Old, New, In-the-middle School: I Don't Understand (Part 3)

When I was a kid, there was a TV commercial for Kinder chocolate eggs where a child asked his dad, as he was leaving the house, if he could get a present when he returned. The dad agreed, and the kid said, "I want a toy, a surprise, and some chocolate..." At that point, the dad smiled and replied that it wasn’t just one present but three! In the end, the dad came back home bringing the child the chocolate egg, solving what seemed like an impossible request... Well, many discussions about old-school and new-school RPGs remind me of that commercial: there's a problem that seems unsolvable… Can't it be solved? Most of the time, the author explains that it looks like there's a solution, but in reality, it's just an illusion... Let me go through some of these (un)resolved issues.

Topic#3: Agency

In the previous section, I talked about railroad, but there’s a parallel discussion when it comes to player agency! If we think about it, are we talking about the same thing? Is railroad the dark force that limits player agency? Yes… no… maybe!

Just like railroad has countless meanings, agency can also be defined in many ways. Suppose the GM announces that the characters are in a zone where magic doesn’t work (note: this isn’t railroading! The situation is dictated by in-game circumstances, and the GM has no ulterior motive in placing the characters there). Should the player controlling a wizard see this as a limitation of their agency? Just like with railroad, I think it’s a question of semantics and perspective. If I experience something like this, I might see it as an opportunity: great, I can write about it on social media and join the chorus of people championing player agency, because it’s a popular topic. After all, I’ve never seen anyone argue against agency. So, I don’t really understand the need for endless debates on this issue.

I don’t have a strong stance on agency because, to me, it’s an obvious concept: everyone wants full control over their character’s actions, there’s no argument there. The debate seems to come down to rejecting any form of railroad (at least the “nasty” kind, done in bad faith) as the main cause of diminished agency in the game.

What I am interested in exploring is how agency interacts with game rules. Some definitions of agency include not just in-game decisions but also the overall game framework. Some RPGs have drastically altered the traditional model to allow for even greater agency. I admit that I’ve only ever played traditional RPGs, so I haven’t experienced this firsthand, but I’ve read about many ‘modern’ games where players actively shape the story, not just through their characters’ actions, but by directly influencing the consequences of those actions.

I’m sure it would be beneficial for me to try one of these games to better understand this approach, but I do have doubts about their long-term viability. Let me explain (and I’m sure I’ll be misunderstood!): if I’m a GM planning a long-term campaign, I think about which antagonists, scenarios, and plots to develop. Of course, I need to define a main villain and their overarching plan, which I then adapt based on the players’ actions. But how can I do this if the world-building is also decided by the players? How can I plan a long-term campaign if, for example, a player decides that, due to their actions, an NPC falls from power, only for that NPC to be ‘the villain’ I had originally planned? I have similar concerns for short-term play as well. As a GM, how do I manage a scenario where five different players each contribute a piece of the story, and those five pieces, when combined, effectively bring an end to any planned narrative development?

Here’s a broader question: if a game features a GM who serves as the world’s creator, why is that role being challenged in favor of shared world-building? If a player is unhappy because they want to shape the world, why don’t they just become the GM in a traditional game? Let me use a metaphor: imagine a math teacher explaining a theorem with five logical steps. The teacher presents the first step and then asks four students to complete the remaining steps without knowing the theorem in advance. What are the chances that they explain it correctly? And even if they somehow arrive at the correct conclusion, what have the four students actually learned if they only contributed one part without knowing the others? If a teacher has been chosen for this role, my instinct is to let them teach: the students will benefit from it! (I know this isn’t a perfect metaphor because someone could argue that the students didn’t have fun… but hopefully, you get my point.)

I know this perspective might come across as skepticism, and maybe it is, but I assure you it’s not intentional. I’m trying to critically analyze whether or not a type of game that doesn’t initially appeal to me is actually worth my time. When I look online, I only find enthusiastic praise. But then again, if I search for posts about TPKs, I also find nothing but excitement from people thrilled by the idea of everyone dying together, as if they were at Masada… So yeah, I still don’t understand anything!

I don’t want to be a philosopher, at the end of the day I just want to play RPGs and have fun!

And now, room to button time! If…

…you want to read more in the future:

…you like the current post:

…you want to know a bit more about me and my project:

…you found my project interesting:

…you want to have a glance at my products on sale on DrivethruRPG:

…you want to read my rule-set in its free of charge online version: