A Question Of Agency?

[Ovinomancer]

I'm sorry, but it is you who is trying to separate the game and roleplaying. It is a roleplaying game, all of it is part of the game, even when no formal rules are involved. It can have no rules beyond 'players decide what characters do, GM decides what happens and describes the world' and it is still a game, a LARP is a game.

Also that 'the characters talk and decide to do something' is crucial for agency. That is them establishing the direction of the game, you can't get more important act for agency than that.

I think this needs unpacking, and I'll do it without defining anything.

Firstly, the claim that players talking and deciding things in character being crucial to agency is immediately defeated by examples of agency being wielded even while in pawn stance -- ie, without any attempt to portray the character. This isn't terrible interesting to your point though, so let's set this aside and look at cases where players are talking and deciding things in character.

In this case, the discussion between players doesn't really get to agency until they act on that decision -- if you've ever attended a meeting where courses of action are being presented then you'll recognize that what's said in the meeting has only a loose connection to what actually happens (except in rare, special cases). Just agreeing between players doesn't make a thing so -- it's the actions taken to enact it that really get to agency. And, here, we're back to the same evaluations -- who's doing the resolving? If it's just the GM, then no amount of discussing or deciding in character will overcome a GM veto. There's no agency here at all. On the other hand, if the GM authorizes the plan, then we can evaluate agency. Or on the gripping hand, if the system allows players to push the issue without the GM's authorization, then we can also evaluate agency. The details of what's discussed and decided don't matter until put to action, at which point the agency of the game will show up. Just talking in character doesn't enable or disable agency.

Now, is it important for other reasons? Absolutely! I'd find my RPGs to be rather dull affairs (I'm not a fan of classic player-skill dungeon crawls) without some good characterization! And I think that making choices that advocate for your character is very important for my enjoyment. But, doing so doesn't enable agency, so I can't agree that in-character play is critical to agency. It's critical to my enjoyment, though.

Something is at stake! And that still needs no rules for happen. It is the narrative that creates the stakes, not the rules.

Now for back to our friend Lancelot. 'I'm love with the queen' is an important driving force for the character, it is part of his central motivations. This sort of character defining driving force is something the player should accept, otherwise the GM, system or whatever, is effectively creating the character for the player (and if players agree to that, then its fine, but they're willingly giving away a part of their agency.) But being able to decide 'this is what my character cares about' is pretty damn central for agency as it is from those core beliefs all the other decisions follow. Lancelot is in love with his best friends wife, and the fate of the nation depends on this friend. But the player does not control Arthur, they do not control Guinevere, they do not control the other NPCs (unless this is the sort of game where player has narrative level powers.) Numerous risks and conflicts arise from this central motivation, and it is for the player to decide how to handle these situations, what choices to make. Relegating these vital choices to some mechanic would rob the player from agency, make them a spectator and is bizarre to think otherwise.

I'm not sure what you're criticizing, here -- it's not anything I'm familiar with. I 100% agree that the Lancelot character's player doesn't control outside characters, and that the conflict is key to the play, but I don't know what system you're talking about that would offload this to some mechanic and rob the player of agency.

For example, if the player of the Lancelot character find a situation where they can act on their forbidden love for the Queen, but it's in tension with their loyalty to their friend, does the player have agency by just saying they resist and their character resists? This is a Czege violation -- the player has established both the forbidden love and the loyalty aspects and then also establishes the resolution of the tension between them. This isn't playing a game, or engaging agency, it's just straight authorship. It's isn't low or high agency because agency isn't invoked.

Now, you can also have the GM decides aspect here, and the GM can decide how the character reacts. This is clearly a low agency situation -- the player can only try to persuade the GM to issue a preferred resolution, but has no ability to influence it otherwise. This gets a bit better if the GM decides a check is in order and the player can then leverage character abilities to improve the odds of success, but, again, what success and failure is will be decided by the GM. The best that can be hoped for here is a keenly interested GM that will act as benevolent dictator and deliver a fair evaluation/resolution and that you like this. I find most D&D games live in this space -- the players like how the GM decides things. Or, don't dislike it.

Alternatively, you can have a situation where the GM can say, "sure, you resist," or they could say, "um, this seems like a good time to see which side of Lancelot wins, let's have a check." The terms of this are system restricted -- on a success the player gets what they want, on a failure the GM can narrate the failure state. Note this differs from the above in that the ability to dictate resolution steps is shared -- the player gets to dictate the success, the GM the failures. The player here has more agency because they can set at least half of the wagered outcomes and the GM cannot gainsay them.

Finally, in an interesting case, the player themselves can ask for a check because they're interested in both a situation where Lancelot resists and one where he doesn't. This can go to all of the above situations -- player decides all ends of the wager, in which case agency isn't invoked and the check is just an aid to deciding how to author the scene; or, the GM decides, and agency is reduced in favor of elevating GM agency; or the system has a say in how the check will be conducted and the player has more agency by dint of determining some of the resolution space without GM approval.

