Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Maxperson]

Player agency is always zero when GM decides.

So the DM should never say yes? Everything must be rolled for?

Agency is the ability to change the fiction, usually through player-facing mechanics combined with established fiction which act as constraints.

What if the established fictional constraint results in no chance of success?

Announcing an action isn’t agency - such a definition would be a nonsense. Of course, nonsense definitions suit the purposes of GMs wishing to conceal the lack of player agency in their games.

So you're argument is that by RAW, D&D has no player agency? RAW says that you only roll if the outcome is in doubt, and even if there's doubt, you don't call for a roll unless there is meaningful consequence. The DM is just following the rules.

Oh, and nice Strawman. The argument wasn't that action declaration is agency. The argument is that the player has full control over what his character does. That involves a lot more than declaring an action.

 

[FrogReaver]

Except this is a false equivalence, and a rhetorical con.

The correct equivalence in the simple mechanic I described is “the DM decides” vs “either the DM decides or the Player decides”.

IMO. That sounds like it's a worse position to take as that's even easier to argue against. Let A be a situation where the outcome using both options is "the DM decides". How then can the DM deciding in one case yield player agency and in the other case not?

 

[Campbell]

Can we please stop playing definition games? If you know what a poster means when they use a particular word or phrase can you address the content of what they are saying rather than how they express it? This is not debate club.

 

[FrogReaver]

Broadly there is no such thing as general agency. You have agency over something - the ability to exert control over something. To have agency over content of the fiction means that I meaningfully have the ability to gain a measure of control. It does not mean I presently have control, only that through play I have the ability to exert control. Agency is almost never complete, almost always shared and often has limitations. In roleplaying games fictional positioning, assumed play expectations, assumed GMing principles, the individual boundaries of group members, and the rules of the game are all common limiters.

One mistake we often make in discussions of all sorts is assuming that because something is good in small or moderate proportions that it is good in large or total proportions. There are very good reasons to place limits on the agency of all participants (including the GM). Those reasons and those limitations are going to be different from game to game. Some will come from the text and some will come from the social environment.

This is why I find some modern mainstream texts irksome. They focus only on rights and authority, but never on limitations and responsibilities. If you take a look at Moldvay or even the First Edition DMG the game will instruct the GM. With authority it imparts responsibility. It even has back end rules you are expected to follow. It places limits on your agency so that players may also have some agency over the fiction. These things do not necessarily have to come from action resolution rules that impart agency directly. It come from expectations placed on the participants.

In a situation where there is a lack of enumerated principles and the GM has extraordinary latitude player agency is limited to what that GM allows. That might be a great deal. It might be barely at all. A player has no meaningful way to expect their actions are making a meaningful impact.

I overall agree but this last part..

"In a situation where there is a lack of enumerated principles and the GM has extraordinary latitude player agency is limited to what that GM allows. That might be a great deal. It might be barely at all. A player has no meaningful way to expect their actions are making a meaningful impact."

IMO
1. The character is a fictional construct.
2. In such styles the player exerts full control over his characters actions.
3. Thus, because players have full agency over the actions their characters take they have full agency over that part of the fiction.

It confounds me that someone would only consider it to be player agency over the fiction when a player can exert control over the outcome of a fictional action. That's definitiely one kind of player agency over the fiction but it isn't the only one.

 

[FrogReaver]

Can we please stop playing definition games? If you know what a poster means when they use a particular word or phrase can you address the content of what they are saying rather than how they express it? This is not debate club.

Absolutely not. Terms are important. Especially ones with rather negative connotations. And more importantly, the confusion these terms are causing is apparent in this thread. Half the thread has been posters taking a term at literal face value because they don't get what is meant because either incomplete or incorrect words are being used to convey the concept. I mean what does it hurt anyone to try to be more precise in their words?

And by the way - it's quite offensive to take something I find serious and call it "playing definition games".

 

[FrogReaver]

@prabe

So I do not see it as the dice deciding. I see it as the game deciding what happens.

If the game says the "GM decides" then can't that also legitimately be viewed as the game deciding what happens?

