A Question Of Agency?

[hawkeyefan]

I really want people to answer this: do rules that place limits on how the player can affect the fiction or 'gamestates' reduce the players agency? And if they do, why we have such rules?

I don’t think that’s generally the case. I mean, the game’s rules are what they are....they allow the level of agency they allow, and hopefully all participants know that going in. There shouldn’t be significant shifts in agency such that it is reduced.

There may be instances of play where something happens that would reduce or remove the player’s ability to influence the game....let’s say a Charm spell or similar....but again, these rules are baked in and are an assumed part of the game. Players should expect them to happen, so I don’t know if I’d say that they’re the kind of example you’re looking for.

I think where we do run into something that could be less predictable and which is part of the game and which can reduce agency is when there’s not a clear process in place, whether as a rule or as a principle or technique. This kind of sliding scale makes it hard for a participant to know their chances and how those chances are determined. The big example here would be things decided by GM fiat, I’d say.

If we wanted to look at it more as a question of “do games with such rules allow for less player agency” instead of do they reduce agency, then I think it’s easier to answer. Yes, such rules may result in less agency for players than the rules of another game may allow. As to why would we have them, it’ll vary from person to person according to preference, but the general answer is that the rules result in an engaging play experience.

Constraints on players are an important part of a game. I think what is sometimes overlooked is that constraints on GMing are equally important.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, I'll bite at least. And I can answer it pretty easily in three sentences.

1. Yes, any rules that constrains what a character can declare about his interactions with the world and the results absolutely constrains player agency.

2. Agency isn't everything. Its a good, but like most such things, not an unlimited good.

OK. This is consistent, though I'm not sure I agree with such definition of agency. But were I to agree with your definition, then I would definitely agree with your second point.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If we wanted to look at it more as a question of “do games with such rules allow for less player agency” instead of do they reduce agency, then I think it’s easier to answer.

That's basically what I meant.

Yes, such rules may result in less agency for players than the rules of another game may allow. As to why would we have them, it’ll vary from person to person according to preference, but the general answer is that the rules result in an engaging play experience.

And then you also have an answer for why it might be desirable for GM to decide certain things instead of the player. But now you have basically agree that limiting player agency (as you define it) is often needed. So then this is really not about agency, it is about how that limiting happens.

Constraints on players are an important part of a game. I think what is sometimes overlooked is that constraints on GMing are equally important.

Perhaps. But you really cannot ignore that the player and the GM ultimately have completely different roles, so you need to approach the constraints completely differently.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And then you also have an answer for why it might be desirable for GM to decide certain things instead of the player. But now you have basically agree that limiting player agency (as you define it) is often needed. So then this is really not about agency, it is about how that limiting happens.

Yes. I don’t think anyone is advocating for unlimited player agency. I think limits are needed in order to still function as a game.

And I think the matter of how these constraints happen is a big part of the discussion. Many folks in this thread are questioning when and how such limits are placed, which seems largely to be assumed by many to match what’s done in most forms of D&D.

But just because someone says that the constraints on the player don’t need to be exactly as they are in D&D doesn’t mean that they want all such constraints removed.

Perhaps. But you really cannot ignore that the player and the GM ultimately have completely different roles, so you need to approach the constraints completely differently.

I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say they have completely different roles. I understand that they are different in ways, of course, but there is also overlap between the two, and the amount of that overlap will depend on the game.

But that minor point aside, yes they have different roles. Each role will have means of guiding the fiction specific to that role. But I don't think that constraint on the GM is “perhaps” needed; it is absolutely needed.

No constraints on the GM would infringe upon the players’ agency, no? Or at the very least, it leaves the game open to it.

And i don’t think we need to approach them completely differently. At times, sure, based on the nature of each role and how they are different, as you mentioned. But something like “respect the results of the dice” seems about as fundamental as you can get, and can be expected by both roles.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes. I don’t think anyone is advocating for unlimited player agency. I think limits are needed in order to still function as a game.

I'm still not sure I agree with the definition of agency=freedom, but let's go with that for now.

And I think the matter of how these constraints happen is a big part of the discussion. Many folks in this thread are questioning when and how such limits are placed, which seems largely to be assumed by many to match what’s done in most forms of D&D.

