D&D General What is player agency to you?

[EzekielRaiden]

For example, I think your concerns about GM denying players the possibility of learning must rely on an apprehension that the GM will make their determinations with negative bias or intent to disrupt, seeing as inconsistency alone would surely be no worse than random.

I know I already replied, but this required a more focused response rather than my general one. Inconsistency would actually be much worse than random. Dramatically so. My "meddling Professor" analogy is also a thing where an unknown inconsistency is worse than pure randomness.

If something is random, you can learn how to prepare for randomness. Especially the kind of randomness usually used in TTRPGs, since there are tools available to the player to influence the probabilities. There will still be times where chance simply lies against you. That's part of life, and part of gaming. Statistics is literally the science of accounting for randomness so that we can still learn from it.

If something is genuinely both inconsistent and secretive, you can't learn to prepare for it. There is no pattern, by the definition of inconsistency, but players cannot know how or why the inconsistency occurs. Certainly it is possible for the inconsistency to be partially occluded by chance, e.g. the black box decrees something just secretly fails, and it just so happens that the roll would have failed anyway. That sometimes chance will coincide with the inconsistent input does not mean the inconsistency is irrelevant.

Indeed, I would argue the reverse of what you did here: inconsistency would surely be no better than random--and likely much worse. Try to "learn" from inconsistency, and you are essentially guaranteed to develop false beliefs, because (in the relevant sense) there are no correct beliefs about it. That follows directly from the fact that it is inconsistent.

 

[Golroc]

I know I already replied, but this required a more focused response rather than my general one. Inconsistency would actually be much worse than random. Dramatically so. My "meddling Professor" analogy is also a thing where an unknown inconsistency is worse than pure randomness.

If something is random, you can learn how to prepare for randomness. Especially the kind of randomness usually used in TTRPGs, since there are tools available to the player to influence the probabilities. There will still be times where chance simply lies against you. That's part of life, and part of gaming. Statistics is literally the science of accounting for randomness so that we can still learn from it.

If something is genuinely both inconsistent and secretive, you can't learn to prepare for it. There is no pattern, by the definition of inconsistency, but players cannot know how or why the inconsistency occurs. Certainly it is possible for the inconsistency to be partially occluded by chance, e.g. the black box decrees something just secretly fails, and it just so happens that the roll would have failed anyway. That sometimes chance will coincide with the inconsistent input does not mean the inconsistency is irrelevant.

Indeed, I would argue the reverse of what you did here: inconsistency would surely be no better than random--and likely much worse. Try to "learn" from inconsistency, and you are essentially guaranteed to develop false beliefs, because (in the relevant sense) there are no correct beliefs about it. That follows directly from the fact that it is inconsistent.

One still has to discern between objectives, I think. If the goal of the players is primarily to overcome a series of challenges, then secrecy and inconsistency are extremely bad as they undermine the integrity of the challenges and obfuscate what can be attributed to skill and what is GM discretion. But if the goal is primarily to have a narrative with a certain amount of drama, character growth and world development, secrecy and inconsistency may not be a problem (contigent on player preferences for GM discretion). The same goes for mixed goals - for example an overriding goal that PC death can only occur under specific circumstances. Here it is beneficial to be inconsistent and secretive, to minimise the risk of players gaming the system (even inadvertently).


These goals are certainly not for everyone. But my point is that there are instances where secretive discretion is beneficial to overall enjoyment and perhaps even player agency. This is especially true I believe, when the game is more of a system of rituals than an "actual" game of objectives.

 

[Maxperson]

I think saying in general and most covers it all.

You keep asserting that, but you have yet to list your extensive experience playing this other games to at least show that you know even a little bit about what you are talking about. If you haven't played all of these other games, then you are just talking without anything of substance to back you up.

I've played other games, but not in several years and there are a lot of new games out there. However, I have talked to those who do play them and at least TRY to understand what they are about. Even then I still don't know a whole lot about the specifics of these games. See my posts upthread where I didn't know that the whole group voted on whether a character in Burning Wheel got the religious trait(forget what it is called specifically).

Right, I stated that a Casual game has little or no prep. This is true for this game type.

This is not true for the game type. Many people prep a lot, but don't try to go hardcore gungho with rules and optimization. Those are casual games, even though they prep most everything.

I don't have the bandwidth to go through all the long posts between you two, but if these first few examples are indicative, perhaps you should do some more research about how things really work before you continue.

 

[bloodtide]

You keep asserting that, but you have yet to list your extensive experience playing this other games to at least show that you know even a little bit about what you are talking about. If you haven't played all of these other games, then you are just talking without anything of substance to back you up.

Would listing every game I've played help any? It would just be hearsay and anaidoctal, right? I have met thousands of gamers and both played and watched thousands of games.

