Player Agency

Hi All,
It is me again!

I was wondering how you all work in player agency in PbP? I have been DMing in the PbP format for about 10 months now and I have been DMing in real life for about 5 months. I feel my IRL DMing is improving because I have an avenue for player feedback. I can see their faces and talk to them before and after a session. We also have a FB group that we post in.

But in PbP I feel I could use a few strategies to get the players to help create the world. I want them to come up with crazy ideas (to be fair many of them do but I am greedy I want more) and make me change my planning. Part of the problem may be that their interests are not perfectly aligned with mine and so I have a hard time writing content that fits their needs.

I know we have the OOC discussion forums but they tend to not be very active.

Any suggestions would be appreciated!

Tell them you want these things.

Tell them that you are giving them artistic license to narrate what is going on around them, what or who is in a room, and to add flavor to the world so that it is a living breathing thing.

Tell them that so long as they are reasonable, and don't use this artistic license for blatant mechanical advantage, or to circumvent your narrative as GM that you will be happy to have them helping you create the world and the story.

This next part is the most important part; now you have to learn how to cede some of your control as GM, and how to trust them with this kind of "power", and how to run your game with a certain, not insignificant, amount of unpredictability.

It's wonderful.

Every once in a while you'll have to say, "Wait wait, no, sorry. Gonna have to roll it back here a bit. You went a little too far." and ret-con something, especially while people learn what does and doesn't "work".

But once they figure out the bounds, and you figure out how to maintain a consistent story-line in this atmosphere, it's wonderful.

Just tell them. I want you to help me build this world and tell this story in a very direct fashion.

I'll see if I can dig up the exact words I told my players...

I've always wanted to run a game where I really allow the players to make the story as we go. More collaborative with me only doing minimal work to help progress the story forward

emsquared has presented some great thoughts on the subject! Like so many other things in PbP/tabletop it all boils down to communication.

One thing I'll add is that collaborative world-building does depend a lot on player preferences: some players won't be used to it, or might not even like it very much, which might be the case if they prefer exploring a fully realised world rather than having to get creative themselves. Which just plays back into the "talk to them" point, so everyone goes into the campaign with the same expectations. e.g., explaining what you have in mind in much the same way that you'd inform prospective players that a game would be very combat-heavy, or full of social encounters.

I'll sometimes bug players in PMs if the upcoming NPC/location might be at all relevant to their backstory, asking what they make of the factions involved, what sort of technology is at play, etc. It's great when you get a rapport going, because it becomes second nature to players that the upcoming scenario might have flavour on their terms! And heck, even if an element of the game world has nothing to do with their backstory, you can always put the players' ideas into action if you think theirs are better than yours :p

I think choice of game also effects it. Something like DnD has the expectation that the DM is doing most of the leg work in terms of world building, and it's hard break your players out of that. Other games like FFG Star Wars encourages player agency but not neccidcarily all the time. On the other side of the spectrum there are the PbtA games where by default players have a lot of agency. I'm going to be trifling a GMless system soon (Noir World) and am interested to see what will happen in PbP without a GM driving the interest.

This is a great point. As is that some systems lend better to it than others.

However, I think the part about how PbP is more "theater of the mind" than tabletop gaming - the flow of information is just slower, less fluid, and less robust - applies to any game. And that any game can benefit from PCs knowing they have the option to help flesh out a scene. As mentioned, if they're not comfortable with that full responsibility, asking leading questions- or using your PCs internal dialogue to forecast your meta-needs - can accomplish the same thing. It just takes time for that exchange of information, or they can just play as they normally would. But if not all the players are doing it and it is the style of game you are running, you'll probably need to provide that player the more direct guidance they prefer, otherwise they can just feel lost.

All great comments. The use of internal dialogue is a useful PbP convention. Reminds me I need to use it more in my own playing. I feel like I can write something up and share with the players. Just as an encouragement to build the world up a bit more.

Also this idea that some players don't want to world build is important. I know I love it, but need to remind myself that not everyone does.

Aaron, I found this post really interesting along with your post on pacing a few months back. I feel like there is SO MUCH we could discuss on these two topics alone.

I have actually written two responses to this topic but they have both been deleted by my browser crashing. I wanted to put it out there that I appreciate that people like you and those that responded are thinking about the PbP medium and how to best run games in this space. Would love to play a game with you some day so we could share some common frame of reference to discuss this kind of thing. Also, I have a bunch of thoughts on improving the experience of running games (specifically D&D 5e) for PbP.

Anyway, I hope my browser cooperates in the future and I'll try to add some thoughts soon :)

This is a great thread.

And some of the suggestions on here are definitely worthwhile, especially just telling people outright you'd like more collaboration on world-building.

My own thoughts on this are that, first and foremost, the game matters. This has already kind of been brought up by Genisisect, but a comparison would be games like D&D and and 13th Age.

Dungeons and Dragons has decades of worldbuilding, and some of it has stood as the benchmark for the entire hobby. People are comfortable with this and might defer to what already exists. I get that, and it's a real time saver. However, consider a game like 13th Age in contrast. Here the game was designed with holes in it that the players and GM would be almost forced to fill-in as a campaign progresses. Features like "One Unique Thing" which introduces narrative elements into a game, or the Ranger's "Terrain Stunt", which says that a player makes up how the skill works along a loose set of rules, and then GM and the player negotiate the full effect if needed.