But just because someone says that the constraints on the player don’t need to be exactly as they are in D&D doesn’t mean that they want all such constraints removed.

Sure. But it really is just a preference thing. Then you really cannot criticise one style because it limits player agency if your own style does too, just in a different way.

I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say they have completely different roles. I understand that they are different in ways, of course, but there is also overlap between the two, and the amount of that overlap will depend on the game.

But that minor point aside, yes they have different roles. Each role will have means of guiding the fiction specific to that role. But I don't think that constraint on the GM is “perhaps” needed; it is absolutely needed.

No constraints on the GM would infringe upon the players’ agency, no? Or at the very least, it leaves the game open to it.

In a sense. But those 'constraint's do not need to be anything formal. The GM can be 'constrained' by their desire to make sure that everyone is having good time.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm still not sure I agree with the definition of agency=freedom, but let's go with that for now.

I’m not sure it’s “freedom” either. I’m trying to view it as @Manbearcat and @innerdude ‘s recent posts describe.

How much ability does the player have to change the gamestate.

I think that there must be limits on how they can do so....constraints or rules that determine how they can do so.

Sure. But it really is just a preference thing. Then you really cannot criticise one style because it limits player agency if your own style does too, just in a different way.

Yeah, I think it is a matter of preference. What I mean is how much agency a game allows a player and how much they will enjoy that is a preference. What level of agency a game allows is less a matter of preference, although it’s not totally objective.

As for criticism, we absolutely can criticize how one game constrains players and/or the GM. Why can’t we? It’s like saying I can’t criticize the rules of Starfinder because I like Savage Worlds and it has rules, too.

In a sense. But those 'constraint's do not need to be anything formal. The GM can be 'constrained' by their desire to make sure that everyone is having good time.

When they are not formal is when you wind up in gray areas. Or if they are formal in the sense of being clearly stated in the rules, but are vague in when and how they may be applied, then again things become murky.

To kind of take your mention of the GM constraining themself in order to make sure everyone has fun....I think this is something that happens a lot. Especially with persistent groups. The more you know a GM and their practices and how they’re likely to handle judgments and such, the smaller that gray area gets.

But let’s say you’re starting a new game with a new GM. You’re new to the rules and you’re new to the GM.

Wouldn’t clearly defined rules and play principles help you understand exactly to what extent you can affect the game?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I’m not sure it’s “freedom” either. I’m trying to view it as @Manbearcat and @innerdude ‘s recent posts describe.

How much ability does the player have to change the gamestate.

I think that there must be limits on how they can do so....constraints or rules that determine how they can do so.

And some limits are bad and some limits are good... because?

Yeah, I think it is a matter of preference. What I mean is how much agency a game allows a player and how much they will enjoy that is a preference. What level of agency a game allows is less a matter of preference, although it’s not totally objective.

Again, I think people have been overly focused on the amount of agency rather than the type of it.

As for criticism, we absolutely can criticize how one game constrains players and/or the GM. Why can’t we? It’s like saying I can’t criticize the rules of Starfinder because I like Savage Worlds and it has rules, too.

Yes, but if one agrees that limiting agency is necessary, then one must be able to articulate why some specific limitation is bad whilst some other limitation is fine. Saying 'it limits agency' is pointless.

When they are not formal is when you wind up in gray areas. Or if they are formal in the sense of being clearly stated in the rules, but are vague in when and how they may be applied, then again things become murky.

To kind of take your mention of the GM constraining themself in order to make sure everyone has fun....I think this is something that happens a lot. Especially with persistent groups. The more you know a GM and their practices and how they’re likely to handle judgments and such, the smaller that gray area gets.

But let’s say you’re starting a new game with a new GM. You’re new to the rules and you’re new to the GM.

Wouldn’t clearly defined rules and play principles help you understand exactly to what extent you can affect the game?

I said ages ago that rules are one way to communicate intent and preferences, but obviously not the only one and and I would strongly argue that definitely not the best.

And frankly, I don't place a high value on rules in an RPG, they should function and stay out of the way. You can run a perfectly decent RPG session without any rules at all, but trying to run one without a GM turns it into something completely different.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And some limits are bad and some limits are good... because?

Because they fit or don’t fit someone’s preference?

The good and bad bit is subjective, and I’m not saying what’s good or bad. Not sure why you’d frame your response along those lines.