None of this looks like turning over the character to mechanics. In any case where agency is invoked (and just dictating outcomes doesn't invoke agency -- it's not no agency, it's not even agency) there's always a mechanic involved, even if that's just GM decides.

 

[pemerton]

My quote above with the slight pushback on Pemerton was only because I think the phrase "find out what happens" can be a little confusing to those not familiar with the context of the terminology.

I would add - those whose RPGing experience is confined to play where the GM exercises most of the agency are not familiar with the possibility of a high degree of player agency, such that the GM might also be playing to find out what happens.

As this thread shows, that's not really a terminological issue.

I'd also say that the idea of a shared experience within the community of using adventure paths must provide some value

Sure. More people also play Monopoly than play (say) Diplomacy. That doesn't show the latter has more agency involved.

The reason I prefer backgammon to chess is that it is easier - "lighter" - to play and hence demands just the right amount of effort + thinking from me. That doesn't mean backgammon involves as much agency as chess. I think it clearly doesn't. As is shown by the fact that from time-to-time a weaker player can beat a stronger one. In chess that won't happen - unless the players are pretty evenly matched the stronger will win.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I suspect you're defining "the plot" more narrowly than he is.

I'm playing in an adventure path right now. I'll presumably end up at the endstate identical or very similar to other people who play it.

But along the way I'll interact with different people in different ways, I'll have in-character risks they may not have, I'll have interactions with the other PCs that produce potential changes in their relationships, I'll chose different sorts of advancement choices based on my experiences and more.

I suspect to you most of this is trivial, but to me they're still part of the plot that makes a difference. That doesn't mean they have to to you, of course.

And my response to this is it illustrates the degree to which your agency, the scope of that agency, is limited when playing D&D. There is an adventure. Sure, you can color your actions how you wish, and there are undoubtedly going to be variations in how things play out, within the bounds of that adventure! Maybe, if whomever is running it is willing, they may even let you 'go off the rails', but the DM will still dictate where that leads, and could easily route the action back to the main storyline at some point.

 

[prabe]

And my response to this is it illustrates the degree to which your agency, the scope of that agency, is limited when playing D&D. There is an adventure. Sure, you can color your actions how you wish, and there are undoubtedly going to be variations in how things play out, within the bounds of that adventure! Maybe, if whomever is running it is willing, they may even let you 'go off the rails', but the DM will still dictate where that leads, and could easily route the action back to the main storyline at some point.

I think this description fits D&D best when playing something like an Adventure Path (which might be what you're reacting to). It's possible to play a D&D game where the DM doesn't know where the PCs will go or what they will do. I know, because I'm running two.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure. More people also play Monopoly than play (say) Diplomacy. That doesn't show the latter has more agency involved.

Absolutely. I think there's a conflation by the Crimson/Frogreaver camp that agency is somehow synonymous with "play experience I prioritize". A 3 hour deep philosophical conversation between your characters in a tavern exhibits no agency, even if it's the best session of your life and the apotheosis of what you think a RPG session should aspire to.

 

[Manbearcat]

I do believe in concept of a force, though don't think it is a bad thing, though it can be used badly, and often is.

But my issue with your formulation is the assumption that there even is a clearly definable game state and then other things that occur in game that are not gamestates. Like 'a brooding elf' is just as much a gamestate than whatever your gamestate A is. Now who cares about the fate of which gamestates is subjective. Perhaps one group of people are really invested in gamestate A, and care a lot whether it is transitioned to B or C, whilst the chitchat that happens while dealing with this is rather inconsequential to them. But to some other group the chitchat might be what they're there for, the question of cheering up the moody elf is the thing they care about, and A to B thing is just inconsequential backdrop to give an excuse for their characters to interact and deal with their interpersonal issues. And a GM can use force to interfere with either, and how much the players care will depend on whether they cared about the decision the force was used upon.

I don't have time to do a full post, but I think I've uncovered where the daylight is between us. I'll write up a few play examples later this evening to illustrate things, but for now, what is "gamestate relevant" are things that the gamestate's initial state and its subsequent state are sensitive to. What does the transition of the gamestate turn on? If something within the shared fiction of play doesn't intersect with that (eg the color of your cloak doesn't matter to whether or not you suss out whether danger or your objective is down the left path vs the right), then its not gamestate relevant. That doesn't mean its unimportant to your personal fun of play...it just means its not gamestate relevant.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think this description fits D&D best when playing something like an Adventure Path (which might be what you're reacting to). It's possible to play a D&D game where the DM doesn't know where the PCs will go or what they will do. I know, because I'm running two.

