A Question Of Agency?

[Aldarc]

And? That has nothing to do with what my response was about.

And it's clearly pointless to continue with this line of back-and-forth.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well obviously I don't see it as a lesser form of agency, and obviously I would disagree with how you frame it. This is a very loaded description of the play style I and others are describing. I think there is just a fundamental difference in what we value in play here (and it doesn't mean those on my side like less freedom in play). Again, this is the problem with wrangling with a term like agency, which has moral connotations to it, in order to advance play style interests. If you want to argue that we should all be engaging in the stye of play where players have more control of the narrative, then I think you should argue for that (rather than doing so through the concept of agency)

Well, then, I would ask, how could you define 'agency' in a way in which a player who gets to engage in topics of his choice, thematically and plot-wise, is at the same level of agency as one who gets to experience exactly the plot/narrative dictated by the GM? I am at a loss as to how that definition can be formulated.

 

[Guest 85555]

Well, then, I would ask, how could you define 'agency' in a way in which a player who gets to engage in topics of his choice, thematically and plot-wise, is at the same level of agency as one who gets to experience exactly the plot/narrative dictated by the GM? I am at a loss as to how that definition can be formulated.

First, you are straw manning. Second, you were going well beyond agency in your post. And you were making a play style argument invoking the language of philosophical and moral enlightenment (players awakening to the dramatic potential). More agency doesn't equal higher level play is my point. In terms of what agency means, I think there is a huge gulf between two sides in defining that term on this thread. But virtually no one is defining agency as being on a railroaded plot by a GM. The problem is, you keep trying to make it about narrative control, rather than the freedom to control your character in the setting. And you keep framing it as if the preference you happen to hold is a higher form of agency and a higher form of play. Some people like adventure paths. Not my preference, but there are things people get to experience in an adventure path that are less likely to come up or harder to achieve in my preferred style of play. There is no best style. Every style has trade offs. And there are some styles that place great value on agency. Not all do. At the end of the day, it isn't even clear how any of this connects to the OP, because it has somehow become about two different play styles fighting over legitimacy through the concept of agency.

 

[Guest 85555]

@zarionofarabel, can you reiterate what you meant by Agency in the OP. I feel like it would be more productive to answer the question you had about that? (since really any debate about the meaning of agency and other play styles don't really matter as much as what you had in mind when you used the term originally)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, then, I would ask, how could you define 'agency' in a way in which a player who gets to engage in topics of his choice, thematically and plot-wise, is at the same level of agency as one who gets to experience exactly the plot/narrative dictated by the GM? I am at a loss as to how that definition can be formulated.

If a player controls the actions of the main character of the story, it is rather weird to frame that as 'experiencing a narrative dictated by the GM.' If I am playing Luke and get to decide whether to join Vader on the Dark Side or not, that is pretty decent agency, even though I had not decided whether Vader was my dad or not.

I really don't think the sort of linear formulation of agency that you try to present is helpful. By that logic writing fiction about your character without input from anyone else would be the ultimate form of high-agency roleplay.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If you can't see someone else style of play as something other than a lesser approach, I don't think you can have an honest conversation. Believe me there are arguments for why a style like open exploration of a setting is a 'higher form' of RP. But I think all that is just to elevate style preference. The bottom line for most people is what do they enjoy doing at the table. But framing it as a form of awakening (akin to philosophical or religious enlightenment) I think really stretches things. You like drama. That is your preference. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make you a more evolved gamer.

I'm not trying to say that one is 'better' than another. Is a fine vintage more sophisticated than jug wine? Yep! You may still be a fan of jug wine. Still, in the hierarchy of different methods of play, some are more like jug wine, some are more like a fine port. That is less of an absolute 'moral' judgment as it is an acknowledgment. There are more things you can do with a more collaborative type of process, and in general you can achieve a majority of what could be achieved in the 'old way'. Believe me, running 4e in a 'narrative format' adequately showed me that fears of somehow limiting or excluding certain aspects of play are pretty overblown.

So, obviously you can just roll your eyes and call some of us snobs if you want, but it isn't that simple.

