A Question Of Agency?

[Thomas Shey]

Good historical summary. I would only add that hexcrawl, leading to stronghold play, was a vital evolutionary axis which provided some flexibility in terms of what happened as PCs leveled in the original (1e and earlier/some of the Basic line) game, at least as-written. When your game began to sport PCs of level 7+ they would start moving out of the dungeon proper and move across the landscape, hexcrawling. This has a pretty structured process similar to dungeon crawling in 1e (it is just referred to the AH Survival game in OD&D, though there are encounter matrices available). Once these PCs get into stronghold/tower/whatever development then most of their 'calendar time' becomes absorbed and troupe play is supposed to refocus on their lower level henchmen/associates/alternate PCs, with the 'big boys' only reappearing in person for 'special events'.

Except, as I've noted before, there's little sign most people playing D&D were doing that even as early as 1975, whatever the theoretical intent.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Which means [your PC in the fiction vis-a-vis the game world] and [you in real life vis-a-vis the world around you] can thus be seen as at least vague equivalents; and I think* this is what @Crimson Longinus is trying to get at: that because you in the real world can't create hills to the north just by saying they exist, nor should your character in the fiction be able to.

* - CL, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Perhaps, but I don't see how that conclusion follows in any logical way from the premise. You "operating in the real world", you "acting as a player in a game", and "your character", need not be analogous in any particular way. In fact, the argument I've heard is that being a player asked what terrain is to the north doesn't work for you because it divorces you from the character, since you operate in different ways. However, don't ALL the other things that are different between you and your character (in the fiction of the game) do this as well? Why would you not prefer to play yourself in the game? Surely you can identify perfectly with THAT character! But you don't, and you will probably answer that you want to imagine something different. Why can't that different thing include partially authoring the setting? I don't see why only certain things become what 'you ought to be able to do'. I won't argue about preferences of course, but when you say 'nor should your character be able to...' and other similar statements they seem more like prescriptions than preferences.

 

[Aldarc]

If I'm writing, I'm neither talking nor listening - which means if I'm the GM the game would progress very much in a stop-start manner - something would be introduced into the fiction, then there'd be a hard stop while I wrote it down in enough detail to be useful (maybe years) later.

If you're actively listening, then you shouldn't be forgetting. As you are forgetting, then you likely weren't listening to begin with. That said, I don't think the stop would be particularly hard or any harder than players jotting down notes or adjustments on their character sheet. And if PCs are spending two hours talking between themselves about opening doors, then you should have plenty of time to write.

In theory this is true, and would be nice.

In practice I find it causes arguments when people's memories disagree over important details.

Just because I don't share your experiences doesn't mean that my experiences should be marginalized to "in theory" idealism. In practice, I find that this is rarely the case. So I suspect you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

In just about all cases other than RPGs I'd agree with you. But I see RPG rules as different, in that they're both changeable by the participants and are in many cases presented as soft guidelines rather than hard-and-fast rules.

Some RPGs (e.g. 3e D&D, PF1) try to lean in to a hard-rule-for-everything approach; and while this might work for purely gamist concerns it rather fights against creativity and imagination, in that it's far too easy both as player and GM to fall into the trap of "If there's not a rule for it, you can't try it".

I'm not a fan of explanations that rely on exceptionalism, because they beg to be disproven through evidence, and they often are as exceptionalism is seldom true. This is something, for example, Hasbro discovered when they did research on how people play Monopoly and the house rules people used. How many times when playing Uno with strangers is spent clarifying house rules? Or how about variations of sports, whether on the professional or amateur level? Hard and fast rules are often guidelines when it comes to a number of games. RPGs are not an exception. Stop trying to privilege your hobby.

But I think that you nevertheless miss my meaning. I think that rules and rules interactions should be meaningful. Rules get in the way, for example, every time that you roll the dice in PbtA because it forces a hard move or soft move by the GM or at least a new state of fiction. The rules get in the way when you play BitD because the rules require that the GM establishes the Position and Effect based upon the action of the PCs. But these rules create meaningful and purposeful game play, such that it cultivates a different experience from playing a D&D game of a thieves' guild in a city.

