have the character do something either outside the rules, or just not physically possible, or not possible within the time allotted, etc. The DM says "No." and should explain why and if possible offer alternatives. Or in other cases, allow the action, but at penalty for success.

This came up here and over on BGG a year or three ago. Essentially a player in a cyberpunk RPG tells the GM their character dives behind a bar and grabs a shotgun. Except the GM has not said there is a shotgun behind the bar. Because there is not one there. Naturally over on BGG the GM is in the wrong to say "no".

Similar would be a player in a fantasy RPG telling the DM they open a chest and find a vorpal sword +10.

I thought it was obvious in the context that I meant something that was possible in the fiction and mechanics of the game. 

Quote from: Mishihari on December 23, 2020, 02:01:48 AM

Quote from: Omega on December 23, 2020, 12:42:24 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on December 22, 2020, 02:17:22 PM

If the player says "I do this" and the GM says "No you don't" then that would be a loss of player agency.  In other words, a loss of player agency means that the GM is inetrfering with the player's ability to make decisions for his character.

Except not.

There are numerous times a GM spot on to tell the player "No. Your character can not do that"
Usually when the player is trying to have the character do something either outside the rules, or just not physically possible, or not possible within the time allotted, etc. The DM says "No." and should explain why and if possible offer alternatives. Or in other cases, allow the action, but at penalty for success.

This came up here and over on BGG a year or three ago. Essentially a player in a cyberpunk RPG tells the GM their character dives behind a bar and grabs a shotgun. Except the GM has not said there is a shotgun behind the bar. Because there is not one there. Naturally over on BGG the GM is in the wrong to say "no".

Similar would be a player in a fantasy RPG telling the DM they open a chest and find a vorpal sword +10.

I agree 100% when the gm invades your character's ability to think and do.  You can say it's within my player agency to do <this>.

I've always thought of agency as the ability to make player decisions and character actions stick in the game world.

If you want your to depose a lord and take his position, the gm shouldn't you can't, if you can figure out a way to make it work then you should be able to have a go at it. I'm not saying the gm should guarantee the plan will succeed but, if it does then the character should then be in control of that chunk of the world, not reduced back to their previous state by next session.

This can make campaigns go sideways or even break entirely but it is worth it for the reaction of the players when they realise they are having impact on the world.

The example I use is Conan killing the king of Aquilonia and taking the crown for himself. I tell the players "If you can do it and make it work, then you can do it." But, I don't really overplan campaigns, I just have a few sequences of events set up that will happen unless the pcs interact with them and I can see someone trying that sort of thing would really annoy someone who had a story worked out that the players decided not to follow.

While writing this I've come up with a concise answer.

"Player agency is the ability not to follow the pre-planned story."

Quote from: Opaopajr on December 22, 2020, 11:05:12 AM
This Player Agency demarcation often comes up in brinskmanship epics ("Gotta Save the World Again, or Else!") or mission-based play ("Alpha squad, this is what is expected of you by oh-seven-hundred hours,"). Naturally what your character does should face coherent results; 'actions have consequences'. But some players feel constrained by the premise's structure of expectations.

Yet here is the conceptual problem: Constraint is Not Absence. You still should have choice within said constraint.

The restriction of play time, space, degree, or goals does not prevent play choice within said arena. Just as a dungeons' walls, floors, and ceilings limits directions, or a social status' expectations and responsibilities limits access and freedom, so does progression- (mysteries, prophecies, one-way journeys) or mission-based play (expectations, orders, requests) limits sequentiality and goals. However within such space there should be meaningful choices (re: within-the-fiction risk) to enliven the accomplishment, to be different enough to incur different consequences.

Quote from: Altheus on December 23, 2020, 06:44:45 AM
"Player agency is the ability not to follow the pre-planned story."

I agree. A number of people have brought up extremes of the GM saying "Your character chooses to do X because I say so". But really, a GM can effectively force things to go their way pretty easily without going to such extremes.

Most published modules are fairly linear. Sometimes there's a few branches, but usually the players have to go through the encounters provided. The most common choice is just order in which they tackle the elements. So sometimes instead of going A-B-C-D, they can instead go A-C-B-D. But that's not really a lot of choice.
I'm playing in a Call of Cthulhu module now, for example - Masks of Nyarlathotep. It's got more choice than many modules, but most of that choice is just the order in which we tackle things.

