Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[FrogReaver]

I agree with your point, but not with phrasing it as involving character agency. That still just doesn't exist. The character isn't making choices and the fiction isn't real. Unreal things cannot have agency because they lack the foundational ability to actually choose. This is nothing more than a reflection of the player's choice onto the fictional character.

Still, I follow that you're saying a player can exert agency over character action declarations even in a fictional state where the character is in a non-normal fictional state. That's fine and good. And I follow that a player can not have agency over a character in an otherwise normal fictional state. It's still player agency we're talking about -- the character is the vehicle for that agency. I don't see anything clarifying by imagining the character as having agency.

Then who has agency of the character and the character's actions if not the player?

I also think it's important to note that somebit upthread someone shortened player agency over the character to character agency and it stuck. That may be part of the source of the confusion.

 

[Campbell]

In many cases the GM or other players have a degree of agency over your character's actions. It is often never explicitly stated, but there are social pressures that we all conform to. This is common in games that focus on linear storytelling. In such circumstances players are expected to lean into the GM's story. Another case are inter-player concerns over narrative or niche spotlight. Players speaking over you to have their character do stuff might also affect your agency over your character.

That's beyond the obviously more overt mechanics that also might constrain the way you are expected to play your character.

There are also fictional constraints like established relationships, obligations in setting, station, etc. which should constrain the way you play your character.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Then who has agency of the character

I believe I have been clear that I do not recognize characters having agency. There's nothing here to have.

and the character's actions if not the player?

In the examples given, the player, as I also said, clearly. That's not necessarily the case, because the character is a piece of the fiction, usually, but not exclusively or always, under the player's control. Just sticking to 5e, if a character is dominated via magic then the player's agency is either severely restricted to those actions that support the domination effect or the character comes under control of the GM and the player loses agency. Who has agency to determine character actions is, therefore, only answerable in a specific context of knowing what the game-state is.

I also think it's important to note that somebit upthread someone shortened player agency over the character to character agency and it stuck. That may be part of the source of the confusion.

As @pemerton clearly defined what he was talking about, and it wasn't this, I don't see how it's important at all. It appears the first mention was by @S'mon in post 1121 (ctrl-f is useful). He didn't really define the term, so I can't tell what he meant by it. After that, it's limited to this discussion outside of one use by @prabe. I can't say how you've interpreted it, but @pemerton and I have been very clear that character agency is not shorthand for player agency over the character, in pretty much every post. Maybe it stuck with you, but it doesn't seem to have done so for anyone else discussing this and if you've been using it that way, it's not apparent at all.

 

[FrogReaver]

Hear me out.

The more I read in this thread the more convinced I am that there are two types of agency and that this concept of 2 types of agency fully explains the conundrum we find ourselves in. I believe those 2 types of agency are 1. Agency over the character and 2. Agency over the fiction. For most of us, these concepts have morphed into a Chimera of sorts. Some of us focus on aspects of the first type of agency and others on aspects of the seconds. This also appears to be the reason that both sides can disprove the other and view the other sides focal aspects of agency as irrelevant and meaningless. Essentially for most of us our general notion of Agency requires aspects of both Agency over the character and Agency over the fiction. This is also why it's so difficult for us all to pinpoint when Agency occurs.

It seems agency over character is the more straightforward and easy to understand concept. You as a player must be capable of deciding what your character will do and the character in the fiction must be capable of an attempt to follow through with that decision. Negating either of these things negates this kind of agency. This kind of agency typically can be tested and thus determined at a definitive moment in play - when a player has a character attempt to do an action. Whether the character succeeds or fails doesn't matter here, only whether he attempted the action.

Agency over the fiction is a bit more complicated (and perhaps there's a better term for this concept). Essentially this is the kind of agency concerning whether a characters fictional actions are capable of having an impact upon the fictional world and it's fictional inhabitants. More narrative style games come to mind here as the basic mechanics ensure that a characters fictional actions are capable of having an impact upon the fictional world and it's fictional inhabitants. However, this concept isn't limited to narrative style games. Games using dice to determine success or failure of a goal and approach would also fall under this same definition. Then we get to the more controversial subject of whether "DM" decides is a resolution method that fits this definition. My answer is that so long as the DM has the agency to ensure my actions are capable of that and so long as he chooses to allow my actions to be capable of that then I as player will have agency over fictional outcomes even though the DM sometimes determines my action fail with no dice involved.