Upthread, @chaochou defined player agency, for present purposes, as being able to set and meaningfully pursue the PC's goals.

@Manbearcat defined it as being able to change the gamestate.

Talking in-character about how to open a door - especially if, in fact, the door is a perfectly ordinary door that leads nowhere of any interest to anyone at the table - is not either of those things.

That's not player agency. More like player agony!

Except in Burning Wheel where I set for my character's agenda as "No door shall remain unopened without first discussing it!"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't see how they don't all fall within a type. I mean, you LITERALLY right here defined the category! How can you criticize us for caring about this distinction? I mean, you can certainly have your definition of agency where players have agency by the mere fact that they have PCs in the game and play them. Fine, but can you not at least see that when that is the only thing the players have (at least formally) as a role within the game that there are many things they are excluded from, and that those things are pretty reasonably also considered under the rubric of 'agency'? I think that is a very reasonable position to take. Beyond that, again, we consider this distinction to be the one upon which we make a significant division between RPGs. So it isn't 'just lumping', it is focusing on what matters to us, and the distinction IS meaningful, regardless of what terminology you use.

Yes, it is a significant distinction. By fixating on this division you make your contributions irrelevant to overwhelming majority of people who play RPGs. The games where the players have significant mechanically-backed, narrative-level agency are fringe. And yes, pointing out that such games exist is fine, but but if you considering anything besides the players having mechanical narrative meta control not worth discussing, then we really have nothing to discuss regarding agency and you have nothing to discuss with most people playing RPGs. Because most games do not have such mechanics and they're not gonna.

And I think that by fixating on this one aspect, you ignore other aspects of how agency manifests, which are at least as important and are actually relevant to most games being played. Agency works pretty damn differently in a railroady adventure path, a narrative driven game where the GM improvises the narrative based on character actions and in a sandbox and those are the sort of differences that actually matter to most people.

Well, I am of the school of thought that games should be explicit about their process and agenda, and their mechanics. I mean, sure, we could play D&D this way, in an informal sense. Lots of people probably do! That is still not quite the same as explicitly playing a game which puts that into 'rules'. I tend to prefer the latter. Maybe, long ago, there was a time when I hadn't conceived of such mechanics (hadn't witnessed them in explicit enough form to realize they could exist, I'm no genius) and just saying "we're playing D&D like so" would have been the pinnacle of what I could think of. That day is long past, so something like 5e doesn't satisfy me anymore. I mean, I can play it, but that is more because I'm kind of easy-going when it comes right down to it, not because it is what I REALLY want from a game.

This is art vs engineering thing. You're an engineer, I am an artist. And neither is right or wrong. But I don't want my creative processes limited or defined by codified rules, they hinder me more than help. You obviously feel differently.

 

[nevin]

Yes, it is a significant distinction. By fixating on this division you make your contributions irrelevant to overwhelming majority of people who play RPGs. The games where the players have significant mechanically-backed, narrative-level agency are fringe. And yes, pointing out that such games exist is fine, but but if you considering anything besides the players having mechanical narrative meta control not worth discussing, then we really have nothing to discuss regarding agency and you have nothing to discuss with most people playing RPGs. Because most games do not have such mechanics and they're not gonna.

And I think that by fixating on this one aspect, you ignore other aspects of how agency manifests, which are at least as important and are actually relevant to most games being played. Agency works pretty damn differently in a railroady adventure path, a narrative driven game where the GM improvises the narrative based on character actions and in a sandbox and those are the sort of differences that actually matter to most people.


This is art vs engineering thing. You're an engineer, I am an artist. And neither is right or wrong. But I don't want my creative processes limited or defined by codified rules, they hinder me more than help. You obviously feel differently.

