A Question Of Agency?

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, I would agree. A railroad is a way that agency is taken away. But there are also people who are perfectly happy to play in a railroad game. And even those players may have some agency; they may not be able to deviate from the path, but they may be able to decide something like using stealth or diplomacy to bypass a monster, rather than just fighting it.

It’s a spectrum.

So then what are the upper limits of that spectrum? What would you say is an example of a high agency game?

I agree there are people happy to play railroads and some agency can exist in one. I don't agree that it is a spectrum with railroads on one end and games with mechanics allowing players to shape the setting on the other end (for the reasons I have already stated)

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is actually a perfect example to illustrate where I and, where I believe, Crimson, are coming from. What about Excite Bike? The agency you describe above is about your ability to do things in the setting. In grand theft auto, it feels like more agency to me because I am not forced to only go left or right, and I can interact with the setting however I like (a game like Shenmue was also great for this sense of having agency in a living world). In excite bike you could customize the track in all sorts of ways. Now that was a lot of fun (I think I preferred designing tracks to playing excite bike) but it didn't give me more agency. More agency would have been the ability to drive off the track or run over people in the stands.

I would argue that is another form of agency because it allows you to engage with the game in another way.

Now imagine the version of Grand Theft Auto that implements the track creation of Excite Bike and then you have even more choice as a player.

It is only causing me to not want to listen in that case

That’s a shame. He’s got an interesting perspective.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Now imagine the version of Grand Theft Auto that implements the track creation of Excite Bike and then you have even more choice as a player.

I wouldn't say I have more agency though. I would say I have more game options. But my concern with agency is about what I can do in that world. This would especially be the case if the track creation element were done so that it was live during play. If I could change the layout of the city for example as I was driving, I would actually consider that counter to my agency

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't agree with this, because...


I don't agree with this. I think... I'm pretty sure I just don't see agency in the same way than you do. I try to explain. If you get to define both the conditions, and the reaction to those conditions; define both the question and the answer; then, yes, in a sense you have more freedom. But I wouldn't say that you necessarily have more agency. Agency, at least in the context of a game, is making meaningful choices, and I feel that it is the limits that make the choices meaningful. You respond to something external, and this makes your responses meaningful. If anything that limits the player's freedom is seen as reduction of agency, then ultimate agency would be achieved by removing the rules, the dice and the other players as all of those limit the player's freedom. And I'm not sure that this would be a reasonable or useful definition of agency.

The thing you're describing in the last paragraph has a name -- the Czege Principle -- which, as simply stated by it's author is, "When one person is the author of both the character's adversity and its resolution, play isn't fun." This is well known in the design circles that the games we're talking about come from, and is avoided. So, your formulation isn't actually a thing that happens.

What does happen is that the players can narration an action -- something their character does -- and have that tested by the mechanics to see what happens. This includes things that establish fictional elements at times, but it's fundamentally about not having to ask permission to try the action before doing so.

It's somewhat informative to look at a situation where the players are looking for a macguffin, for whatever reason you wish to imagine. Through play, they find themselves in a room with a chest. A player declares their going to open the chest to see if the macguffin is inside. Here's were we can evaluate whether or not this involved more or less agency by way of approach. In the traditional sense, the player searching the chest can only ever discover what the GM decides (in their notes or in the moment) is in the chest. The act of search can discover information, but that information is determined by another player, by fiat. The GM has, at all times, the ultimate authority here, and can decide however they want what is in the chest regardless of the player's action declarations. There is agency here, but it's the agency to choose which parts of of the GM's choices you explore. Let's use my preferred assumption, here and in the next example, that everyone is playing in good faith so that we can avoid any diversions into Force or Illusionism or whatever. Functionally, the player can only ever discover that which the GM has decided.

In the second method, the GM has as much idea as to what's in the chest as the player, which is to say very little. The player has stated that they're searching the chest with the intent to find the macguffin. The GM, in this approach, can agree -- the macguffin is in the chest after all -- and should do so if this isn't a very interesting question. I think it is, and so the GM should challenge this action by submitting it to the mechanics of the system to determine what is in the chest. The dice roll, and determine who gets to say what -- if the player succeeds, the macguffin is in the chest and everyone at the table finds out this fact at the same time. If the player fails, then the macguffin is not in the chest or there's some other bad consequence -- perhaps, the chest is locked tightly with magic, and impossible to open without violence, so they'll have to do something more drastic to get it open which risks what's inside (ie, the GM threatens worse harm and extends the situation). Here, what is at stake is the player's intent, not just their action. This increases agency because the player now isn't just exploring someone else's ideas, but instead can add their own and see how they turn out.