By contrast, some games can be primarily player-lead. I think the simplest example of this was a short supervillains campaign that I played in. The setting was just "the modern world". We created super-powered characters, and we had to decide how we were going to amass wealth and power for ourselves. Because of the setup, the GM had to react to what we chose to do, rather than the other way around. This goes beyond even a hex crawl, since we can choose to go anywhere in the world.

The other extreme is a game like Paranoia, Delta Green, or James Bond 007 -- where the PCs are working for an agency, and are assigned missions. There the PCs really don't have a lot of choice over what they are pursuing.

The point is -- there's a lot of variation in player agency within traditional RPGs. There's nothing wrong, I think, with games like Paranoia or such where the PCs are assigned missions. Player agency doesn't always have to be maximized in order to have fun.

I'd like to thank everyone for posting incredibly-informative sentences. You revealed to me something that's been a nagging stone in my shoes for the last year or so:

I railroad The Living Shit® out of my players :o

I thought maybe I was doing something wrong, but I like a fast-paced game and everyone seems to enjoy the whole "Runaway Train" vibe. But, I feel I should perhaps repent of this, even if they like it, doesn't mean I can't raise my craft and offer an even better experience, right?

So. I'll post another thread on a topic I've been researching all week and still find myself scratching my head.

Someone(s) asked about the Ravenloft debacle: Well. It's AD&D. And scary Uncle Gary said if you don't track time in your adventures you're a magnanimous imbecile unworthy of the DM title. So I'm tracking time BUT miscalculated the distance from the Gate of Barovia to Barovia proper. So night falls just before the party gets to the village. So. Strahd hunts at night, right? Sure he does. And the PCs had read that dead guy's letter and knew what was coming and the players were talking like they couldn't WAIT to meet Mr. Dracula and mop the floor with him.

*Shrug* So Strahd ambushes the party at the edge of the forest with six Worth wolves and a swarm of bats. Of course, he hides in the forest and attacks with his FOR-THE-LOVE-OF-ZEUS overpowered spell array and .... roll credits.

Thusly, a large wave of WTF washed over the gaming table and. Resisting the urge to say "I'm just playing my NPC --- that's what he would do", I apologized and realized I need to talk to someone. I need help. I remember Tim Kask saying he would butcher parties until Mentzer took him aside and advised him otherwise. You folks have been my personal Mentzer and I both thank you and hope you contribute to my next thread.

Player Agency is another made up bugaboo buzzword concocted by the the Forge cult and Pundits swine. Oft seeming to be used along with demands for "the Narrative". uh-huh. Yeah. Riiiiight.

I've never seen it used with good intentions and seems 90% of the time to be a battle cry of storygamers when they want to shackle the DM and get their way. For the blessed Narrative, of course.

Player Agency can to die in hell.

If a player tries an action then the DM tells them if they can or cant do that action within the constraints of the system. If the DM is not doing their jog then thats a bad DM. If the player is trying to abuse or bend the rules for essentially an "I win" button then that is a bad player.

Neither have jack all to do with the adventure type and you can and will have either types of bad behavior in a freeform adventure as you will a scripted one.

Not to mention some idiots idea of a "railroad" approaches "everything on earth". Sorry. No. Try again please.

Quote from: Omega on December 24, 2020, 05:15:29 PM
Player Agency is another made up bugaboo buzzword concocted by the the Forge cult and Pundits swine.

No, it wasn't. Agency was in common use in the *.advocacy newsgroup, long before the Forge was an apple in Ron Edward's eyecart.

Player Agency was a difficult thing where players tried to define a codified world.

Please explain the ridges.

The monsters define the encounter.

Quote from: Theory of Games on December 20, 2020, 11:30:03 AM
I've seen/heard people say it's "everything a player does with their character". The activity of their character.

I've also seen/heard people say "a player's ability to make meaningful character choices that impact the setting". So the party clears the dungeon and the King makes the now 12th-Level Fighter 'General of his armies' so now the Fighter can go after the Orc hordes threatening the kingdom.

Is it the first thing or the second or both or WTF? People have been crying about the loss of agency for decades. Are GMs evil or misguided or confused? Is this entitled SJW shade or are GMs really stepping on player toes?

It's anything other than the GM telling players what their characters do or have happened to them.