I think this post is a great illustration of the reason sometimes you get forum posts that never end. I'm in the too many rules hinder me more than help. It's just like Government. You get to a point where the rules are doing thier job almost perfectly but you keep adding stuff because there is an endess supply of people with suggestions and tweaks and one day you wake up and realize all the efficiency has been buried in bloat.
That's always the problem with a rules heavy game because the rules never stop growing. Until the company can't move in the system and then they make a new system.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If we move from metaphysics to sociology, it's clear to me that I - as described in my post upthread - have more agency than (say) a peasant farmer or a factory worker: it's true that the farmer has a degree of immediate control over their economic and social life that I lack (given I live in a mass society), but that immediate control is utterly blunted by the bigger picture inability of a peasant society to control its own conditions of existence. Conversely, the factory worker is part of a society that is able to exercise that sort of control, but s/he is not having much say over it. In that sense, at least, I'm a classic middle class intellectual.

Yes, you tool of the Capitalists!

I don't see that any of this has much bearing on the analysis of RPGing, though, for the reasons I and @Manbearcat have posted. RPGing is a leisure activity, like other gaming. Some games involve no agency beyond the choice to participate (eg Snakes and Ladders); others do. I don't really want my leisure time to be spent hearing what someone else thinks makes for an exciting fiction. I've got ideas of my own I'm keen to pursue!

Hence "if nothing has been written, to ad lib something as if it had been written up".

The fiction comes from somewhere. Either the player narrates it, or the GM narrates it. There are various ways to allocate that task, and to set constraints on it. What you are arguing for is unless the fiction is the player's character performing an action, the GM narrates it. So all the player can do is say I do X and then trigger the GM to say something in response.

As I said, it's a structured version of Dad, tell us a story about XYZ.

I don't know how the combat rules of games like D&D and Runequest fit into your model - I'm guessing that you don't resolve I attack the Orc with my spear by just expecting the GM to make something up in response, even though the Orc is (in the fiction) a part of the external world which is outside the character's control and hence, per your account, fictions about the Orc are to be established by the GM and not the player of the character.

I think the counterargument has two parts. Combat, and any other analogous subsystem, presents randomized inputs into the system, which some versions of D&D (pre-2e) present as being fairly sacrosanct (I think Gygax would say that the only license a DM has to fudge is if the rules produce a patently absurd result). Later versions famously tell the DM to fudge things, and other non-D&D games of this ilk take various positions, or more generally don't address the topic at all. So, the player has a right to expect that the details of if the orc hits, or of what happens when he climbs the cliff, are dependent on a factor which is out of all the game's participants control, chance. In some of these games the player may be empowered to either completely or partly obviate chance by virtue of some resource or specific 'power' granted to their character. Normally this would be flavored with some genre-appropriate in-game explanation, but again a few games allocate this as a player resource.

Outside of these randomization points, the DM simply dictates everything which happens, except the PC's in-game actions. Anything beyond that will then venture into the territory of 'players deciding game content'. The argument here, and above, being that player input in the form of the PC's actions is 'enough' to shape the narrative however they want, with the exception of whatever happens by chance. Of course, you and I and others disagree with that assertion, or at least it isn't satisfying enough.

 

[Aldarc]

By fixating on this division you make your contributions irrelevant to overwhelming majority of people who play RPGs. The games where the players have significant mechanically-backed, narrative-level agency are fringe. And yes, pointing out that such games exist is fine, but but if you considering anything besides the players having mechanical narrative meta control not worth discussing, then we really have nothing to discuss regarding agency and you have nothing to discuss with most people playing RPGs. Because most games do not have such mechanics and they're not gonna.

So how is conversation any more fruitful if you are not willing to consider anything besides the players having in-character control worth discussing? It comes across as hypocritical, no? Or is it not because argumentum ad populum? But this again reminds me of the argument that only wants to consider heteronormative families worth discussing while ignoring non-traditional families.