Now, is the second way a better way to play because it has more agency? Absolutely not, or, more precisely, each person should answer that for themselves. My Blades in the Dark game, for instance, has way more agency than my 5e game, but I still run both because, while 5e has lower agency, it does have increased tactical minigames (char-op, combat, exploration, etc.) and I like those, too. All in all, over the last 2 years, at least 2/3rd of our gaming has been 5e, with Blades grabbing such a large share due to being easier to organize and run during the pandemic. So, more agency doesn't mean better, but it's hard to argue, without twisting into pretzels, that games that allow players more influence over the course of play don't feature more agency. They may feature less fun for your table, though, so, by all means, maximize fun! That's what should be the focus. Discussion of agency is a way to better understand how your game works and what alternatives exist, that's all.

And, for what it's worth, I was exactly in your shoes about 5-6 years ago. Like, I made your arguments to @pemerton, and I thought he was a tad loony, too, what with all the obviously crazy talk about players getting to make things up. Can't say why, though, but something was said in one of these discussions that made me pause, and then I realized there's a fundamental perspective shift necessary. If you continue to evaluate these things with the lens of what you already know, you'll always be baffled by it. If you, instead, start by saying, "okay, let's assume this works, how does it do that," you can make the intuitive leap and see the other side. You might not like it -- @prabe has made a few steps and is a very worthy discussion partner, but he hasn't liked what he's seen so far, and that's fine -- great even. I'd be disappointed if everyone agreed with me -- why have an internet without discussion?

 

[Scott Christian]

Now, maybe you don't see it that way. That is fine. But to me agency is very much about how much freedom I have to explore the setting, not how much freedom I have to control the setting.

One could say you can control something and explore it. Depends on microcosms.

There is no actual difference of having a group of players succeed on a roll and telling the GM there are hills to the north, and players succeeding on a roll and telling the GM they find a big enough bush to hide in. One is rarely done in RPG's. The other is done all the time.

But, the former needs some compliance from the GM if they have already established the terrain, drawn the maps, and set up the area with hints and clues, quests and dangers, treasure and NPC's. The latter, I have never seen a DM refuse so long as it is passes the "common sense" test, ie... in the middle of a sandy desert and hiding behind a bunch of oak trees.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I would argue that is another form of agency because it allows you to engage with the game in another way.

I don't see that as being agency. If you add another thing you can do to D&D, like I don't know, players can get XP by winning relay races with one another or something, that allows you to engage the game in another way but it doesn't add any agency.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think at this point you've associated a partial side-comment with something about my point about stances, and they aren't particularly related.

Yes, this is what I've been saying for two posts. Glad we agree

My point regarding that was a default assumption that a character is at least largely motivated to some degree about self-preservation is kind of a reasonable baseline in any game where character death can be anything but an unusual rarity.

I think this is a poor default assumption. The only way that you could consider this a default assumption is if you're also assume a low-agency game where players are often denied sufficient information until they've asked all the right questions or performed the right actions to learn enough that they can overcome the puzzle the GM has posed, usually in form of deadly dungeons. This kind of play doesn't lend itself to deep characterization overly much.

Notice my example included three options that are all faithful. They are all legitimate responses to an a decision in the context of the character. My claim is that, barring perturbation by exterior events (or the player just being in an unusual headspace for any reason), an IC Stance player will chose the one that seems most in-character for the character. An Actor Stance character may not, because he's also interested in the effect of his depiction, so within that range he may choose the less in-character (but still within its range one) that seems a more interesting depiction..

This is imputing more to the Actor stance that what is presented in either the short definition I quoted or the longer discussion that birthed that post. There, actor stance is about evoking the character to the maximum amount when given a choice for that character. You've added some choice where the actor changes the character to make a better performance, but that's not evidence by the concepts as presented. In fact, that appears to be more Director stance -- changing the character to get a better performance outcome -- than actor stance, which is focused on faithfully portraying the character.

Eh. As it was developed in time, I think the distinction I'm making above is perfectly sound. The IC (and especially Deep IC) proponents were big into the idea that taking outside concerns into consideration was either anathema (the Deep IC ones) or at least undesirable (the IC ones who weren't Deep IC). Actor doesn't have some of the bigger picture elements that could be in play for Author or Director, but they still have concerns that cannot be described as entirely in-character/in-world in basis (and honestly, Audience always struck me as the odd man out of the bunch, though as I've noted I always thoughts the lines between them were blurry anyway. That doesn't mean I don't think they're a useful framework to talk about where people draw the lines on how they chose to play a character (as was the concept of Token play, which seems to have fallen off the conceptual stage there, but that's what happens when concepts are evolved over a period.)

