Player-side agency in OSR games - how does it even work?

[Vladim]

Humans can be immersed in anything, I guess, but immersion implies exclusivity (maybe?), so if it's story that's the focus, mechanics can sometimes get in the way. There's a few ways to deal with this, for example by minimising rules (lite systems like some versions of Fate, or simply freeform), or putting narrative framing first (e.g. PbtA and moves-based games) or letting the GM do most of the rules stuff (like OSR does it, I suppose-not an expert).

[cailano]

On 10/27/2023 at 7:49 PM, Tecmes said:

That got me into figuring out what we really mean by "Immersion"! Is it something else that narrative flow?

Hence can we be "immersed" in rules, or just in narration?

 

Interesting! I always associate immersion with story. It hadn't even occurred to me that others might find mechanics immersive.

[RedMax]

Okay, I can actually see their point. When I'm playing supercrunchy Hero and we're slowed down to Bullet Time and we get all the numbers lined up, it does feel like I "am there." I can visualize the scene and I have a map to orient myself.

When I GM Hero, I actually fluctuate between the two kinds of immersion.

@Tecmes @Vladim: Very cool perspective, guys! I never looked at it that way before.

@cailano and I were talking about this on another thread, but I never realized it was two kinds of immersion.

[Tecmes]

For me Immersion is broken when the challenge inherent in RPGs is revealed as a lie. And I feel like in a non-narrative, GM-arbitrated, rules-light system, it always does.

What do I enjoy as a player? One central thing is facing up to the virtual world's challenges and coming up with appropriate and clever ideas to overcome its challenges. For example, the cool Ravenbear tactic above.

But it doesn't work, because it's highly likely that the GM doesn't visualize the scene, the Ravenbear's attitude and abilities, the various parameters, and my character's strength, as I do. So after all that "brilliant" tactic description I suggested above, what happens really?

1) GM says "no" and I stop having fun; not because I like to be right or win, but because I can never know whether it's because I made a mistake, or because the GM "didn't get" my idea. We could argue, but that breaks the immersion and leads to 2...

2) GM says "yes" and I also stop having fun, because I can never be sure that he doesn't say yes to all ideas to not frustrate players. Back to point 1: challenge is lost.

Now, if you cast everything in a rules framework, the parameters are laid bare. Then I can have fun. I can be immersed in the gameplay.

 

[Eric]

Not that the gaming/narrative/simulation triangle is a perfect framework for this topic, but I think Tecmes's point is worth validating. Everyone comes at "what is fun" from a different perspective, and there are different relationships required when an RPG system is rooted in "GM as facilitator" as compared to "GM as arbiter" or "GM as mediator" or even "GM as adversary". Communication and shared expectations are especially important in a PbP context where we're just text on a screen rather than physically present across a table.

[Powderhorn]

With every throw of the dice, I hope my players don't die. However, much like Prince Farquaad, it is a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

[Lord Foul]

3 hours ago, Powderhorn said:

With every throw of the dice, I hope my players don't die. However, much like Prince Farquaad, it is a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

If your players are dying then I think your game is a little too dangerous for my taste.

Characters dying is fair game, of course.

 

[Lord Foul]

5 hours ago, Tecmes said:

Now, if you cast everything in a rules framework, the parameters are laid bare. Then I can have fun. I can be immersed in the gameplay.

That's perfectly fine as a gaming preference. However, what happens when a situation arises that the rules framework doesn't cover, or where that coverage is open to a degree of interpretaion? You're either back in the GM as arbiter model, or into the "you cannot physically do that because it's not in the rules" model.

The example I like to use here is the grid system in some games. Why can't my character stand on the line between hexes? It's not like it's actually present in the game setting. Is there some weird gravitational force pulling them into a clearly designated square? It's a small example of a larger issue, that of doing something outside of the box (literally, in this case). Some people find over-reliance on a rules framework to be artificially restricting of their imagination and innovation.

TL:DR people like different stuff

 

[cailano]

6 hours ago, Eric said:

Not that the gaming/narrative/simulation triangle is a perfect framework for this topic, but I think Tecmes's point is worth validating. Everyone comes at "what is fun" from a different perspective, and there are different relationships required when an RPG system is rooted in "GM as facilitator" as compared to "GM as arbiter" or "GM as mediator" or even "GM as adversary". Communication and shared expectations are especially important in a PbP context where we're just text on a screen rather than physically present across a table.

Oh totally, and @Tecmes's point was well articulated. I hadn't thought of it as a way to be immersed in a game, but once it was said I thought it was an interesting point.

