What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Maxperson]

The focus is totally different though. They are talking about the freedom to take the character in a direction that carved out story. We are talking about the freedom to explore and do what you want. We are talking about pretty subjective uses of terminology here. What I would say concretely is I think most times I see people speak of agency, they are using it as you and I understand it.

I know, but [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] insists that his style also has our agency, which is just plain wrong. As a result, he incorrectly claims that their agency is greater since it's ours + theirs. Their different focus prevents our agency from being realized fully in their games.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I know, but @AbdulAlhazred insists that his style also has our agency, which is just plain wrong. As a result, he incorrectly claims that their agency is greater since it's ours + theirs. Their different focus prevents our agency from being realized fully in their games.

I definitely think there are questionable arguments being made in that respect (I think my posts have made that clear). But I think the larger problem there is his reducing our position and our definition to "a player character taking an action".

They don't want our kind of agency in their games. I am not interested in converting people to my style of play. If they don't want what I like in a game, that is their business. I have no interest in trying to convince them to adopt what I do. All I care about in these conversations is we allow for the multitude of play style and that people don't try to weasel their play style into other peoples' tables by making bad linguistic arguments. If they are finding pleasure in the kind of agency Pemerton is talking about. more power to them. If others see that and think it is something they might like, more power to them. I just don't want them misrepresenting what we mean by agency. We've stated out definition multiple times and it keeps getting met with "so you mean any kind of roleplaying that happens in 100% of all campaigns anyways." or some variation on that. That is the infuriating bit.

I guess what bothers me in so many of these discussion is it is almost like people are trying to take away what pleasure others have found at the table. It would be one thing to say "Hey I have this cool style of play, here is how it works, give it a shot". But so many of these conversations feel like attempts to convert people to a religion. It is just a game.

 

[Aldarc]

As I mentioned in prior posts, it can't be greater since our agency is at 100% in the sandbox games that we run. It has been argued that their agency has our agency PLUS theirs, which makes it greater. However, that's a false claim. Their method doesn't allow players to declare actions for their PCs that doesn't move the story forward towards one of their formal or informal goals. They self-limit what actions they are allowed to take for their PCs, which means that their agency of the type we run is limited. Then they add their new agency in which brings their total back to 100%. Further, some Story Now DMs here have said that they would not allow actions that are contrary to the Story Now conventions, so the limitation is not only self-chosen by the players, but it's reinforced by the DM. Players in Story Now games lack full agency of the type we use.

There are several problems with this summary, and they all have to do with the percentages you provide, namely that one can even speak of them with any certainty or accuracy to begin with.

1) Outside of the context of roleplaying games, the statement that "[our/your] agency is at 100%" is a veritable field of volatile landmines. To the best of my own limited knowledge, most contemporary thinking rarely regards human agency at being somehow "100%" but instead as being inherently limited. Nowadays the debate seems centered more on discussing the limiting factors and the extent which they limit agency. (And as characters themselves are run by human players with presumably limited agency, the characters themselves would likely exhibit far less agency in-game than their human ones in-real-life.) The degree that the philosophical notion of (human) agency exists cannot objectively be ascertained, especially in terms of simple percentages. And as such...

2) The idea that one could quantifiably measure the differences of agency as percentages or perform basic arithmatic would be equally fallacious. We are discussing qualitative assertions of comparative agency and not quantitative ones. So I don't think that you, me, or anyone else in this thread can reasonably reduce each others' arguments to "our form of agency produces a quantifiably equal amount of agency once we subtract their agency X and add their new agency Y, which as you can see is equal to our agency Z." It's a simply ridiculous assertion.

3) This is not to say that we cannot speak of "more" or "less" agency, but we must be clear that we are not talking actual numbers and percentages but qualitative values and philosophic notions of agency. It's a discussion on the shape, caveats, and contours that the various notions of agency possess in the context of player-experience. It is still ultimately a utilitarian argument of sorts, but the utility is "measured" in terms of player-empowerment. And here, I would suggest that one of the principle battle lines in the debate of agency surrounds which form of "agency" produces the more meaningful manifestation of player-empowered play. Again though, this is a qualitative assessment.

Saying that your/our games have "100 percent agency," for example, gives me little to no idea how much of that agency is actually substantively meaningful from a player-side perspective or a GM-side perspective. I am more interested in knowing how those approaches impact my decision-making abilities and choices as a player, and subsequently, how the outcomes of those approaches align with my own player values and principles, general fun-having, desired outcomes, etc.