 

[innerdude]

I feel like basic "my character gets all the lootz!" is a pretty low bar form of RP. Its OK, just like eating [fast] food is OK, but there are more sophisticated and rewarding forms of play, ultimately. I don't mean everyone needs to go there, but a lot of players are at least willing to explore that sort of thing, particularly if they have played for a while, or have a real creative urge to their play. An ideal game can provide something for each sort, without breaking down. D&D seems to not really cater much to the more sophisticated kinds of "hey lets make a story where our characters..." kind of play. I mentioned the "everyone is doomed" on-shot I ran once. That was high concept play. It is pointless to approach that type of game like murder hobos in the dungeon, it would just be meaningless. Dying was not a negative there, and plans failing was simply a part of the concept, nope, the lifeboat won't save you after all that work to get it fixed, ah well...

First, you are straw manning. Second, you were going well beyond agency in your post. And you were making a play style argument invoking the language of philosophical and moral enlightenment (players awakening to the dramatic potential). More agency doesn't equal higher level play is my point. In terms of what agency means, I think there is a huge gulf between two sides in defining that term on this thread. But virtually no one is defining agency as being on a railroaded plot by a GM. The problem is, you keep trying to make it about narrative control, rather than the freedom to control your character in the setting. And you keep framing it as if the preference you happen to hold is a higher form of agency and a higher form of play. Some people like adventure paths. Not my preference, but there are things people get to experience in an adventure path that are less likely to come up or harder to achieve in my preferred style of play. There is no best style. Every style has trade offs. And there are some styles that place great value on agency. Not all do. At the end of the day, it isn't even clear how any of this connects to the OP, because it has somehow become about two different play styles fighting over legitimacy through the concept of agency.

I completely agree there are trade-offs to every style. I experienced that first hand when I tried GM-ing Dungeon World. The most immediate, obvious, and apparent trade-off: tactical combat wasn't a "thing." Like, at all. And trying to make combat more tactical ran completely against the purpose of the system in the first place.

Powered by the Apocalypse is TERRIBLE for "gamist" players who just want tactical challenges to overcome so they can feel the thrill of victory / bask in their power. If you approach a PbtA game with the idea that the goal is to go on a total power trip, you're going to go home not only disappointed, but probably completely disillusioned.

Whereas approaching D&D with same mindset is, while not necessarily preferred or expected, a wholly valid way to experience what the system offers. If you approach D&D as nothing more than an opportunity to ride a level treadmill, collect some "phat lewt" along the way, and occasionally slay the odd dragon or demon that had it coming to them . . . it's still totally viable.

I don't think it's a question of fighting over play style "legitimacy." Any and all play styles are "legitimate," insomuch as there are participants willing to experience them.

I think it's disingenuous, though, to say that the concept of player agency isn't connected to playstyle. In some ways, it's at the uttermost core center of the differences between play styles. Having experienced first-hand the differences between low-agency, medium-agency, and high-agency styles of play, I'm going to advocate for as much possible player agency as the GM is willing to give, every time, all day, every day. In my experience, higher-agency play leads to more fun at the gaming table, almost universally.

*Edit --- And as I mentioned earlier, much of the point of these discussions is to at least point out alternative, higher-agency methodologies/tactics/systems than the assumed "default" mode of play for D&D --- because it's one thing to not use those alternative methodologies because you have a very clear grasp of your preferences of play and why you use them, and you're actively choosing not to use the presented alternatives. (I very much respect @Lanefan in this light; he had a very clearly-defined style of play that works for him).

It's another thing to never choose those alternative methodologies because you have no idea they exist and could potentially, with the right analysis and effort, dramatically improve your gameplay experiences.

If a player controls the actions of the main character of the story, it is rather weird to frame that as 'experiencing a narrative dictated by the GM.' If I am playing Luke and get to decide whether to join Vader on the Dark Side or not, that is pretty decent agency, even though I had not decided whether Vader was my dad or not.

I really don't think the sort of linear formulation of agency that you try to present is helpful. By that logic writing fiction about your character without input from anyone else would be the ultimate form of high-agency roleplay.

Sure --- but what if you weren't really interested in exploring the whole "light side" / "dark side" of the Force thing at all? What if you really wanted to explore what it was like to be a smuggler with Han Solo? You show up at blown up Alderaan, and are like, "Nope, screw this save the galaxy from the Empire crap, that's someone else's job. Don't care about that TIE fighter heading towards that small moon, let's get the crap out of here. It sounds way more fun to go off and be a spice runner and try to become a bad-a** crime lord." Oh sure, Ben Kenobi will kvetch about it for a bit and get on your case, but it's not like you're beholden to his every whim.