Another way would be prompt the players in specfic ways. This is in line with what emsquared was saying. A GM will only have a certain amount of material prepped in order to run an adventure or a longer campaign, but the players don't know this, or what it is. They come with their own assumptions, and this can and should be incorporated, sometimes with specific prompts. One example I've used is asking people to come up with the names of medicinal plants that could be used for an anti-venom potion. It's one thing to identify the poison, or see a magical snake bite someone. However, how do you deal with this in the middle of nowhere, or if the snakebite s the result of some paltry random encounter? Unless the poison or the remedy are integral to the GM's story, then let the player have some fun with the solution. Set a difficulty check number, and tell the player they can forage for herbs and roots or whatever, and cook up a cure, but they also need to make up names and characteristics for this stuff.

These are just some ideas, but as emsquared said, part of this is ceding control as GM. Have fun with it, and I hope this is helpful

Yes GP has many people that have great ideas. I feel every time I get stuck in my own games I can toss out a question and get great answers.

Looking around there are some people that are trying innovative things with PbP. ScottyRoberts has an fun Zombie forum called THE ONLY ONES where anyone can join and post anything they want within the Zombie apocalypse narrative. He has some posts to help guide the world and give it an overall cohesiveness but I felt real free to make the story my own. Unfortunately it is a bit stalled right now but it is a cool idea.

A game would be fun. I will PM you. Hopefully your computer cooperates soon. Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

I have a a lot of RL DMing experience (though none through PBP as yet) and in my opinion it comes down to communication, positive reinforcement (through whatever means resonates best with a particular player) and leading by example/prompting.

However, I think at the heart of the issue are two conceptions of how to create a game: whether it is a game for a particular group of people (for example, your real life friends), or a game to be played in a particular style.

In the first instance the primary responsibility of the DM is to recognise that all players are individuals who have their own style of play and aspects of the game that they enjoy (and don't enjoy). Some will love to roleplay, or world-build, or whatever, and some won't--no matter how hard you try to encourage them. The responsibility of the DM is to create a game that all players can meaningfully and enjoyable engage in, according to how they enjoy the game, and the responsibility of the players is to engage meaningfully when they have the opportunity to, and (at least) not to prevent the other players from doing the same.

In the second case the DM clearly establishes the style before recruiting players, and only recruits players that fit the parameters of the game (and moves on any players who turn out not to compatible with the stlye during play). The DM's responsibility is to make his or her expectations clear, reasonable, and consistent, and the players' responsibility is to meet them.

In summary: if you want to create a game that heavily emphasises player agency, be upfront about it from the very beginning and recruit players that suit that style of game. Communicate heavily with your players about your expectations (and theirs) and actively prompt your players to engage in the manner you would like them to, and reward for them doing it.

I think Robago has the truth of it: finding the right players for the type of game you want to run does make things a lot easier.

Just a point of clarity, which might be important when advertising the type of game you want to run: player agency means different things to different people. You are using it in a world building sense, but I have heard it most often used to say that players' decisions affect the world. Players still have agency in a world that is entirely determined and controlled by the GM, as long as the GM has the world react to the players' choices. If you were to advertise for a game where you wanted players to participate in building the world, i would use the term "collaborative world building" to get closer to the heart of things.

Sometimes you can make progress with players that aren't inherently about the collaborative world building if you start small. Just having players describe their crits is a small act of having your player assume narrative control. Be lose and incorporate their ideas - if the player says they decapitate the orc, then maybe his head flies into the face of the next one and inflicts disadvantage on their attack. Rewarding characters for taking over the story with in-game mechanical benefits can be the bridge to bigger and better collaboration.

After that, give them little pockets of the world to create. Ask them to invent that NPC contact they have and that the party is about to engage with. Have them invent the inn they are meeting that wizard. Giving players small, well-defined places to assert narrative control and build a little piece of the world is a great way to encourage more of that.

When you think players are ready, the next step might be having a player (or the whole party) describe the consequences of failing an important roll. Maybe they were trying to seal a dark portal and they failed - ask them what happens and go with whatever they tell you! Maybe they say the demons start flooding through, or maybe they say the kingdom is sucked into hell ... they just built a piece of your world!

Also, sometimes having a really wide-open world is more difficult to build upon. I find it easier to build between well defined spaces rather than on a blank canvas. So, coming up with a tavern in the middle of a city I know well is much easier than coming up with a nation on a distant continent that nobody knows anything about.

Have you heard of the Microscope RPG before? I've never run it, but what a great way to start a campaign where you want players to be active in world building! The game itself could be played with D&D or whatever, but you use Microscope to create the setting with your players.

I haven't tried Microscope but heard about it on DM's Block. Am checking it out now.

I tend to GM games in universes that are well understood (Middle Earth, Star Wars), so world-building has less focus because of the rich tapestry of information that's already available.

One thing that works for me on the agency side is working on player relationships. I have historically tried to avoid the trope of "a band of strangers forced together" and started campaigns further along their relative path. This leaves the opportunity for asides between the players like, "No -- I've saved you four times, you've forgotten the Gundarks." "The Gundarks don't count.. that wouldn't have happened if you hadn't set off that thermal detonator." I find something like this lets players connect to one another better and then I can use these tidbits elsewhere down the line -- canonizing them, if you will.

As a player, I had a lot of fun in PhantomNimbus' Modern Magic D&D game. Sure, we were in San Waterdeep -- but there was a lot of proximity to modern-day. This meant that as players we could invent stuff like Gnomgle Maps (because, obviously Gnomes would be behind the D&D equivalent of Google, right?). He did a great job of supporting this kind of stuff and re-using it. Minor worldbuilding, but it helped set the tone of the environment.

Hey, the Tabletop Babble podcast just did an episode (#20) on this very topic. Lots of good advice here from industry professionals. Link to episode.

Awesome. Will check it out.