And I'd be the first to admit that in terms of tactical depth, a system like Pathfinder 2E absolutely buries any OSR system I'm aware of.

[Tecmes]

7 minutes ago, cailano said:

in terms of tactical depth, a system like Pathfinder 2E absolutely buries any OSR system I'm aware of.

In my Ravenbear comparative example (this post), I'm not using a combat example because I think that's where PF2 trumps OSR RPGs and therefore that would be a strong argument. I'm using a combat example because it's hard to quote *detailed* non-combat rules for popular games!

So let's get that out of the way and write a similiar, non-combat example, and see what you think of it.

 

1) Player: "I'll try to convince the Mr Johnson: Listen, Chummer. If we command such a high pay, that's because we have a 150% success rate so far. Yeah, one-fifty. Doesn't make sense? Well we get the job done and then we'll grab extra paydata and plant evidence to incriminate the enemy of your choice. Revenge is sweet, especially if you get the revenge done first. So that'll be 15K for us."

GM: "He seems unfazed. Did you get yourself a bragging implant? I have seen dozen of drekheads like you with more chips than brain. It's 10k."

Player: "Well, look at that, then. I show him the file on his clients we got from the last run. I think that's worth 10K. Plus the 10K you've offered."

 

2) Player: "I use Insight to ascertain his frame of mind. <Roll> Won't be easy, but that Secrecy rating can be worked on. I'll start with a Bragging action using Bluff. I know it won't work but it's a setup to increase his own position. <Roll>.

GM: "Indeed it fails. He resorts to Insults as he undermines you negotiation position. <Roll> You're back to square one."

Player: "Not so fast. I'll use a Smoking Gun stunt with the evidence we've collected. I know his Secrecy goal is high, so that'll lower the difficulty and because his position is high, that gives me Advantage. <Roll> Here you go, 15K. Let's get crazy: I try a Raise the Odds with a Stance Point. Boom! 20K!"

 

I think that even with the elaborate non-existent #2 ruleset, #1 is still better-sounding, BUT. There's a crucial catch. I'm playing it loose with #1: in reality it won't happen like that. The player and GM don't perceive the scene and challenge in the same way. The player can only try to guess that Johnson is vulnerable to secrets, and hope that the GM will see the cleverness of his move and have the same outlook on Johnson's behavior.

Even if the player asks many questions in advance, doesn't guarantee it will work as he expects, and that's not because personal interactions are complex and unpredictable. In a RPG NPC interaction, you have to guess how the GM interprets how the NPC works. You don't even know whether the GM is handling the NPC in any coherent way.

Then #2, however clunky it may be, at least guarantees that "the world" works in predictable ways even when it's random, complicated, full of unknown. At least there's a single layer of unknown, not two.

[cailano]

I'll concede that more rules = a more transparent task resolution system, but the reality is that rules-light games can and do deal with those situations in a fun way for the group. A lot of times we just handle it with fewer rolls and more communication.

1) Player: "I'll try to convince the Mr Johnson: Listen, Chummer. If we command such a high pay, that's because we have a 150% success rate so far. Yeah, one-fifty. Doesn't make sense? Well we get the job done and then we'll grab extra paydata and plant evidence to incriminate the enemy of your choice. Revenge is sweet, especially if you get the revenge done first. So that'll be 15K for us."

GM: "He seems unfazed. Did you get yourself a bragging implant? I have seen dozen of drekheads like you with more chips than brain. It's 10k."

Player: OOC: I don't think this guy wants his secrets outed and I'm going to play that card. I show him the file on his clients we got from the last run...

GM: * Likes where the player is going with that line of questioning * Mr. Johnson looks like he might start to sweat soon...

A key idea in OSR games is to favor interaction with the game world over dice. As a GM, I like that approach for a couple of reasons:

1. If Mr. Johnson has information the players need to advance the story, I want them to find it. I'm not just going to throw it at them, but if they have a reasonable or clever plan, I'm not going to hide the information behind a die roll, especially not multiple dice rolls.

2. I want the player to role-play rather than looking for an answer on his character sheet. I'm okay with them using their character sheet as part of the solution, but I don't want the exchange to boil down to something like "I'm going to get information out of Mr. Johnson by using my smoking-gun feat. What do I need to roll?"

Now, in the scene you used as an example, I think the player is playing well. They are combining role and roll play and the scene should work.

But when you add dice, the world isn't going to be super predictable. In my OSR example, the player is going to get their info, or at least most of it, just by role-playing well and having a good strategy. In the crunchier example, there is nothing stopping that player from rolling all 1s and 2s on their check. Then what?