 

[chaochou]

IMO. That sounds like it's a worse position to take as that's even easier to argue against. Let A be a situation where the outcome using both options is "the DM decides". How then can the DM deciding in one case yield player agency and in the other case not?

Im amused that your RPGs consist of a single dice roll.

Anyway, I created a mechanic which clearly provided player agency but also a constraint on that agency in the form of a dice roll.

But since people seem incapable of not misrepresentating even the most basic concepts such as that, try this mechanic.

Roll 1d6. On a 1-6 the player decides.

By changing the mechanic I’ve change the amount of player agency. Therefore the mechanics are determining the amount of player agency.

Contrast with D&D. Roll 1d20. On a 1-20 the GM decides. Thats a zero agency game.

 

[FrogReaver]

Im amused that your RPGs consist of a single dice roll.

Anyway, I created a mechanic which clearly provided player agency but also a constraint on that agency in the form of a dice roll.

But since people seem incapable of not misrepresentating even the most basic concepts such as that, try this mechanic.

You start out by misrepresenting me. Then end up accusing me of misrepresenting you. (That's kind of amusing IMO.) Taking what you say to it's logical conclusion is not misrepresenting you. I get that the first off the cuff example meant to illuminate usually falls short. Happens to me all the time. But that doesn't give you the right to be rude to me. Now on to your updated example.

Roll 1d6. On a 1-6 the player decides.

By changing the mechanic I’ve change the amount of player agency. Therefore the mechanics are determining the amount of player agency.

Contrast with D&D. Roll 1d20. On a 1-20 the GM decides. Thats a zero agency game.

I think @Campbell mentioned that agency is always in relation to something. I agree there. In this case it's apparent you are talking player agency in relation to fictional outcomes. I think that your point about that is so self-evident that no one disagree with it. The problem arises when you shorten that to player agency as if there's no other kind.

Let me illustrate the other kind by introducing another mechanic in addition to yours above. On a 1-3 the player decides the PC action. On a 4-6 the DM decides the PC action. This example also illustrates an additional loss of player agency. The kind that is in relation to declaring PC actions.

And that's why I think proper and precise definitions matter. We are talking past each other because we are talking about 2 different things but using the same shorthand term to designate it. The ambiguity and disagreement goes away as soon as we add the additional precision needed.

 

[FrogReaver]

So now that the primary issue around player agency is resolved by observing there are 2 types:

• Player Agency in relation to fictional outcomes.
• Player Agency in relation to PC Action (attempts).

Perhaps it would be beneficial to talk about how these types of agency relate and interact and how different focuses on them can yield vastly different games. I think it's important to note that typically games have a strong focus on only 1 of these types of agency (though this may not be universal). For example:

• Games with very limited/no player agency in relation to fictional outcomes but strong player agency in relation to PC Action (attempts) will strongly reward play centered around exploration, puzzle solving and general challenge based play.
• Games with strong player agency in relation to fictional outcomes but more limited player agency in relation to PC Action (attempts) will strongly reward creative play, narrative play, etc. (no experience here so harder for me to elaborate on).

I'm also sure there are various mixtures that form some very interesting "hybrid" games. One outstanding question that I want to explore: can a game feature Strong player agency in relation to fictional outcomes while also having strong player agency in relation to PC Action (attempts)?

 

[chaochou]

I agree there. In this case it's apparent you are talking player agency in relation to fictional outcomes. I think that your point about that is so self-evident that no one disagree with it. The problem arises when you shorten that to player agency as if there's no other kind.

The kind that is in relation to declaring PC actions.

I started by stating that player agency is the ability to generate fictional outcomes. If you had an alternate view you could just have said so, instead of trying, and failing, to play semantics around dice, mechanics and probabilities.

You now agree with me that “GM decides” offers no player agency with regards to fictional outcomes. In fact, it’s now ‘self-evident’.

I reject the idea that play of a game can be done without the ability to change the game state. And the game state in an rpg is changed by making new propositions about what is true in the game world. Asking questions and proposing actions are simply a participant (in your case a player) making a request for the person with agency (in your case the GM) to change the game state.

Redefining agency to mean asking someone to do something that you’re not allowed to is, I’m afraid, not a viable position for someone claiming so adamantly that meanings matter.