Again, I think people have been overly focused on the amount of agency rather than the type of it.

Sure, that’s probably part of it.

Yes, but if one agrees that limiting agency is necessary, then one must be able to articulate why some specific limitation is bad whilst some other limitation is fine. Saying 'it limits agency' is pointless.

No, it’s not.

A GM not allowing players to determine their PC’s backstory limits agency. It’s an area of the fiction on which a player can have input, and possibly shape the fiction of the game. If I’m allowed to say that my PC is secretly the heir to the throne and that he wants to restore his claim....that’s me telling the GM what I’d like to see in play.

If the GM looks at me and says “No....we’re gonna do Descent Into Avernus, so that backstory isn’t suitable” then he has limited my ability to determine what the game is about, and my character’s place in it.

Whether or not this is good in that it’s an acceptable way to play or not is up to the individual. Again, this isn’t about “Agency = Good”.

I said ages ago that rules are one way to communicate intent and preferences, but obviously not the only one and and I would strongly argue that definitely not the best.

Okay, what would be other areas? I agree there are others. Principles of play would likely be the big one that leaps to my mind.

What would you say would be ways to communicate intent and purpose?

And frankly, I don't place a high value on rules in an RPG, they should function and stay out of the way. You can run a perfectly decent RPG session without any rules at all, but trying to run one without a GM turns it into something completely different.

I would say a RPG session with no rules is as different a thing as one with no GM. Without rules, how is it a game? Sounds like it would just be people having a conversation about pretend things.

No....rules should not get out of the way. They should promote and inspire and enable play. They’re essential.

 

[Lanefan]

So I appreciate the detailed reply. I think in a lot of ways we agree, and I think that mostly it's just a matter of preference in how we approach gaming. I'm gonna snip it down a bit, because I feel we're drifting away from matters related to agency, and I know we've talked about a lot of this stuff before in one way or another.

Fair enough...these do get rather unwieldy.

There are times where it can be interesting to watch the players pause and then debate what to do about a situation, how to proceed. But I like when those moments are reserved for kind of major moments. When the decision is not a major one, I want things to move. I don't like those big pauses happening often.

This can be a product of the system, or parts of it. It can be for other reasons, too, of course.

Thing is, as the PCs have no way of knowing whether what they're deciding on is major or trivial it's only fair the players don't either.

Depends on the specific players too. If you get two or three over-planners in the same game be prepared to spend a lot of time waiting for stuff to happen - or be willing to bring the heat: wandering monsters can be your friend.

Sure, that's all great. I agree about the group being the focus. But I prefer when each PC also has their own things going on, their own agenda to pursue. Focus can rotate as needed, and I would hope the players are all okay with indulging a little time spent on characters other than theirs now and again. Plus, the characters are usually invested in one another, so getting their help doesn't usually require a lot of convincing.

To some extent, I agree. But when half a session or more goes into one PC's family drama it gets a bit much. (example: as a player right now one of my PCs is just coming in from the field and has some family stuff to see to before he heads out again - my hope is to resolve it with a few die rolls and the DM telling me how much I have to spend; so as not to bore everyone else with it).

I think this ties into a lot of the things that others are mentioning, where the players are able to shape the content of the fiction. It's about their characters.

Perhaps - but about their characters as a party or their characters as individuals, is the question.

So let me say this....if I'm in your game, and a volcano explodes when our PCs are near it, I'm not gonna buy that this was a neutral decision. Sure, you could show me some notes that say you had predetermined that this thing was gonna blow on August 5 of whatever year.....and then I'm going to point out how you're largely in control of the pace, and the date and of possibly dropping prompts into play to get us to go near the volcano.

I just as easily could have dropped hints trying to steer you away from it - but when do players listen to DM hints anyway?

And if the volcano erupts when the party is no where in the area....I'm very likely not to care at all.

If the whole goal of this is to set up some kind of legitimacy to the idea of neutrality, it just seems odd.

It's to also set up the idea that history is happening around the PCs above and beyond their own purviews.

So you have a GM plot you want them to engage with. It's fine. Where is the player agency in this scenario? Probably to decide to go after the book in the first place. Then, most everything else is "the world" responding to what the PCs are doing.