Quote from: Theory of Games on December 24, 2020, 04:10:46 PMIt's AD&D. And scary Uncle Gary said if you don't track time in your adventures you're a magnanimous imbecile unworthy of the DM title. So I'm tracking time BUT miscalculated the distance from the Gate of Barovia to Barovia proper. So night falls just before the party gets to the village. So. Strahd hunts at night, right? Sure he does. And the PCs had read that dead guy's letter and knew what was coming and the players were talking like they couldn't WAIT to meet Mr. Dracula and mop the floor with him.

*Shrug* So Strahd ambushes the party at the edge of the forest with six Worth wolves and a swarm of bats. Of course, he hides in the forest and attacks with his FOR-THE-LOVE-OF-ZEUS overpowered spell array and .... roll credits.

Thusly, a large wave of WTF washed over the gaming table and. Resisting the urge to say "I'm just playing my NPC --- that's what he would do", I apologized and realized I need to talk to someone. I need help. I remember Tim Kask saying he would butcher parties until Mentzer took him aside and advised him otherwise. You folks have been my personal Mentzer and I both thank you and hope you contribute to my next thread.

Perhaps I'm misreading, but it seems that the players knew Strahd was super powerful and particularly so at night, they knew travelling to the castle would leave them vulnerable in the darkness before they got there, and they were still excited to face him.

This does not seem like a lack of player agency to me. It seems more like players playing a party of characters with death-wish flaws.

Quote from: mightybrain on December 25, 2020, 07:44:21 AM
Perhaps I'm misreading, but it seems that the players knew Strahd was super powerful and particularly so at night, they knew travelling to the castle would leave them vulnerable in the darkness before they got there, and they were still excited to face him.

This does not seem like a lack of player agency to me. It seems more like players playing a party of characters with death-wish flaws.

Indeed, there is a difference between killing characters and providing ample opportunities for suicide. In this case, a TPK doesn't seem like a particularly inappropriate consequence of the character's actions (and thus the player's agency).

That said, was it a death-wish or a misunderstanding about the nature of the game? Players might make such decisions if they believe they're playing in a game that includes plot armor. I don't think it would be fair to "improve" that aspect of the game (i.e. remove the plot armor they always enjoyed previously) without discussing it up front beforehand.

I've usually experienced players being determined to face a threat regardless of how dangerous it is. So, I try to warn them during chargen/session 0 that THE DICE can betray them, regardless of how proficient their sheet looks.

The dice in our games. They really decide.

Theory of Games, your Ravenloft example is a good primer on the challenge of putting the fear of scale back into your setting.  8)

Just because Strahd can "alpha strike team" the PCs for a TPK doesn't mean he always will. Further, it rather kills the mood totally going for an efficient TPK. Not to say what you are doing is wrong per se, but aesthetically you (and your table!) found the experience wanting. So somewhere you killed not just the party but the mood.

It's an art, and part of it is reading the audience. And in this case, RPGs, the audience is  the players -- who are also the actors (an oft loaded term, but meant in an agency case here) and allowed to make deeply flawed choices! They did, almost flippantly, and they died totally. But maybe the point could have gotten across without a TPK? That is for you to read the room.  ;)

And there is room in Ravenloft for a more generous interpretation of consequences. Part of the torment of Ravenloft Darklords is knowing the Dark Powers thwart them and torture them eternally. And part of their few pleasures is bullheadedly reveling in their crapulence just before snuffing out would-be-heroes from re-enacting their greatest downfall. That gives you cause to explore a range of reprisals, such as: a fun chase scene where the party suffers anywhere from a brush with death, to a near TPK leaving a lone straggler shitting bricks and grateful for dawn.  :)

If you ask yourself, where are you leaving the logistic, strategic, & tactical Player Agency this might help! Basically, where's the maneuver room for choices in the picture from Big > Middle > Small. Leave a little of some room in each if you can, or if failed really bad in the big picture stuff relocate extra room in descending values as emergency failsafes -- unless players are no longer respecting the setting's threat value.

Hope that tip on finesse helps!

Quote from: Opaopajr on December 25, 2020, 03:39:15 PMJust because Strahd can "alpha strike team" the PCs for a TPK doesn't mean he always will.

Yes, Strahd is powerful enough that he can swoop in an pick them off at will. I think the most logical approach would be to charm or kill one of the PCs in the first instance. Then you have one player re-roll rather than a TPK. If the rest of the party don't take the hint, take another. I'm playing in a Strahd game at the moment, and whenever we see him coming, we go in the opposite direction. We'll have to face him eventually, but we want to make sure we have all the advantages we can before we do.

