Perdition is about being in line at Starbucks, while you are late for work and the lady in front of you is getting out her checkbook.
Perdition is being camping and having 8% charge left on your phone and getting into a fight with your girlfriend over text.
Perdition is about living in america and getting sick.
"I'm a student of Games Art currently working on my dissertation. . .my question is this;
Assuming you have Woods A and Woods B as 2 separate paths the players can take but that regardless of their choice they will encounter the Ogre at the end of either; would player agency still have been removed if the journey through Woods A and the information or experiences therein painted the Ogre as an enemy, while the journey through Woods B sympathized with the Ogre, thereby changing the players perception of the Ogre based on the route they chose?"
Oh, how we complicate things that are simple. Player agency isn't removed in either of the situations. The players take no action that the Dungeon Master subverts. There's no action taken that impacts agency. The players make a choice with no information and one of two encounters is presented.
If they had taken some action before, investigating the woods, looking for tracks, etc. and had an intent that was subverted ("We want to avoid the ogre") that would be a different situation. Picking between two doors with no information about either and having one of two encounters has nothing to do with agency.
But wait, there's more!
Linear or Sandbox
"The reason I ask this is because player agency seems to play a significant roll (sic) in whether a game could be deemed as linear or open world and a point of debate seems to be having multiple routes to the same objective. From the bigger picture, 2 paths between point A and point B could simply be seen as a single path with a large obstacle in the middle and the 2 paths simply being the way the player chooses to go around it. However, on a closer look, if each path grants a different perspective on point B, or simply provides a different experience, then the player's choice retains its significance and could also determine how the player chooses to deal with the Ogre therefore preserving the players agency despite the inevitable encounter with the Ogre."
There is a real question here. Dane is talking about video games (the thrust of his research), but his question is applicable to both agency and design.
Player agency, whether the player can take action that matches his intent, is only tangentially related to the linearity or sandboxness of an environment. That is a spectrum determined literally by whether the avatar has choices of where to go. If you have two routes to the same objective, that's not strictly linear but I wouldn't be looking around for sand.
If 2 paths are given, and each has a different perspective or experience, and this is communicated to the player, then as long as the expectations are maintained; agency is maintained.
Let's drill down on this example a little bit:
Two paths diverge in a wood, at the end of both (where they meet again) there is a boss fight with an ogre.
If the left path is creepy and spooky and the player takes the left path and it's filled with skeletons, agency is maintained. If the left path is creepy and spooky and then the player walks down it to discover rainbows and unicorns agency is not maintained. The same as if the path were bright and sunny, and you keep getting attacked by ghosts and undead. Players were unable to take an action that matched their intent.
The fact that both paths end in a boss fight with an ogre is meaningless, especially in a video game. Chokepoints with boss fights are basic expectations in video games.
The significance of the choice the player makes is not related to the agency of the player. What determines if a player has agency is if they A) have an intent and B) are allowed to take action that matches that intent. That is the determinator of agency.
What's important here is that they, on some level, understand the consequences of their choices beforehand. That allows them to have an intent. They have (or gather) information that allows them to make a choice where they have some idea of the outcome.
It's very important that we don't fall down the hole of endless strawmen in response to this answer. Yes, you can subvert player expectations. Yes, you can give misleading information. No, that doesn't impact agency as long as you don't take action to prevent the players from investigating further or taking precautions.
If they don't have information, then the choice is random. There are very few circumstances where this is appropriate. In Super Mario Brothers 3, when you were given an option of 3 chests to pick, the contents of the chest you pick were decided when you entered the room. This is widely regarded as a complete dick move by the programmers. It is literally illusionism where the cost is precious moments of a player's life.
Ultimately it isn't the ogre that's always in the woods that impacts agency. If the player doesn't want to fight the Ogre, they can always stop playing, get up, and walk away. It's when you remove meaning from or in response to the choices the player has already made that it turns into a bad experience for them.
Thanks for the question Dane. If anyone has anything they want to ask, feel free to write me at campbell at oook dotgoeshere cz
What's my metric for high quality, high skill game masters? Do you have an online game with over 100 players signed up to play? Does your real life player pool exceed 20 people who want a spot at your table? Do players you do not know in your local area contact you to run games for them? Have you been running a game for the same people for over a decade and they are still excited about playing? These are some signs you are a high quality, high skill game master.
I've already addressed the cohesive theory behind campaign design. Now we are going to look at specific design patterns, putting that theory to concrete use. I am doing this so you can link this article to people who are bad at campaign design so they can read this and not be bad anymore because of how concrete and helpful it is. Please. I'm not begging, but let's help people! Right now so they can stop making me sad!
Note that unlike software (or architectural) design patterns, the following patterns all are methods of solving the same problem: How do I structure a campaign at the table with real players? They are all different patterns of solving that single problem rather then a collection of patterns to deal with a large variety of problems, as in code or architecture.
Campaign Design Patterns
Linear Sequence: A series of scenes/rooms/events that follows a sequence in sequential order.
