A Question Of Agency?

[FrogReaver]

This. It's playing to find out what happens, and sometimes your values, beliefs, and feelings may get squeezed through the ringer as part of play.

All rpgs are about playing to find out what happens...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Okay, let's go with this, let's say "meaningful choices" is subjective (not conceding the point, just for argument). Can we not then say that, even with the subjectiveness of "meaningful choices" that a game that requires GM approval of player choices must necessarily have fewer "meaningful choices" than a game where players can choose at least some things without GM approval, and therefore less agency, regardless of how you choose to subjectively value "meaningful choices?" Unless you're engaged in bad faith defining that "meaningful choices" has no relation to the words used in the term, this argument falls to the same problem the one that doesn't depend on asserting "meaningful choices" is subjective. I can look at a situation where I must have permission of a GM, even one that is a benevolent dictator and fair, to realize my choice and say that I have less agency here than if I don't have to have the permission of the GM -- if, say, some fair mechanic was employed. That's not the only way this can happen, of course, but as an example it illustrates that the argument that agency is subjective fails because I don't need to rely on the part you deem subjective to arrive at the same conclusion.

We cannot automatically say that, because same way than to some weighing the choices against the game mechanics is what gives them the meaning, to others weighing them against the world controlled by the GM gives them the meaning.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is what I was trying to hint at with my previous post. That enabling one preferred type of agency actually diminishes another type of agency.

No such thing. Arguments about types of agency are splitting hairs -- they all reduce to the agency of the participants.

You do not have agency over your characters thoughts and feelings if the game system puts those things at risk.

Absolutely untrue. This is like saying that you cannot have agency over your character if your character is put at risk. It fails at first principles. Of course I can have agency over a thing that is at risk.

You do not have agency for optimal play if the game system puts at risk the fictional elements before you.

I'm not following this -- given everything discussed is a fictional element and those are put at risk, this seems like you intend a much more narrow subset of things, but I can't tell what that might be -- or rather, I'm not going to guess.

That is enabling one type of agency often disabled a different type. This is why I say that these other playstyle don’t actually allow more agency. That just allow different types of agency at the expense of other types.

There is, again, no different types of agency. There may be different areas you can exercise agency, but that becomes a fraught argument in relation to an imagined fiction. What I think is happening in this argument is that you're trading agency for other considerations, but then calling those agency. For example, the granularity of 5e combat doesn't increase my agency over the much less granular combat of Blades, it's just a more fidgety systems. One I happen to enjoy, immensely, and why I still advocate and play 5e when I have other options.

 

[Ovinomancer]

All rpgs are about playing to find out what happens...

Nope, this is ignoring the context of that phrase. "Play to find out what happens," means no one at the table knows what play will be about until it gets there. What you're implying is that we don't know if this fight against the Quantum Ogre the GM Forced using Illusionism will result in the PCs winning or losing. At least one player knows what play will be about, here -- the GM. They are not "playing to find out."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It depends on the nature of what is being talked about.

If I craft a belief or a goal for my PC, that's me putting that thing out into the game, right? Does it mean that I will absolutely get what I want? Or does it mean that I may struggle with my belief, or that I may fail to reach my goal?

If a player actively hands the GM something and says "I want my play to revolve around this thing" is it robbing the player's agency for the GM to put that thing at risk? Maybe the GM puts that goal in opposition to another that comes up in play and puts the PCs conviction to the test; which goal is more important to them?

So.....my PC wants to save his brother. Maybe there's a Belief or an Ideal indicated on the character sheet that says something like "I'll do whatever it takes to find and save my brother." The PC's adventures lead him to a confrontation with a member of the cult that the brother ran off with. The cultist seeks to escape by setting fire to an orphanage. He then runs off. My PC can decide to chase him, or can stop and put out the fire, knowing that the cultist will escape.

This (admittedly hastily sketched) scenario puts my PC's belief directly into question. Will the PC actually "do anything"? Or are there limits to what he will do, or what he will allow to happen through inaction on his part? This may actually alter my perception of the PC. Maybe I'm surprised to find that yes.....yes indeed he will do whatever it takes, and he runs off from the burning orphanage. Or maybe that's what I had always expected, but through play, I've realized that my PC has a sentimental streak and he stops to save the kids, letting the possible lead on his brother slip through his fingers.

Whether or not beliefs remain intact, or goals are achieved is something that we find out through play, right? This goes back to the idea of risky play. It's not about controlling every single aspect of a PC.

This all sounds very cool, and I have nothing against this sort of play. The sort of moral conflicts that challenge the characters values are one of my favourite things. But you know what would ruin this scenario for me? That instead of me, the player, making that fateful choice to have my character either to compromise his beliefs or follow them and become a monster, there was some game mechanic that made that choice for me. That is what I was talking about.

 

[Ovinomancer]

We cannot automatically say that, because same way than to some weighing the choices against the game mechanics is what gives them the meaning, to others weighing them against the world controlled by the GM gives them the meaning.

And you've arrived at my argument, although I don't think you see it because you're still arguing that the issue is being unable to determine relative levels of agency. Instead, we can clearly see the agency -- you've even agreed to this here. What's different is how we then value that agency. That's absolutely subjective. The relative levels of agency is observational and valid, but whether or not you care about that is entirely subjective. This has been a point repeated hammered throughout the thread -- it's perfectly fine to enjoy games with less agency. Otherwise, I'd never play Gloomhaven or 5e, and yet I relish both. It's not because my evaluation of the amounts of agency involved is in any way subjective -- it's not, I can explain clearly the differences using the same metrics. What's different is how much I value those differences, which, in these case, is not much because of the other things these games provide.

 

[pemerton]

How? How the character's beliefs do not affect the characterisation and portrayal of the character?

Do you know what Beliefs are in Burning Wheel? And how they work?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Do you know what Beliefs are in Burning Wheel? And how they work?

No. But I suspect that they have some sort of a close correlation to the beliefs that the character has...

 

[Ovinomancer]

Look, there's no "gotcha" waiting behind the point that some games have more or less agency than others. This should be trivially obvious. The issue here is that, for whatever reason, people are choosing to take a statement about relative agency as insulting or belittling to their choice of game. This isn't true, though, and as someone that enjoys the same game but can acknowledge the relative difference in agency, it should be obvious that it isn't.

Unless, of course, you think that I just enjoy insulting myself? I don't, but that's an interesting take.

But, back to the lack of a "gotcha." The acknowledgement says nothing at all about you or your game. It can only ever say anything about a person making a choice, and all that is said there is that they prefer a thing or not.

 

[FrogReaver]

This all sounds very cool, and I have nothing against this sort of play. The sort of moral conflicts that challenge the characters values are on e of my favourite things. But you know what would ruin this scenario for me? That instead of me, the player, making that fateful choice to have my character either to compromise his beliefs or follow them and become a monster, there was some game mechanic that made that choice for me. That is what I was talking about.

Or to put it another way. There is no agency without choice. If a player cannot choose Something then he has no agency over that something.