Quote from: Theory of Games on December 24, 2020, 04:10:46 PM
So night falls just before the party gets to the village. So. Strahd hunts at night, right? Sure he does. And the PCs had read that dead guy's letter and knew what was coming and the players were talking like they couldn't WAIT to meet Mr. Dracula and mop the floor with him.

Bolded the important part.
Based on that alone they got exactly what their were asking for. A fight against an massively more powerful foe. Now they know exactly what is waiting for them. Make new characters try again and add the dead ones to Strahd's forces as undead somethings just to spice it up a bit.

Quote from: lordmalachdrim on December 25, 2020, 07:04:18 PMadd the dead ones to Strahd's forces as undead somethings just to spice it up a bit.

Indeed, free NPCs. At least then your player's character's ten page backstory won't go to waste.

Quote from: Opaopajr on December 25, 2020, 03:39:15 PM
Theory of Games, your Ravenloft example is a good primer on the challenge of putting the fear of scale back into your setting.  8)

Just because Strahd can "alpha strike team" the PCs for a TPK doesn't mean he always will. Further, it rather kills the mood totally going for an efficient TPK. Not to say what you are doing is wrong per se, but aesthetically you (and your table!) found the experience wanting. So somewhere you killed not just the party but the mood.

It's an art, and part of it is reading the audience. And in this case, RPGs, the audience is  the players -- who are also the actors (an oft loaded term, but meant in an agency case here) and allowed to make deeply flawed choices! They did, almost flippantly, and they died totally. But maybe the point could have gotten across without a TPK? That is for you to read the room.  ;)

And there is room in Ravenloft for a more generous interpretation of consequences. Part of the torment of Ravenloft Darklords is knowing the Dark Powers thwart them and torture them eternally. And part of their few pleasures is bullheadedly reveling in their crapulence just before snuffing out would-be-heroes from re-enacting their greatest downfall. That gives you cause to explore a range of reprisals, such as: a fun chase scene where the party suffers anywhere from a brush with death, to a near TPK leaving a lone straggler shitting bricks and grateful for dawn.  :)

If you ask yourself, where are you leaving the logistic, strategic, & tactical Player Agency this might help! Basically, where's the maneuver room for choices in the picture from Big > Middle > Small. Leave a little of some room in each if you can, or if failed really bad in the big picture stuff relocate extra room in descending values as emergency failsafes -- unless players are no longer respecting the setting's threat value.

Hope that tip on finesse helps!

Yeah. I'm feeling completely FINESSED. It's what a GM who came up with OD&D/AD&D needs. Back in the day, a random encounter might be excellent TPK material.

But now, with the heavy story-impact on the hobby, it's better to not demolish the party. At least early on. Sure, Ravenloft is being terrorized by an insane, magic-wielding Vampire. But it has to play out a certain way that better benefits the PCs.

Quote from: mightybrain on December 25, 2020, 06:56:50 PM

Quote from: Opaopajr on December 25, 2020, 03:39:15 PMJust because Strahd can "alpha strike team" the PCs for a TPK doesn't mean he always will.

Yes, Strahd is powerful enough that he can swoop in an pick them off at will. I think the most logical approach would be to charm or kill one of the PCs in the first instance. Then you have one player re-roll rather than a TPK. If the rest of the party don't take the hint, take another. I'm playing in a Strahd game at the moment, and whenever we see him coming, we go in the opposite direction. We'll have to face him eventually, but we want to make sure we have all the advantages we can before we do.

You are wise, probably due to learning the direct approach isn't always best.

Quote from: mightybrain on December 25, 2020, 07:10:25 PM

Quote from: lordmalachdrim on December 25, 2020, 07:04:18 PMadd the dead ones to Strahd's forces as undead somethings just to spice it up a bit.

Indeed, free NPCs. At least then your player's character's ten page backstory won't go to waste.

This. I mean. I don't cherish their backstories but, players should get to PLAY THE GAME.

This is what's bothering me. I can bring a level of less tactical finesse that affords player mistakes. I think that works, at least until the later scenes.

Quote from: Theory of Games on December 27, 2020, 01:38:01 PMYou are wise, probably due to learning the direct approach isn't always best.

We learned this from our first encounter with Strahd. I don't know if this is the suggested first encounter in the module, but it was the way our DM played it. We started by meeting an NPC and shortly after, we have our first encounter with Strahd who attacks us and takes off the NPC. Nothing we can throw at him so much as touches him.