Again, actor, as discussed even by the author of the definition I posted above, clearly speak to Author stance as portraying the character faithfully when given a choice the character has made. IC, fraught as it is as a concept, does the same. There's not much daylight, here. You seem to be implying a class of outside influences that affect Actor stance but not IC stance, but this seems like an attempt at separation by assertion rather than an development of concepts from actually noted influences. Actor stance, as a concept, is too polluted by the source metaphor of the stage, and IC is just pure idealization. And, I say this as someone that goes to lengths to be in character and think as my character does (which has lead to some surprising moments in games). I disagree that there's some magical position from which play occurs that sets off my acting out my character from someone else acting out their character. The only functional difference I see between this formulation of Actor stance and IC stance is where and how choices are made: IC includes decision making while Actor expressly does not. This absolutely tells me that they've mixed up "stances," such as they are, with decision making approaches. And, so, we end up with trying to eke out a difference between acting out your character and acting out your character because we want to hang the decision making on one but not the other (because it messes with the stage analogy this all springs from). It's a distinction without difference.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The thing you're describing in the last paragraph has a name -- the Czege Principle -- which, as simply stated by it's author is, "When one person is the author of both the character's adversity and its resolution, play isn't fun." This is well known in the design circles that the games we're talking about come from, and is avoided. So, your formulation isn't actually a thing that happens.

Good that the concept is recognised. The issue may be avoided for your satisfaction, but necessarily for mine.

It's somewhat informative to look at a situation where the players are looking for a macguffin, for whatever reason you wish to imagine. Through play, they find themselves in a room with a chest. A player declares their going to open the chest to see if the macguffin is inside. Here's were we can evaluate whether or not this involved more or less agency by way of approach. In the traditional sense, the player searching the chest can only ever discover what the GM decides (in their notes or in the moment) is in the chest. The act of search can discover information, but that information is determined by another player, by fiat. The GM has, at all times, the ultimate authority here, and can decide however they want what is in the chest regardless of the player's action declarations. There is agency here, but it's the agency to choose which parts of of the GM's choices you explore. Let's use my preferred assumption, here and in the next example, that everyone is playing in good faith so that we can avoid any diversions into Force or Illusionism or whatever. Functionally, the player can only ever discover that which the GM has decided.

In the second method, the GM has as much idea as to what's in the chest as the player, which is to say very little. The player has stated that they're searching the chest with the intent to find the macguffin. The GM, in this approach, can agree -- the macguffin is in the chest after all -- and should do so if this isn't a very interesting question. I think it is, and so the GM should challenge this action by submitting it to the mechanics of the system to determine what is in the chest. The dice roll, and determine who gets to say what -- if the player succeeds, the macguffin is in the chest and everyone at the table finds out this fact at the same time. If the player fails, then the macguffin is not in the chest or there's some other bad consequence -- perhaps, the chest is locked tightly with magic, and impossible to open without violence, so they'll have to do something more drastic to get it open which risks what's inside (ie, the GM threatens worse harm and extends the situation). Here, what is at stake is the player's intent, not just their action. This increases agency because the player now isn't just exploring someone else's ideas, but instead can add their own and see how they turn out.

You have simply moved the decision from a GM to a randomiser. I don't see how the player's agency is improved at all. Furthermore, the latter would definitely feel to me like I had less agency (albeit it can be argued that this is somewhat illusory.) In the first case I explored clues in objective reality and based on that concluded where the macguffing was. If I would be correct, I would feel accomplished and if not, well, then then I obviously missed some clues or misinterpreted them and I can try to do better. My decisions mattered and I did something real (or at least it appeared so to me. It really doesn't matter what the GM did behind the curtains if I never know it.) In the latter case the reality does not appear real, it is generated by me rolling the dice, there was no correct answer to be found, it was just ad lib and RNG. Perhaps it could make a nice story, but I would feel that my actions really didn't matter.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not really into this sort of metagaming.

Ditto; though it still informs play regardless, be it overtly or covertly.

I play my PC by inhabiting him/her; which means internalising as best I can, given I'm an amateur at this sort of thing, my character's self-conception, motivations and aspirations, understanding of his/her capabilities, etc.

Ditto.

This is one reason why my BW PC does not advance in ability as quickly as my GM's character does when he is a player. He has a very good wargamer's eye for making action declaration choice that will generate advancement opportunities. Whereas I'm not very good at that: rather than paying attention to that sort of thing, I do my best to focus on the situation through the "eyes" and emotions of my PC.

Nice!

 

[Lanefan]

Gah! Meta-gaming!!!!! Run for your lives!

Honestly, this is one of my major gripes with D&D. The characters are meant to be bold and daring.....they face death down regularly. Yet the game may, depending on edition and approach, reward cautious play.

Talk about immersion breaking.

How so?

Adventuring is at its roots a get-rich-or-die-trying proposition. The PCs are bold and daring in being willing to undertake it at all, but they'd also want to be at least somewhat cautious as to how they go about it in order to reduce the 'die-trying' odds and thus increase those for 'get-rich' - right? Simple self-preservation and all that.