It would be one thing to say "Hey I have this cool style of play, here is how it works, give it a shot". But so many of these conversations feel like attempts to convert people to a religion. It is just a game.

See, but that sort of thought still often results in conversational religiosity, except not one of conversion, but as combating perceived heresies that threaten the prevailing hegemonic expression of the game's religious cultus.

 

[Bedrockgames]

See, but that sort of thought still often results in conversational religiosity, except not one of conversion, but as combating perceived heresies that threaten the prevailing hegemonic expression of the game's religious cultus.

I am happy to have a real conversation with people about differences in gaming. But I am also experienced enough in life to know when people are engaged in bad-faith arguments and just trying to get their style to the top of a hierarchy. If there is something questionable about my style of play that demands to be talked about, it can be done without undermining the language I use to describe. I am always skeptical of linguistic based arguments for this reason (whether they are coming from people who advocate styles of play I enjoy, or people who are hostile to styles of play I enjoy).

Being curious about what motivates other styles of play is a good thing. Fighting this endless play style war to land the killing blow against style X, in favor of style Y, is pointless.

 

[Bedrockgames]

.... threaten the prevailing hegemonic expression of the game's religious cultus.

???? I seriously don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion from what I said, and I do not, for the life of my, understand why you phrase it in this way.

 

[Maxperson]

There are several problems with this summary, and they all have to do with the percentages you provide, namely that one can even speak of them with any certainty or accuracy to begin with.

1) Outside of the context of roleplaying games, the statement that "[our/your] agency is at 100%" is a veritable field of volatile landmines. To the best of my own limited knowledge, most contemporary thinking rarely regards human agency at being somehow "100%" but instead as being inherently limited. Nowadays the debate seems centered more on discussing the limiting factors and the extent which they limit agency. (And as characters themselves are run by human players with presumably limited agency, the characters themselves would likely exhibit far less agency in-game than their human ones in-real-life.) The degree that the philosophical notion of (human) agency exists cannot objectively be ascertained, especially in terms of simple percentages. And as such...

2) The idea that one could quantifiably measure the differences of agency as percentages or perform basic arithmatic would be equally fallacious. We are discussing qualitative assertions of comparative agency and not quantitative ones. So I don't think that you, me, or anyone else in this thread can reasonably reduce each others' arguments to "our form of agency produces a quantifiably equal amount of agency once we subtract their agency X and add their new agency Y, which as you can see is equal to our agency Z." It's a simply ridiculous assertion.

I don't need to measure the agency exactly to know that it is 100%. The standard definition of agency is the player having control over his PC's actions. My players have complete control over their PCs actions, so it doesn't get any higher. Whether that agency amounts to 10, 200, or 10,000 is irrelevant. That it's the maximum that it can be means that it's at 100%. With the definition of agency that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] invented for his personal use, I'd wager that he doesn't inhibit it at all, either, so his is also at 100%. They are equal in percentage.

3) This is not to say that we cannot speak of "more" or "less" agency, but we must be clear that we are not talking actual numbers and percentages but qualitative values and philosophic notions of agency. It's a discussion on the shape, caveats, and contours that the various notions of agency possess in the context of player-experience. It is still ultimately a utilitarian argument of sorts, but the utility is "measured" in terms of player-empowerment. And here, I would suggest that one of the principle battle lines in the debate of agency surrounds which form of "agency" produces the more meaningful manifestation of player-empowered play. Again though, this is a qualitative assessment.

I don't see how you can speak of more or less agency, except with regard to your own personal game. Since as you point out, we don't have hard numbers for the range between 0% and 100%, all you can know is if the agency is at maximum(100%), minimum(0%) or something in-between(unknowable%). If I see [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] post something that shows him inhibiting the agency(as he defines it) of his players, then I know their agency is in the unknowable%, since it clearly isn't 0% or 100%.

There can be no comparison to agency in my game, though. They are different types of agency, standard in my game and non-standard in his, so it's essentially apples and oranges. It's simply not possible to tell whether he or I have more or less than the other than as a percentage as I point out above.

Saying that your/our games have "100 percent agency," for example, gives me little to no idea how much of that agency is actually substantively meaningful from a player-side perspective or a GM-side perspective. I am more interested in knowing how those approaches impact my decision-making abilities and choices as a player, and subsequently, how the outcomes of those approaches align with my own player values and principles, general fun-having, desired outcomes, etc.