I guess I trust a good GM more than the dice, but of course, these problems come up in all games and a good GM can probably make any system work.

[Vladim]

I think there's a bit of a difference between verisimilitude (feeling of 'realness' or consistency) and immersion (being engrossed in something), though the concepts are connected. Lack of verisimilitude can break immersion, yes, but I'd argue that verisimilitude is possible even with a rules-lite system, or even freeform, as long as the participants weave the narrative in a consistent way that matches with everyone's agreed upon expectations.

The rationale behind rules-lite games (e.g., some narrative systems) and the 'rulings over rules' philosophy (e.g., OSR) is not to have too many rules interfering with the flow of play. Your mileage may very (as in all things), but for some groups, looking up rules, rolling on tables and cross-referencing the results, or simply too many rolls to resolve an action (e.g., attack roll... damage roll... soak roll... etc.) can slow down a game and break immersion in the roleplay of the unfolding scene.

In a sense, simulationist games can be immersive as well; for example, if the gaming table favors detailed results or descriptions. I am mainly thinking about things like crit tables and the like. It's usually more rules and more rolls, but the level of detail can make up for it, for some groups at least. But as no ruleset can cover any possible situation that can arise organically in a game, sooner or later even rules-heavy systems have to rely on some degree of arbitration. Alternatively, a rules-centric playstyle can constrain options in play; you can be much more creative without them.

For me, immersion also breaks when there are contradictions between the RP and the mechanics. Social skills are a good example: say a player gives a detailed, reasonable and well-worded argument to convince an NPC, but rolls a bad result. What then? Does the GM have to come up with a reason (often forced) why it didn't work? Or should they throw the mechanics out of the window?

[Tecmes]

19 hours ago, cailano said:

Player: OOC: I don't think this guy wants his secrets outed and I'm going to play that card. I show him the file on his clients we got from the last run...

GM: * Likes where the player is going with that line of questioning * Mr. Johnson looks like he might start to sweat soon...

Yes, communicating makes a difference, but in my opinion, leads to another issue, which I call "negotiation". Again, there's the issue from my OP: what if the GM says instead "I don't like your idea"?

Does that happen?

If not, can you really say your idea makes a difference?

If it does happen, then how do you go about resolving the disagreement? Do you bow to the GM's judgement (then back to the issue I put forward: your challenge becomes understanding the GM), or do you argue? If you argue, you're not playing a game anymore, you're indulging in a social interaction, which may even involve authority, and I don't need more of that in my hobbies, wouldn't you agree?

19 hours ago, cailano said:

I don't want the exchange to boil down to something like "I'm going to get information out of Mr. Johnson by using my smoking-gun feat. What do I need to roll?"

Now, in the scene you used as an example, I think the player is playing well. They are combining role and roll play and the scene should work.

Yes, indeed I've been a bit disingenuous. My example #2 should have been more like your quote to have a proper comparison. What if the player dryly refers to rules only?

But the thing is I am assuming an interesting ruleset (remember, that's why I used a combat example in the first place). In such a ruleset, you can't just say "I use skill X and that does it". You have to make choices etc.

Granted, such a ruleset for non-combat action is very hard to come by. Precisely, I think this rarity influences the way we think of the place that role and roll should have. That's why I would rather try to produce such a working ruleset rather than doing what I perceive as offloading the rules to GM decision.

[Tecmes]

22 hours ago, Lord Foul said:

Some people find over-reliance on a rules framework to be artificially restricting of their imagination and innovation.

But again, don't you agree that my initial Ravenbear example #2 deploys innovation and smarts? Eventhough it's strictly within the rules.

Not imagination, perhaps, but what is imagination, really, in a RPG context? If it's immersion, I've mentionned I see no reason why we can't be immersed in rules. If that's creativity, ditto.

Now if imagination is going beyond the rules (e.g. not abiding by the map squares, or e.g. using a feint in a game which hasn't), you're just going beyond the clearly laid-out rules. If there are no clearly laid-out rules, then what's happening around the table, really? Are you freely narrating stuff? Are you tackling challenges? If the latter, who decides whether they succeed? What's the point of shunning strict rules frameworks if you're really ending up letting arbitrary, unwritten rules, sanction your innovative, imaginative ideas?

Mind, I understand that doing that is enjoyable. Something fun can happen between participants, even in a freeform game. But my point for this thread was about agency, and the feeling of agency.

[cailano]

You're got a bunch of really interesting takes on all this @Tecmes, thanks for sharing. I don't know about everyone else but its definitely given me some things to think about.