I've played other games, but not in several years and there are a lot of new games out there. However, I have talked to those who do play them and at least TRY to understand what they are about. Even then I still don't know a whole lot about the specifics of these games. See my posts upthread where I didn't know that the whole group voted on whether a character in Burning Wheel got the religious trait(forget what it is called specifically).

I'm fairly clear about what I don't know about. This is why I want to keep the conversation in general, not about only Game X.

This is not true for the game type. Many people prep a lot, but don't try to go hardcore gungho with rules and optimization. Those are casual games, even though they prep most everything.

The whole point of a Casual Game is nobody cares much about the game...it's just a casual good fun time. Maybe the DM did a tiny bit of prep and wrote somethings on a Starbucks napkin, but not too much more then that.

If the DM is doing a lot of prep, it's pretty much automatically bumped up to another type of game.

I don't have the bandwidth to go through all the long posts between you two, but if these first few examples are indicative, perhaps you should do some more research about how things really work before you continue.

I''l stand by my research.

 

[Pedantic]

These goals are certainly not for everyone. But my point is that there are instances where secretive discretion is beneficial to overall enjoyment and perhaps even player agency. This is especially true I believe, when the game is more of a system of rituals than an "actual" game of objectives.

The use of ritual here is interesting, and had me considering the place of rituals on other kinds of games and the purpose it (and by extension the purpose those games) serve.

I'm immediately put in mind of traditional cards games, which are nearly all also folk games, and idiosyncratic to where the rules were learned and deployed. Specifically, Hand & Foot comes to mind, a heavily ritualized but not particularly "gamey" game. Hand & Foot has lots of esoteric rules. For example, as my family plays it the game uses 6 decks of cards, divide into two roughly equal piles and starts with players attempting to pick up precisely 26 cards with one hand from either deck without counting. Those cards are then dealt into two piles of 13 (the "hand" and "foot") that will then be played, and if you manage a perfect 26, you slap the table 3 times with both hands and your team is awarded a bonus 100 points, a meaninglessly small margin in a game scored by the thousands. Without going into unnecessary details, the rest of play is basically a Patience/Rummy mashup, trying to sort cards with a restriction on you how access them, almost entirely devoid of meaningful decisions.

Fundamentally, the game is all ritual. It's a set of ritualized movements that make my family spend a couple hours around a table together, provides a topic of conversation but does not require conversation about itself, and slides easily into the background when the real goal is to spend time together. It is a fantastically low agency game, the outcome of which is almost entirely determined by chance, barely inching out something like War or Go Fish.

It's possible to discuss agency in that context because the game has a known, shared goal and you can measure player impact on achieving it with the available actions, but the meta-goal of the game, the ritual purpose if you will, has little to do with the goal of play, and is if anything, enhanced by having a needlessly complicated system that provides very little agency.

 

[Maxperson]

Would listing every game I've played help any? It would just be hearsay and anaidoctal, right? I have met thousands of gamers and both played and watched thousands of games.

It would be better than just making utterly unfounded assertions, yes. I mean, I know for a fact that whatever playstyle you use causes mosquitos to bite people. If you stopped playing, nobody would be bitten.

I'm fairly clear about what I don't know about. This is why I want to keep the conversation in general, not about only Game X.

You can't do that, though, without knowing at least something about the games in question. Unless that something is factual without RPGs being in the mix, such as it being factual that if a DM has discretion, he can be played. That's a fact of human nature and no RPG can prevent that without removing all discretion from the DM, making him not a DM at all. Systems can minimize it, but not prevent it.

Are you making a statement of fact that does not have anything to do with RPGs?

The whole point of a Casual Game is nobody cares much about the game...it's just a casual good fun time. Maybe the DM did a tiny bit of prep and wrote somethings on a Starbucks napkin, but not too much more then that.

And no. Not caring a lot about the game =/= little to no prep. You can prep a lot and not care how it turns out, just wanting a casual fun time.

If the DM is doing a lot of prep, it's pretty much automatically bumped up to another type of game.

This is wrong.

I''l stand by my research.

What research? Please tell us.

 

[bloodtide]

It would be better than just making utterly unfounded assertions, yes. I mean, I know for a fact that whatever playstyle you use causes mosquitos to bite people. If you stopped playing, nobody would be bitten.

As an outdoor gaming entheusits we use Off!, Citronella Candles and fire to keep mosquitos away.

And you might notice what I say is never directed at a person. I say "A Improv game has no prep", does not say anything about any person.

You can't do that, though, without knowing at least something about the games in question. Unless that something is factual without RPGs being in the mix, such as it being factual that if a DM has discretion, he can be played. That's a fact of human nature and no RPG can prevent that without removing all discretion from the DM, making him not a DM at all. Systems can minimize it, but not prevent it.

General is good. If I wanted to talk about Game X, I can make a thread called "What I think about game X".