Sure, and not surprisingly this is a mainstay of many narrative games. Dungeon World for instance directs the GM to create "maps with holes in them" and to "turn the question back on the players." (also to "ask a lot of questions"). This is all often described as 'zero myth' play (zero maybe is a bit extreme, we could say 'low'). It is not at all mentioned in any D&D material that I am aware of (no core books or such). Even 4e doesn't espouse this particularly, although the handling of the PoL "Minimum Viable Setting" does kind of embody something pretty close to DW. Still, 4e never mentions asking the players questions or anything like that.

So, yes, this is a style of play used in D&D, and probably birthed by people at least partly in the course of D&D play. But those people, at least the ones with game designer ambitions, then went off and designed games where it was codified! (probably the closest in D&D-likes is 13th Age).

 

[Manbearcat]

I would certainly argue it is Force, but I'm not huge supporter of adventure path play. I'm just familiar with it.

My quote above with the slight pushback on Pemerton was only because I think the phrase "find out what happens" can be a little confusing to those not familiar with the context of the terminology.

I'd also say that the idea of a shared experience within the community of using adventure paths must provide some value, otherwise WotC and Paizo wouldn't have been so successful with the module publishing experience. TTRPG play can simultaneously be a railroad and a positive experience at the table, even if the agency is incredibly limited.


I would say it not only occurs, it's the dominant MO of the majority of play tables. (Not systems, but tables, since D&D style gaming is the large majority of TTRPG play.)

That is pretty much what I figured, but your post was a good one to put my thoughts out there.

One thing on the bolded part of your reply (and this isn't to you, but broadly to the community). I've spoken about this a few times in this thread, but attempts at focused analysis of TTRPGs on here are always hurt by people (accidentally) smuggling in other aspects of play, conflating them with the concept under discussion and then assuming a value judgement is being made about the thing they've smuggled in or their overall play aesthetic. The analysis suffers and offense gets taken (leading to a positive feedback loop where daylight between parties grows rather than recedes).

When I talk about "gamestate transition", "play trajectory", "Force", and "agency (as it pertains to those prior 3 things)", I'm not talking about anything else other than those concepts specifically and I'm not making a value judgement on your (generic) or my play. I'm sure the shared experience of all of these tables running through the same metaplot has value to the people involved and many come away with a sense of enjoyment from their table experience. But their value/enjoyment derived isn't relevant to gamestate analysis and how the machinery of TTRPG play (theirs and others) functions under the hood.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't have time to do a full post, but I think I've uncovered where the daylight is between us. I'll write up a few play examples later this evening to illustrate things, but for now, what is "gamestate relevant" are things that the gamestate's initial state and its subsequent state are sensitive to. What does the transition of the gamestate turn on? If something within the shared fiction of play doesn't intersect with that (eg the color of your cloak doesn't matter to whether or not you suss out whether danger or your objective is down the left path vs the right), then its not gamestate relevant. That doesn't mean its unimportant to your personal fun of play...it just means its not gamestate relevant.

I think it is always a bit fuzzy. That is, in theory the color of your cloak COULD matter later on. So, the totality of the fiction is potentially within the realm of game state, but most of it will not ever be acted upon. In fact most of it will soon be forgotten, and even notes taken at the time which fully expound the causal connections between events in the fiction won't mention them. I would say these are only 'weakly coupled' to game state. Heck, hit points could turn out to be weakly coupled to a given game state. The fact that your character got bit by a giant rat for 1 point of damage might be utterly forgettable and trivial. It could lead to your death too, you won't know until later.

I would say that mental state of characters that is unattached to mechanics is, however, ALWAYS weakly coupled, at best. It is usually irrelevant. There isn't any formal mechanism to make it relevant, even in narrative games, unless the player explicitly elevates it to mechanical significance (writes a new Bond in DW or something).

 

[heretic888]

Sure, and not surprisingly this is a mainstay of many narrative games. Dungeon World for instance directs the GM to create "maps with holes in them" and to "turn the question back on the players." (also to "ask a lot of questions"). This is all often described as 'zero myth' play (zero maybe is a bit extreme, we could say 'low'). It is not at all mentioned in any D&D material that I am aware of (no core books or such). Even 4e doesn't espouse this particularly, although the handling of the PoL "Minimum Viable Setting" does kind of embody something pretty close to DW. Still, 4e never mentions asking the players questions or anything like that.

So, yes, this is a style of play used in D&D, and probably birthed by people at least partly in the course of D&D play. But those people, at least the ones with game designer ambitions, then went off and designed games where it was codified! (probably the closest in D&D-likes is 13th Age).

Actuallly, techniques for soliciting feedback from players, including asking them pointed questions mid-play, is discussed in 4E's DMG2, pp. 16-19.