Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is player agency to you?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9125580" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I first mentioned the Whitehall study here: <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/what-is-player-agency-to-you.698831/page-137#post-9097886" target="_blank">https://www.enworld.org/threads/what-is-player-agency-to-you.698831/page-137#post-9097886</a></p><p></p><p>I mentioned it again here: <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/what-is-player-agency-to-you.698831/post-9103462" target="_blank">https://www.enworld.org/threads/what-is-player-agency-to-you.698831/post-9103462</a></p><p></p><p>[USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] referred to sociological notions of agency here: <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/what-is-player-agency-to-you.698831/post-9107784" target="_blank">https://www.enworld.org/threads/what-is-player-agency-to-you.698831/post-9107784</a></p><p></p><p>Sure, there are debates in sociology over what the precise phenomenon is that should be studies, is worth trying to give rise to in organisational structures, etc; and also debates about the best way to characterise that phenomenon.</p><p></p><p>I still think there is merit in contrasting the sociological use with the use in philosophy of action. Eg if my interest, from the perspective of management theory, is how to cultivate agency in at least some employees so as to better achieve the organisation's mission (a practical example I have in mind, though it predates modern management theory, is the training of German compared to English junior officers in the First World War), then I am not going to get very much out of going to a philosophy seminar about Anscombe or Davidson on "basic actions".</p><p></p><p>No. I'm not focused on actions the players take <em>in general</em> at all. I mean, we could look at a table of RPGers and note (eg) that their breathing is autonomic, that their drinking and eating of snacks is largely reflex/habitual, that one of them who is on a diet is deliberately refraining from eating snacks, that one participant deliberately raises their voice for dramatic effect in delivering a line, etc. </p><p></p><p>In this respect there is probably no interesting difference between a group of RPGers, a group of boardgamers, or even perhaps a group sitting around completing a jigsaw together. But when I talk about <em>player agency in RPGing</em>, as I've made clear from post 211, I mean the agency that the player exercises over the content of the shared fiction. And in my view it is a truism that this agency can vary in degree, depending on the game rules and associated procedures of play. And in no way does it contradict this observation to observe that giving a player the full freedom to just tell a story would mean that there is no longer a game being played.</p><p></p><p>I think I've been pretty clear about this throughout the thread. I have focused on what I regard as the distinctive outcome of RPG play: collective creation of a shared fiction. And I have talked about agency in respect of the capacity of a player to affect that.</p><p></p><p>What I have quoted here seems to rest on a frequent but wrong presumption namely, that <em>mechanics that allow the player to impact the fiction only by means of controlling their PC</em> are not suitable for delivering <em>a high degree of player agency in respect of the shared fiction</em>. The reason that that presumption is wrong can be set out by pointing to the RPGs that refute it: Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, just to name a few. AW has almost no "story mechanics" (and the ones it has are optional elements of particular PC builds), Prince Valiant has none, and Burning Wheel can easily be played without the player having to do anything but describe what their PC does, thinks and feels. (As I've given examples of upthread.)</p><p></p><p>Or to put it the other way around, it is possible to have a RPG that follows the D&D paradigm in respect of <em>what the players have control of, when it comes to impacting the shared fiction</em> and yet to give the players a very high degree of agency in respect of the shared fiction. As I have posted repeatedly upthread, the way that this works is by <em>imposing obligations on the GM</em> when it comes to narrating other elements of the fiction beyond what it is that the PCs do.</p><p></p><p>The most typical example of this in RPGing, I think - or at least the paradigmatic example - is illusionism of the sort typical in CoC play, and in much D&D play especially if informed by the post-DL and 2ned ed AD&D ethos. This has also been discussed in the currently active "random tables and player agency" thread.</p><p></p><p>In this sort of play, the players are free (within limits of good taste and social harmony) to introduce colour and characterisation around their PCs. As a group, they may choose for their PCs to take the high road or the low road. But the GM will manipulate background fiction, perhaps also dice rolls, to ensure that the pre-planned events more-or-less come to pass. Given the sort of agency that I am interested in (as explained just above), I regard this as rather low player agency RPGing.</p><p></p><p>I feel that, in this paragraph, <em>exercise of agency</em> is being equated with <em>having a good time</em>. Also, I think, that *non-game </p><p>play social agency* (such as cracking jokes that (i) don't actually advance the play of the game, and hence (ii) irritate serious participants) is being blurred with the play of the game.