I'll go out on a limb and say all of it is meaningful. Players like to be able to control the actions of their PCs and generally dislike DMs taking that control away through railroading. I'll also go out on a limb and say [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s non-standard agency is also entirely meaningful. It's up to each of us to figure out which he prefers.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There are several problems with this summary, and they all have to do with the percentages you provide, namely that one can even speak of them with any certainty or accuracy to begin with.

1) Outside of the context of roleplaying games, the statement that "[our/your] agency is at 100%" is a veritable field of volatile landmines. To the best of my own limited knowledge, most contemporary thinking rarely regards human agency at being somehow "100%" but instead as being inherently limited. Nowadays the debate seems centered more on discussing the limiting factors and the extent which they limit agency. (And as characters themselves are run by human players with presumably limited agency, the characters themselves would likely exhibit far less agency in-game than their human ones in-real-life.) The degree that the philosophical notion of (human) agency exists cannot objectively be ascertained, especially in terms of simple percentages. And as such...

2) The idea that one could quantifiably measure the differences of agency as percentages or perform basic arithmatic would be equally fallacious. We are discussing qualitative assertions of comparative agency and not quantitative ones. So I don't think that you, me, or anyone else in this thread can reasonably reduce each others' arguments to "our form of agency produces a quantifiably equal amount of agency once we subtract their agency X and add their new agency Y, which as you can see is equal to our agency Z." It's a simply ridiculous assertion.

3) This is not to say that we cannot speak of "more" or "less" agency, but we must be clear that we are not talking actual numbers and percentages but qualitative values and philosophic notions of agency. It's a discussion on the shape, caveats, and contours that the various notions of agency possess in the context of player-experience. It is still ultimately a utilitarian argument of sorts, but the utility is "measured" in terms of player-empowerment. And here, I would suggest that one of the principle battle lines in the debate of agency surrounds which form of "agency" produces the more meaningful manifestation of player-empowered play. Again though, this is a qualitative assessment.

Saying that your/our games have "100 percent agency," for example, gives me little to no idea how much of that agency is actually substantively meaningful from a player-side perspective or a GM-side perspective. I am more interested in knowing how those approaches impact my decision-making abilities and choices as a player, and subsequently, how the outcomes of those approaches align with my own player values and principles, general fun-having, desired outcomes, etc.

See, but that sort of thought still often results in conversational religiosity, except not one of conversion, but as combating perceived heresies that threaten the prevailing hegemonic expression of the game's religious cultus.

This is... well, a hot mess.

Specific criticisms:
1) Percentage is a relative measurement. It measures what you have against the maximum you could have. So saying you have 100% agency isn't saying that agency isn't limited, it's just saying "I maximize the amount agency possible" and doesn't make statements on what's possible. A better criticism would be to point out that saying you have 100% agency isn't really saying anything at all because it's a relative measurement without a clear definition of what it's in relation to. Now, Max does state that his version of agency means 'player get to declare PC actions without restrictions' which is fine, but without that 100% agency is just meaningless.

2) "more" and "less" are quantitative assessments. They talk about how much there is, not the quality of what there is. This is definitional.

3) No, you can't label 'more' and 'less' as qualitative arguments, because 'more' is not a quality something can possess. These are, again, quantitative statements. I sorely wish we'd actually talk about qualitative measures of agency, as that would mean we could talk about both where traditional play affects agency and where narrativist play affects agency and contrast, maybe, against mythical simulationist effects on agency. Further, if you actually say you have more agency, and define agency as a desirable thing, you're making a claim that your play is better than the other play. Which is exactly why you get the responses you do when you say this. You being general here, and applying to anyone that thinks they have a line one using that kind of argument.

Now, once you get through this hot mess of numbers, you make a lot of sense. I really like your summation, which doesn't depend at all on your 1-3 above (and, in fact, kinda fights against some of the points you made). But then that last line, full of vinegar and holier-than-thou righteousness. No, man, don't do that. If you stop telling people that your style has 'more' agency (where agency is a positive thing), you'll get less pushback. If, instead, you actually talk about the real qualitative differences, you'll get less (it's the internet, so 'none' is not an option). However, you then have to accept points where your style inhibits some agency (and it does) and take it with equanimity. Haven't seen that, yet, either -- had a nice exchange earlier trying to point out where Story Now limits agency and was repeatedly told it doesn't because that kind of play isn't part of Story Now. :\ It's like, maybe, people don't like to be told their styles aren't perfect?