The agency this player has right now is immense, though she might not realize it: her PC has what everyone wants, and no matter what she does with it that action is going to change the fiction's course, probably in a big way.

But really, there is no "world" so it's the DM deciding what happens next. All the stuff about the necromancers and the foreign ones learning of the book (how did that happen? It seems it happened to further the plot, but I imagine it would be described as "the world responding to the PCs' actions) and then attacking the PCs and waging war on the town, and placing bounties on the PCs.....all of that is the GM having a story idea.

It's not bad. It just doesn't appear to have a high level of player agency. It's the GM constructing a story in advance around the PCs. Or at least, that's how it seems.

It's kind of a game-world response. I didn't pre-plan the idea of this Necromancer war in the slightest, but when the party ended up taking over half a year on what I-as-DM initially thought would be maybe a 2-month venture I started thinking about what the ramifications of that delay might be, then rolled some dice and came up with this.

Why would the GM ask more than one player to confirm what was to the North? Why would more than on player be attempting a check to determine the terrain?

Can't speak for anyone else, but for me if something's not described by the DM then my own imagination's probably going to fill it in. Thus if all the DM tells me is that we're in a swamp I'm going to start thinking in my own mind about what's around that swamp. As we haven't been told we can see any hills in the distance I have to assume there aren't any; so it's forest in one direction, open water in another, and more swamp in a third; and if I-as-player am asked what's out there that's what I'll say.

But when a player drops in that there's hills to the north (that we-as-PCs in theory can bloody well see!) a) my imagined scenario gets upended and b) the GM's powers of scene description get called into serious question.

I mean, if you put a river that flows north to south, how would it later become relevant that it has to flow south to north? And how would this river only be susceptible to this if it was placed at the time of play instead of months before?

Not sure if you're understanding what I'm not-very-clearly getting at, so let me try again.

If one person designs the setting ahead of time there's way more opportunity to find and iron out any inconsistencies. But if the setting's designed piecemeal at different times by committee as play goes along those inconsistencies could become a big headache. Example:

During some run of play in a city the flow-direction of the big river running through it becomes important - maybe someone wants to float down the river to escape something and someone needs to author what pre-established parts of town they'll pass through or end up in - and it's determined the river flows south-to-north.

During a different and unrelated run of play (maybe something to do with a swamp!) it's for some reason determined that there's hills to the north and mountains beyond that.

During a third unrelated run of play it's determined there's open ocean not far to the south - maybe someone was looking for a particular herb that only grows along the seashore.

Taken independently there's nothing wrong with any of these. But put 'em together and now you've got a river trying to flow uphill. And while you could easily say "Oh, just turn it around and make it flow north-to-south", that would retroactively invalidate the run of play that took place in the city which for me would be a game-wrecker.

Having just one hand on the helm doesn't eliminate the chance of this happening but does greatly reduce it.

 

[darkbard]

Example:

During some run of play in a city the flow-direction of the big river running through it becomes important - maybe someone wants to float down the river to escape something and someone needs to author what pre-established parts of town they'll pass through or end up in - and it's determined the river flows south-to-north.

During a different and unrelated run of play (maybe something to do with a swamp!) it's for some reason determined that there's hills to the north and mountains beyond that.

During a third unrelated run of play it's determined there's open ocean not far to the south - maybe someone was looking for a particular herb that only grows along the seashore.

Taken independently there's nothing wrong with any of these. But put 'em together and now you've got a river trying to flow uphill. And while you could easily say "Oh, just turn it around and make it flow north-to-south", that would retroactively invalidate the run of play that took place in the city which for me would be a game-wrecker.

Having just one hand on the helm doesn't eliminate the chance of this happening but does greatly reduce it.

But one of the principles of no myth games that afford player agency in shaping the setting in this way is not to contradict elements already established in play. If the flow of the river has already been established in play to flow south-north as per your example, a player couldn't just establish hills to the north as that would conflict with something already established (the south-north flowing river).

But let's presume that for some reason the geographical details of the world have been forgotten or become confused so that these two elements (south-north river, northern hills) are brought into play. Is this truly irreconcilable in a fantasy game? Might the player's introduction of a "mistake" not just be a happy accident that begs for explanation: a magical reverse waterfall that flows up a cliff's edge or something? Sometimes, @Lanefan, I think you forget that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."