In fact using this framework I can pinpoint exactly when each type of agency fails. The first fails the moment the player cannot have his character attempt something in the fiction. The 2nd fails the moment anything takes away the capability for a characters actions to have an impact upon the fictional world or it's fictional inhabitants.

 

[FrogReaver]

I suppose this one liner may help:

Saying that the DM deciding failure has removed player agency is no different than saying a dice coming up failure has removed player agency.

 

[FrogReaver]

@chaochou is correct: announcing an action is not agency in any interesting sense for RPGing.

Are there no RPG's that prevent you from announcing your characters action under certain circumstances? Are there none that ever give the ability to announce an action for your character to another player or NPC?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Hear me out.

The more I read in this thread the more convinced I am that there are two types of agency and that this concept of 2 types of agency fully explains the conundrum we find ourselves in. I believe those 2 types of agency are 1. Agency over the character and 2. Agency over the fiction. For most of us, these concepts have morphed into a Chimera of sorts. Some of us focus on aspects of the first type of agency and others on aspects of the seconds. This also appears to be the reason that both sides can disprove the other and view the other sides focal aspects of agency as irrelevant and meaningless. Essentially for most of us our general notion of Agency requires aspects of both Agency over the character and Agency over the fiction. This is also why it's so difficult for us all to pinpoint when Agency occurs.

It seems agency over character is the more straightforward and easy to understand concept. You as a player must be capable of deciding what your character will do and the character in the fiction must be capable of an attempt to follow through with that decision. Negating either of these things negates this kind of agency. This kind of agency typically can be tested and thus determined at a definitive moment in play - when a player has a character attempt to do an action. Whether the character succeeds or fails doesn't matter here, only whether he attempted the action.

Agency over the fiction is a bit more complicated (and perhaps there's a better term for this concept). Essentially this is the kind of agency concerning whether a characters fictional actions are capable of having an impact upon the fictional world and it's fictional inhabitants. More narrative style games come to mind here as the basic mechanics ensure that a characters fictional actions are capable of having an impact upon the fictional world and it's fictional inhabitants. However, this concept isn't limited to narrative style games. Games using dice to determine success or failure of a goal and approach would also fall under this same definition. Then we get to the more controversial subject of whether "DM" decides is a resolution method that fits this definition. My answer is that so long as the DM has the agency to ensure my actions are capable of that and so long as he chooses to allow my actions to be capable of that then I as player will have agency over fictional outcomes even though the DM sometimes determines my action fail with no dice involved.

In fact using this framework I can pinpoint exactly when each type of agency fails. The first fails the moment the player cannot have his character attempt something in the fiction. The 2nd fails the moment anything takes away the capability for a characters actions to have an impact upon the fictional world or it's fictional inhabitants.

The character is part of the fiction. It's not a separate agency, it's part of the larger agency in the game.

Some games limit player agency to control of the character. Games like D&D do this, although it's not unique to D&D. These games really only allow the player to express agency through the character. People get used to this, and when exposed to other methods of providing agency that don't go through the character, think this is different, because it's different from what they're used to. But, it's really not. It's a different tool. All agency is pointed at making intended changes in the fiction. It's good to look at the tools used to do this, like control over characters and who has it, but there aren't different kinds of agency at play.

This is far more apparent in other games, where control over character isn't as strongly sited with the player as it is in D&D. My ability to change the fiction in Blades, for instance, isn't at all limited to the character, and my control over the character is shared. It makes little sense to discuss agency in Blades in terms of separate agency over the character and agency over the fiction.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I suppose this one liner may help:

Saying that the DM deciding failure has removed player agency is no different than saying a dice coming up failure has removed player agency.

I could succeed with the dice, I cannot with a GM that decides. That's a pretty big difference. Some chance to no chance. If you're only evaluating outcomes, you're missing the import of the means.

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree with your point, but not with phrasing it as involving character agency.

A small joke: your inability to view my character as having agency is breaking my verisimilitude

I do agree that fictional characters don't actually have agency. Then again nothing in fiction "actually" exists. Your fictional knight, he has no sword because his sword doesn't actually exists any more than my fictional characters agency. Hopefully the point there is clear.

 

[FrogReaver]

I could succeed with the dice, I cannot with a GM that decides. That's a pretty big difference. Some chance to no chance. If you're only evaluating outcomes, you're missing the import of the means.

Agency of any type is not about a chance to succeed. It's about the capability of being able to succeed. In a DM decides game that capability for success existed even when something was ruled failure so long as his ruling of failure wasn't done for the reason of removing your capability for success.