 

[Hriston]

No one takes issue with his conceptualizing player agency in that way. It is when he tries to deconsruct other peoples' notions of player character freedom (essentially arguing they are not truly free). There is a play style battle going on underneath all these arguments.

Cool beans. You can look at my game and see what you like and don't like about that. I get that and I agree with it. What you can't do is say that your game has more player agency than mine. You can say it has more of your type of player agency, but not that it has more player agency in general. Both of our games involve 100% player agency. You can't get higher than that. Your "player agency" doesn't exist in my game and vice versa. And you don't get to disparage other playstyles by calling them "choose your own adventure" or "players just declare actions to get the DM to say stuff" without getting called out for that sort of crap.

This is the issue people are taking.

That's the post I was addressing with my post. I have no doubt that's what [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] (and others) are taking issue with, but I think you and he are reading what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is saying about agency over the content of the shared fiction, which usage of the word agency he has been very careful to describe throughout this thread, and applying what he's saying about that to other forms of agency he isn't really addressing at all.

When he says that a game plays like a Choose Your Own Adventure book, he isn't saying that all choices available to players in that game are limited. He's saying that choices available to players in that game are limited with respect to the sort of fiction that can result from them.

When he says the players declare actions to get the GM to relate things the GM has made up, he's contrasting that with a game where the players declare actions to move the fiction in the direction they desire. Obviously, in the first sort of game, the players can only move the fiction in a direction that fits with what's already in the GM's notes.

When he says that sort of game railroads the players, he doesn't mean they are railroaded into having their PCs take only certain actions. He means that the impact of their declared actions on the content of the shared fiction is confined by what the GM has decided the fiction contains.

I think it's unfair to interpret his statements as if they're meant to apply to other forms of player, or even character, agency, especially when he's been so clear about what sort of agency to which they're meant to apply.

 

[Imaro]

That's the post I was addressing with my post. I have no doubt that's what @Maxperson (and others) are taking issue with, but I think you and he are reading what @pemerton is saying about agency over the content of the shared fiction, which usage of the word agency he has been very careful to describe throughout this thread, and applying what he's saying about that to other forms of agency he isn't really addressing at all.

When he says that a game plays like a Choose Your Own Adventure book, he isn't saying that all choices available to players in that game are limited. He's saying that choices available to players in that game are limited with respect to the sort of fiction that can result from them.

But so are his games, the difference is that his game is limited with respect to the sort of fiction that can result based on strict adherence to genre, theme, player concerns, etc... right? So is it just that the 2 playstyles are just 2 different types of choose your own adventure books?

When he says the players declare actions to get the GM to relate things the GM has made up, he's contrasting that with a game where the players declare actions to move the fiction in the direction they desire. Obviously, in the first sort of game, the players can only move the fiction in a direction that fits with what's already in the GM's notes.

Yes and again this type of game has it's own set of restrictions that limit the direction the fiction can move in...

When he says that sort of game railroads the players, he doesn't mean they are railroaded into having their PCs take only certain actions. He means that the impact of their declared actions on the content of the shared fiction is confined by what the GM has decided the fiction contains.

I don't want to repeat myself again but yeah... the impact of declared actions in his game is limited by certain concerns as well.

I think it's unfair to interpret his statements as if they're meant to apply to other forms of player, or even character, agency, especially when he's been so clear about what sort of agency to which they're meant to apply.

The problem is his playstyle has it's own set of limitations on all of these things that have been (by various posters arguing for said playstyle throughout the thread) ignored... promoted as "good" limitations" or brushed aside as an accepted part of the playstyle... when in fact none of that stops them from limiting player agency.

 

[Hriston]

But so are his games, the difference is that his game is limited with respect to the sort of fiction that can result based on strict adherence to genre, theme, player concerns, etc... right? So is it just that the 2 playstyles are just 2 different types of choose your own adventure books?



Yes and again this type of game has it's own set of restrictions that limit the direction the fiction can move in...



I don't want to repeat myself again but yeah... the impact of declared actions in his game is limited by certain concerns as well.



The problem is his playstyle has it's own set of limitations on all of these things that have been (by various posters arguing for said playstyle throughout the thread) ignored... promoted as "good" limitations" or brushed aside as an accepted part of the playstyle... when in fact none of that stops them from limiting player agency.

The limitations on player agency over the content of the shared fiction in Story Now gaming are the genre considerations, themes, and other concerns/priorities introduced by the players themselves? I don't get that.

Edited to add: Those are examples of the players exercising control/agency over the content of the fiction, not the other way around!