Design and Scope: Linear sequence is the single most important campaign design pattern. It is simultaneously completely necessary and often terribly misused. Your campaign right now is completely linear, if you believe accurate time records must be kept for a meaningful campaign. The key factor in the design is that the sequence of whatever is in the campaign must be sequential.
The scope of this pattern is the broadest of all patterns which is why it's so important. Most campaigns only allow time to flow in one direction and do not use flashbacks, time travel magic, or other dilation effects. Time and its inexorable path forward is the most common use of the linear sequence in role playing games.
There are lots of reasons outside chronomancers that a campaign might not use linear time. Many classic first edition campaigns did not use linear time, due to training rules. Sure, the fighter might be out for several weeks training, but players often had alternate characters and might go on adventures that would take them out of the local space for months at a time. Their adventure would move forward and the characters back at the base wouldn't. Then the campaign would jump back in time to deal with the adventures of the other characters. This is one of the reasons for the strict admonishment in the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide about keeping time records for a meaningful campaign.
And, of course, there are always chronomancers.
When discussing space, it refers to a sequences of encounters (rooms, scenes, etc.) that can occur in only one order or sequence. Note that providing side passages that can be explored do not undo a linear sequence. If the characters enter, and there is only one way between the starting scene/entrance to the final scene, then the linear sequence pattern is in use, even if their are side rooms and closets to explore.
Use: The linear sequence is by far the most common structure used in adventure materials sold to the public. Everything from the first major adventure for fifth edition, Tyranny of Dragons, to many Dungeon Crawl Classic dungeons, to Pathfinder adventure paths primarily uses the linear sequence.
Why? Because people don't live, eat, and breath role playing. Linear adventures are easy to prep and easy to use at the table. It's a way for Dungeon Masters to prepare and run a campaign without a significant amount of work. It allows the Dungeon Master to open up the module or adventure path and go "Where were we?" and simply respond to player actions and direct his players to the next encounter area. The linear nature guarantees that set-pieces and "designed memorable encounters" will occur at regular intervals.
What's more, is that adventures and campaigns that are designed around linear sequence are often purchased by collectors, not by people ever intending to run them. The linear modules or adventures read in sequence with good imagery, and function as a form of entertainment for those who don't have a group to play them. An adventure that isn't linear and is instead a toolbox full of things that interact in strange ways has less of a traditional story structure and (generally) makes for less entertaining reading.
In small doses linear sequences are critical for successful adventures. Small sites such as monster lairs are an example of linear sequence being put to great use. Having a strict linear time sequences avoids heinous complexity, of time moving forward but party members not having spent their time yet. The outcomes of some player choice allows linear sequence to be used as an effective tool, e.g. the player makes a choice triggering a linear sequence of events.
Consequences: The largest consequence of linear sequence is the inability of the player to affect the outcome. It's most useful when focused on allowing the character agency in "character builds" and combat for tactically focused games and providing agency in the choice made during the scenes.
Although simple for busy players who want to get a game in, linear sequence over the course of a long campaign is soul-crushingly terrible. It is a very reactive style of play. Players show up and wait to be told where they go and what they do next.
The reason this is a real consequence and not a preference is that the primary advantage of role playing games over other media (such as video games or board games) is agency and infinite play. In campaigns that use only the linear sequence design pattern, both agency and infinite play must be limited or eliminated in order to retain the advantages of ease of use. In the likely case of a player looking for those specific things, a long linear campaign (i.e. adventure path) can seem like a slow, painful, death by one-thousand cuts.
Related Patterns: (Forthcoming)
Base: A safe place where adventure does not occur.
Design and Scope: This can be a building, headquarters, or even a city that the player's have their character's retreat to between sessions. The key factors in the base design pattern is that it is not a location in which gameplay occurs. It is the assumed location of characters before play begins. Use: The base is a crucial part of constructing a campaign, especially at low levels and for beginning players. We are playing a game, and as is useful in any game, it's important to have a line between where the gameplay begins. This base/game divide is as important as the overworld/mystical underworld divide in communicating to the players what their expectations should be. It's important that there's a clear delineation between what's a site for gameplay and what's not. Having a base is essential to that.
If you're having trouble wrapping your head around why this is so important, imagine sitting down at the start of your next session and saying "While you were sleeping, someone snuck into your room and stole several of your magic items." What does this communicate to the players?
Later, as the game progresses, and the characters increase in power, the focus can shift to them creating a base (Building a castle, et. al.) once they have the resources to do so. Gameplay concerns (enemies, rivals, etc.) drive the need to create a safe place.
Consequences: Having a base is entirely about communicating effectively with your players about where the gameplay lies. It answers questions so they can enjoy making meaningful choices, rather than being on the defensive and not knowing where to focus their energy. It isn't necessary to provide an area without risk, but is very useful for low level groups as well as helping players focus their energy on the gameplay you've prepared. Being clear about the relative danger levels in housing options also fosters an area of trust at the table and allows players to make informed decisions. Do I want to spend 1 silver to sleep in a common room, or pay 1 gold to sleep in a private one? Related: (Forthcoming)
We'll look at some more design patterns Wednesday.