</p><p></p><p>I accept that the lines here aren't perfectly clear, but we wouldn't argue that snakes and ladders becomes high agency <em>as a game</em> because a group of people enjoy sitting around rolling the dice, laughing at one another's wins and losses, cracking jokes based on the pictures on the board, etc.</p><p></p><p>For me, this raises a different sort of question, along the lines of "what is the game"? Is it the creation of the shared fiction, or is it the more individual act of manipulating the PC build mechanics? I've got my own strong preference in this regard.</p><p></p><p>This seems fairly obvious. But it does have fairly devastating implications for many of the ideas of agency one sees put forward in relation to RPGing, namely those which hold that it is enough to show significant player agency that <em>a player's declared action for their PC will produce an outcome that matters to the player</em>, while accepting that all the <em>intentions</em> will be those of the GM.</p><p></p><p>In RPGing, assuming a fairly traditional allocation of participant roles, for the effect to relate to the player intention requires the GM to be under exactly the sorts of constraints I have been mentioning since post 211.</p><p></p><p></p><p>For those reading along who aren't familiar with the ideas, the notions of <em>material</em>, <em>formal</em> and <em>efficient</em> cause go back to Aristotle:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">* <em>Material cause</em> refers to the stuff that something is made of (eg the statute is made of clay);</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">* <em>Formal cause</em> refers to the arrangement or organisation of the thing (eg the statute is of a woman) - when the statue is reshaped, its form changes although its matter does not;</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">* <em>Efficient cause</em> refers to what we most often think of causation in our own mechanistic/scientistic framework (eg the cause of the statute is the sculptor).</p><p></p><p>Aristotle also has a fourth notion of cause - <em>teleological cause</em> - which is the reason that something happens. This is controversial in Aristotle's usage, because he imputes these sorts of reasons to non-thinking things (eg the teleological cause of the acorn is the oak tree it will grow into) - these authors, as summarised, appear to bleed the notions of formal and teleological cause, and also perhaps the notions of material and efficient cause. (Caveat: I haven't read the paper, and am relying on the summary.)</p><p></p><p>If I was going to apply the Aristotelean schema to the creation of a shared fiction via RPGing, I would consider "story elements" as material causes - who gets to decide on these? (Consider eg the role of relationships in Burning Wheel or Torchbearer.) I would consider thematic connections as formal causes - the manner in which the material causes are organised (eg who is friend and who is foe?). The efficient causes would be the processes of play whereby the participants are empowered to introduce new material causes and/or shape the forms. Teleological cause would be the "agenda" as Ron Edwards et al thought of it - ie why are we all gathered together doing this thing, rather than (say) going for a walk together, or playing bridge?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9125580, member: 42582"] I first mentioned the Whitehall study here: [URL]https://www.enworld.org/threads/what-is-player-agency-to-you.698831/page-137#post-9097886[/URL] I mentioned it again here: [URL]https://www.enworld.org/threads/what-is-player-agency-to-you.698831/post-9103462[/URL] [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] referred to sociological notions of agency here: [URL]https://www.enworld.org/threads/what-is-player-agency-to-you.698831/post-9107784[/URL] Sure, there are debates in sociology over what the precise phenomenon is that should be studies, is worth trying to give rise to in organisational structures, etc; and also debates about the best way to characterise that phenomenon. I still think there is merit in contrasting the sociological use with the use in philosophy of action. Eg if my interest, from the perspective of management theory, is how to cultivate agency in at least some employees so as to better achieve the organisation's mission (a practical example I have in mind, though it predates modern management theory, is the training of German compared to English junior officers in the First World War), then I am not going to get very much out of going to a philosophy seminar about Anscombe or Davidson on "basic actions". No. I'm not focused on actions the players take [I]in general[/I] at all. I mean, we could look at a table of RPGers and note (eg) that their breathing is autonomic, that their drinking and eating of snacks is largely reflex/habitual, that one of them who is on a diet is deliberately refraining from eating snacks, that one participant deliberately raises their voice for dramatic effect in delivering a line, etc. In this respect there is probably no interesting difference between a group of RPGers, a group of boardgamers, or even perhaps a group sitting around completing a jigsaw together. But when I talk about [I]player agency in RPGing[/I], as I've made clear from post 211, I mean the agency that the player exercises over the content of the shared fiction. And in my view it is a truism that this agency can vary in degree, depending on the game rules and associated procedures of play. And in no way does it contradict this observation to observe that giving a player the full freedom to just tell a story would mean that there is no longer a game being played. I think I've been pretty clear about this throughout