An Easy Button game is where the players can have characters do anything with no effort: The players can always push the Easy Button. This is not one or more set games: it can be any RPG.

Are you making a statement of fact that does not have anything to do with RPGs?

No?

And no. Not caring a lot about the game =/= little to no prep. You can prep a lot and not care how it turns out, just wanting a casual fun time.

Again, a Casual DM would not prep a lot. They would not be a Casual DM if they did.

A DM that does a ton of prep and does not care how it turns out, is a Careless DM or a Time Wasting DM or a Silly DM.

There can always be mixes and crossovers....people are like that. But for the most part a Casual DM typical shows up with NOTHING, not even the game rule book: they are so cool that they say "I knows all the important rules" and "can look them up on my phone anyway." A lot of Casual DM will often "forget" even dice...and then have to borrow someone else dice.....or just roll for everything with the d6's from their Travel Yahtzee game found under their bed.

This is wrong.

This is how things work.

What research? Please tell us.

Oh, sorry don't have the bandwidth.....yuck yuck yuck

 

[Umbran]

But you keep asserting that you know how these other games work? Have you played anything other than D&D?

Mod Note:
Given how often the moderatos ask folks to not make discussions personal, it is a little strange that you are taking effort to make it personal. In a thread that has, on and off, gotten heated and seen red text several times over, this seems a questionable direction to take.

So, maybe, don't. Thanks.

 

[FrogReaver]

For this tangent I’m going to be speaking under the assumption that different games have differing amounts of agency.

1) Particular game rules make for different games
2) particular game rules make for differing amounts of agency

Thus, To change the game rules is to change both the game and the agency it offers.

This next piece I think is why @clearstream has been working towards. Given that all games limit agency to some degree in order to be a game - then there should be games with more agency than PbtA or burning wheel or etc (and if they don’t currently exist then they theoretically do so as we can all imagine them). In short the posters saying they prefer higher agency games aren’t actually looking for the highest agency possible (shouldn’t be controversial). Instead they are content with the amount and types PbtA and others offer them. It’s not simply a desire for high agency - it’s also a desire for particular types of game rules.

What this and the points above together show - agency and game rules are inseparable. To be content with a certain level of agency is to be content with the rules of that game and to be content with the rules of a game means you are content with the level and types of agency it provides. This conception of agency in relation to playing games is a tautology - and that’s what was trying to be conveyed.

To add a bit of nuance - a game that can be played a few different ways under the same rules can clearly have a higher agency method and lower agency method of play. Linear adventure paths vs sandbox campaigns come to mind. In this comparison sandboxes offer more freedom of choice, more direction over outcome and more direction over play than linear adventures.

 

[Maxperson]

As an outdoor gaming entheusits we use Off!, Citronella Candles and fire to keep mosquitos away.

And you might notice what I say is never directed at a person. I say "A Improv game has no prep", does not say anything about any person.

But it is wrong about improv. Improv, like anything else, is a sliding scale. Even the most prepped games have a little bit and then it slides to pure improv which I've never seen in an RPG. So when making general statements, it helps to know how things work so that you aren't wrong so often.

General is good. If I wanted to talk about Game X, I can make a thread called "What I think about game X".

I reject the implied False Dichotomy here. The options are not "General statements with no knowledge or proof of what you are saying" and "Talking about one specific game."

An Easy Button game is where the players can have characters do anything with no effort: The players can always push the Easy Button. This is not one or more set games: it can be any RPG.

Sure, because it's mostly about the DM making things easy on the players. Some games like 5e are built to be pretty easy, but the DM can dial things up if he wants to.

Again, a Casual DM would not prep a lot. They would not be a Casual DM if they did.

Again, these statements are false. I've both DMd and played in casual games with a lot of prep. Casual is far more a statement of how the game is played than of prep.

A DM that does a ton of prep and does not care how it turns out, is a Careless DM or a Time Wasting DM or a Silly DM.

Or, you know, casual.

There can always be mixes and crossovers....people are like that. But for the most part a Casual DM typical shows up with NOTHING, not even the game rule book: they are so cool that they say "I knows all the important rules" and "can look them up on my phone anyway." A lot of Casual DM will often "forget" even dice...and then have to borrow someone else dice.....or just roll for everything with the d6's from their Travel Yahtzee game found under their bed.

Wow. That's incredibly wrong. That's not at all what casual DMing or game play is like as a general rule. As for forgetting dice, I'm not a casual DM(yet I improv a lot!!!), nor do I have casual players, yet we still sometimes forget our dice. Being forgetful doesn't make you casual and having a good memory does not make you serious.

This is how things work.

No, your unfounded assertions are not how things work.

Oh, sorry don't have the bandwidth.....yuck yuck yuck

I can't say that I'm shocked that you refuse to back up your unfounded assertions.