Oh except there's a problem . . . . the GM has already pre-built this whole "Saga of the Skywalkers" campaign setting, and he's pre-built all these NPCs. I mean, what's the GM supposed to do now with Mon Mothma and Admiral Ackbar, and Crix Madine, and Wedge Antilles?

Isn't it easier for everyone if we all just play along with Luke deciding to train to be a Jedi? Oh, and that whole plot twist about Vader being your dad, I mean, that's pretty critical to the whole GM plot-line, so we can't change that. I mean, how else is the GM going to get you to go along with things? And yes you really do have to be from Tattooine, there's too much backstory of your character that requires it. Because how else is the GM going to use his pre-prepped sandpeople encounter if Luke isn't from Tatooine? And escaping from the Death Star, I mean, that sounds like a cool encounter set piece, but not really what the player is interested in. So . . . . I guess since the GM's in charge, we do it anyway?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure --- but what if you weren't really interested in exploring the whole "light side" / "dark side" of the Force thing at all? What if you really wanted to explore what it was like to be a smuggler with Han Solo? You show up at blown up Alderaan, and are like, "Nope, screw this save the galaxy from the Empire crap, that's someone else's job. Don't care about that TIE fighter heading towards that small moon, let's get the crap out of here. It sounds way more fun to go off and be a spice runner and try to become a bad-a** crime lord." Oh sure, Ben Kenobi will kvetch about it for a bit and get on your case, but it's not like you're beholden to his every whim.

Oh except there's a problem . . . . the GM has already pre-built this whole "Saga of the Skywalkers" campaign setting, and he's pre-built all these NPCs. I mean, what's the GM supposed to do now with Mon Mothma and Admiral Ackbar, and Crix Madine, and Wedge Antilles?

You indeed do describe two different approaches her. In the first Luke and Han become spice runners and then the campaign will be about that. And this to happen does not require the players to have narrative level control, as this is simply a logical outcome of the actions their characters took.

Now in the second the GM has a preplanned story they want to do. This is fine too. It just requires that at the sessions zero they got a buy in from the players that this is roughly what the campaign will be about. For some bizarre reason many people here seem to imagine that games without the players having narrative level control will only be of this second type, whilst they can just as easily be of the first type.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If a player controls the actions of the main character of the story, it is rather weird to frame that as 'experiencing a narrative dictated by the GM.' If I am playing Luke and get to decide whether to join Vader on the Dark Side or not, that is pretty decent agency, even though I had not decided whether Vader was my dad or not.

I really don't think the sort of linear formulation of agency that you try to present is helpful. By that logic writing fiction about your character without input from anyone else would be the ultimate form of high-agency roleplay.

And yet none of you can answer the question! How can you define "I got to join Vader on the Dark Side" when dictated by the GM as the choice that will be dark or light side as being equally empowered as a situation where the player participated directly in formulating the question at hand? Is the judgment then that 2 choices is just as much agency as potentially unlimited choices? This is the nut of the question and I have been a little puzzled by why it is avoided. I don't know what you mean by a 'linear formulation'. I don't agree with the 'straw man' statement made by @Bedrockgames either, frankly I don't even understand it at all! What 'straw man' am I erecting, what thing am I substituting for some other thing?

Just answer the question, how is less choice 'more freedom'? IMHO this is a very strange way of thinking and it is all quite straightforward!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not trying to say that one is 'better' than another. Is a fine vintage more sophisticated than jug wine? Yep! You may still be a fan of jug wine. Still, in the hierarchy of different methods of play, some are more like jug wine, some are more like a fine port. That is less of an absolute 'moral' judgment as it is an acknowledgment. There are more things you can do with a more collaborative type of process, and in general you can achieve a majority of what could be achieved in the 'old way'. Believe me, running 4e in a 'narrative format' adequately showed me that fears of somehow limiting or excluding certain aspects of play are pretty overblown.

So, obviously you can just roll your eyes and call some of us snobs if you want, but it isn't that simple.

Oh, trust me I do! I am perfectly aware that I often come across as snarky, smug elitist, but what you're doing here is approaching parody. Fine vintage wine indeed!