the thread. I have focused on what I regard as the distinctive outcome of RPG play: collective creation of a shared fiction. And I have talked about agency in respect of the capacity of a player to affect that. What I have quoted here seems to rest on a frequent but wrong presumption namely, that [I]mechanics that allow the player to impact the fiction only by means of controlling their PC[/I] are not suitable for delivering [I]a high degree of player agency in respect of the shared fiction[/I]. The reason that that presumption is wrong can be set out by pointing to the RPGs that refute it: Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, just to name a few. AW has almost no "story mechanics" (and the ones it has are optional elements of particular PC builds), Prince Valiant has none, and Burning Wheel can easily be played without the player having to do anything but describe what their PC does, thinks and feels. (As I've given examples of upthread.) Or to put it the other way around, it is possible to have a RPG that follows the D&D paradigm in respect of [I]what the players have control of, when it comes to impacting the shared fiction[/I] and yet to give the players a very high degree of agency in respect of the shared fiction. As I have posted repeatedly upthread, the way that this works is by [I]imposing obligations on the GM[/I] when it comes to narrating other elements of the fiction beyond what it is that the PCs do. The most typical example of this in RPGing, I think - or at least the paradigmatic example - is illusionism of the sort typical in CoC play, and in much D&D play especially if informed by the post-DL and 2ned ed AD&D ethos. This has also been discussed in the currently active "random tables and player agency" thread. In this sort of play, the players are free (within limits of good taste and social harmony) to introduce colour and characterisation around their PCs. As a group, they may choose for their PCs to take the high road or the low road. But the GM will manipulate background fiction, perhaps also dice rolls, to ensure that the pre-planned events more-or-less come to pass. Given the sort of agency that I am interested in (as explained just above), I regard this as rather low player agency RPGing. I feel that, in this paragraph, [I]exercise of agency[/I] is being equated with [I]having a good time[/I]. Also, I think, that *non-game play social agency* (such as cracking jokes that (i) don't actually advance the play of the game, and hence (ii) irritate serious participants) is being blurred with the play of the game. I accept that the lines here aren't perfectly clear, but we wouldn't argue that snakes and ladders becomes high agency [I]as a game[/I] because a group of people enjoy sitting around rolling the dice, laughing at one another's wins and losses, cracking jokes based on the pictures on the board, etc. For me, this raises a different sort of question, along the lines of "what is the game"? Is it the creation of the shared fiction, or is it the more individual act of manipulating the PC build mechanics? I've got my own strong preference in this regard. This seems fairly obvious. But it does have fairly devastating implications for many of the ideas of agency one sees put forward in relation to RPGing, namely those which hold that it is enough to show significant player agency that [I]a player's declared action for their PC will produce an outcome that matters to the player[/I], while accepting that all the [I]intentions[/I] will be those of the GM. In RPGing, assuming a fairly traditional allocation of participant roles, for the effect to relate to the player intention requires the GM to be under exactly the sorts of constraints I have been mentioning since post 211. For those reading along who aren't familiar with the ideas, the notions of [I]material[/I], [I]formal[/I] and [I]efficient[/I] cause go back to Aristotle: [indent]* [i]Material cause[/i] refers to the stuff that something is made of (eg the statute is made of clay); * [i]Formal cause[/i] refers to the arrangement or organisation of the thing (eg the statute is of a woman) - when the statue is reshaped, its form changes although its matter does not; * [i]Efficient cause[/i] refers to what we most often think of causation in our own mechanistic/scientistic framework (eg the cause of the statute is the sculptor).[/indent] Aristotle also has a fourth notion of cause - [i]teleological cause[/i] - which is the reason that something happens. This is controversial in Aristotle's usage, because he imputes these sorts of reasons to non-thinking things (eg the teleological cause of the acorn is the oak tree it will grow into) - these authors, as summarised, appear to bleed the notions of formal and teleological cause, and also perhaps the notions of material and efficient cause. (Caveat: I haven't read the paper, and am relying on the summary.) If I was going to apply the Aristotelean schema to the creation of a shared fiction via RPGing, I would consider "story elements" as material causes - who gets to decide on these? (Consider eg the role of relationships in Burning Wheel or Torchbearer.) I would consider thematic connections as formal causes - the manner in which the material causes are organised (eg who is friend and who is foe?). The efficient causes would be the processes of play whereby the participants are empowered to introduce new material causes and/or shape the forms. Teleological cause would be the "agenda" as Ron Edwards et al thought of it - ie why are we all gathered together doing this thing, rather than (say) going for a walk together, or playing bridge? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is player agency to you?
Top