I think this post is a great illustration of the reason sometimes you get forum posts that never end. I'm in the too many rules hinder me more than help.

Just so we are clear, when most people here say that they like rules getting in the way, they are not necessarily advocating for rules-heavy games or mechanics-first games. Most PbtA and FitD games, for example, are lighter than 5e D&D. Instead, the idea of rules getting in the way is that the rules force new states of fiction and cultivate the game experience in particular ways. Or from this blog post:

The Rules Get In The Way​

I’ve used the phrase intentional design before and maybe it’s worth unpacking a bit more. This is the general trend I’m talking about: rules that purposefully create specific play experiences, and not just default to a “players try to beat the GM’s obstacles with a combination of capability and luck” frame. If you’re the sort of GM who prefers to present their story their way, new-school rules feel like they get in the way.

Personally? I love rules that get in the way. Rules can surprise me when I’m facilitating, which is both an exciting creative challenge and alleviates most prep. I’ve never had a good head for prepping with interesting combat or obstacles in mind, so those rules that are “in the way?” I’d rather put my creativity toward things other than balancing fights.

Intentional design shows up all over the place now and for various reasons: genre emulation, or strong emotional response, or enforcing tempo. Redistributing creative responsibilities in surprising ways. Gosh, even just to de-prioritize violence as the main way to get what we want.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Their ability to change the gamestate (in this case, by opening a door) isn't in question.

Might be different if the door was locked and they didn't have a key, but let's for these purposes say they've good reason to believe the door is unlocked (e.g. there is no lock present) and unbarred.

It is, in that they're talking about whether they want to change the gamestate or leave it as it is. And unless I-as-GM have something come through the door from the other side and force their hand (and, by the by, impinge a bit on their agency), it's entirely their decision to make.

It occurs to me that we have slightly differing notions of 'game state' here. I would say that opening a trivial door, for example, which leads to nothing, and doesn't change the fiction in any real way is, at best, an utterly trivial change. For practical purposes, working from the narrative fictional positioning perspective which is how I normally think of these games, it isn't really a change at all. In, say, 1e AD&D it might accrue some minor significance as some resources and a wandering monster check might take place. Even 2e lacks these processes and its ethos would fairly say "just get on with it."

So, you see 'agency' here, but I see nothing. Even if the door HAS significance, how it is opened is FAIRLY trivial and doesn't involve any real agency, given that the significance is the same no matter how it happens. Now it becomes part of the 'play to see what happens', and MAYBE it gains some kind of significance via some fiction (IE the warlock agrees to a favor for his patron if the patron provides help, or something like that). Even that last example is weak unless the relationship between patron and PC has significant valence for the player. I would say Tolkien's 'West Gate of Moria' scene doesn't seem like its fiction would support such a reading. It is just an incident, rather tense in the moment and then foreshadowing events to come. Kind of a classic D&D encounter really.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, it is a significant distinction. By fixating on this division you make your contributions irrelevant to overwhelming majority of people who play RPGs. The games where the players have significant mechanically-backed, narrative-level agency are fringe. And yes, pointing out that such games exist is fine, but but if you considering anything besides the players having mechanical narrative meta control not worth discussing, then we really have nothing to discuss regarding agency and you have nothing to discuss with most people playing RPGs. Because most games do not have such mechanics and they're not gonna.

Before I find out if I want to disagree with you on this, do you consider hero points land within this category?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think this post is a great illustration of the reason sometimes you get forum posts that never end. I'm in the too many rules hinder me more than help. It's just like Government. You get to a point where the rules are doing thier job almost perfectly but you keep adding stuff because there is an endess supply of people with suggestions and tweaks and one day you wake up and realize all the efficiency has been buried in bloat.
That's always the problem with a rules heavy game because the rules never stop growing. Until the company can't move in the system and then they make a new system.

And I'd argue this is an argument that can be made by anyone who wants less rules than other people do. There's always "rules bloat" claims by somebody unless a game is so light to almost be schematic.