A Question Of Agency?

[FrogReaver]

A couple things for you to consider that I think your thoughts on might be helpful. Its about (a) "system dictating how the player must feel certainly is a huge imposition on the player agency" and (b) agency isn't about unbridled autonomy (agency requires a level of constraint, focus, and distillation...eg without walls and obstacles in a dungeon and without the premise of treasure extraction without being slain there is no "meaningful" agency being executed in a Moldvay Basic dungeon crawl...see (2) below):

1) I believe you wanted to invoke agency in the external world earlier but you were rebuffed or no one engaged. Now might be a time to do so. I'm going to put to the side for a moment the present consensus in neuro/cognitive science on when the frontal cortex comes online when executing a decision-tree (which has huge implications on perceived agency). Our perception of our autonomy over our internal workings does not comport with what is actually happening. The endocrine system has a significant role to play in our execution of our decision-trees. Emotional or physical damage (a concussion or lesion/tumor on the brain's infrastructure or the feedback loop of despair or some other form of emotional trauma and philosophical fallout).

What do you think about system architecture simulating these inputs?

I’ll answer for me. I disagree with current theories. However, It is irrelevant to a discussion of agency. It doesn’t matter how things happen in the real world. I don’t play an rpg to emulate real world processes.

2) It seems to me that having absolute autonomy over your internal workings is, from first principles, an interesting violation of the Czege Principle in any game that cares at all about testing your beliefs/ethos, instincts, and nature. If you have absolute autonomy over these things...then any "test" is the equivalent of playing at Ouija Board. Its all theatrics, pantomime, characterization. Its the illusion of a crucible rather than an actual one.

No?

But rpgs don’t have to test those things, at least not directly and definitely not using mechanical resolution.

The question I would use: Is my choice about those things meaningful to how my character plays? If so then that is a meaningful choice which is at the heart of agency.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's not. It is how people actually experience these things and is at the core of many of the disagreements here. If your contextual framework do not correspond to actual experience of the players, it is worthless for discussing games.

People also think they experience centrifugal force, but there's no such thing, it's a misinterpretation of inertia and centripetal force. Same here, thinking there's different types of agency in RPGs is a misinterpretation, usually due to ingrained thought processes, and not actually because there's different types of agency. There's only one agency -- the player's. And, I say this because, just a few short years ago, I'd have been on your side of the argument (and was, I believe). I made similar arguments, but, on reflection, I found them unable to withstand scrutiny.

In specific, you're referring to the agency to determine your character's "inner life." The issues here are that this is just window dressing -- it doesn't invoke agency. It doesn't because nothing in the gamestate changes regardless of how hard you imagine your character's inner life. It's only when you engage the game with an action declaration that agency is invoked, so there's no such thing as agency over your character's "inner life" in this regard.

The second angle of attack you've deployed is that it's a loss of agency to have aspects of your character be placed in question or at risk. This is fundamentally flawed because of course aspects of your character are placed at risk all the time else you don't even have a game. Hitpoints are placed at risk. Equipment is placed at risk (those terrible rust monsters!). Etc. The issue here isn't a difference in a kind of agency, but a confusion that beliefs and desires are somehow a different category. This is the ingrained thought process showing up, because D&D has long established that this is an area that game just doesn't address at all. It's not that it's a special area, or needs special treatment, but just a choice in design that's now been internalized as an important distinction. And, it is, in that it's a clear delineation about what the game will be about. D&D will not be about being unexpected turned on by something else (well, it is, but it's usually lampshaded by "magic"), but instead about your character's physical well-being in dangerous situations. That's it -- it's not a special kind of agency, it's just a design decision about the themes of the game. Character emotions are no more sacrosanct than hitpoints. It's preference that makes the difference here, not a unique subcategory of agency.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A couple things for you to consider that I think your thoughts on might be helpful. Its about (a) "system dictating how the player must feel certainly is a huge imposition on the player agency" and (b) agency isn't about unbridled autonomy (agency requires a level of constraint, focus, and distillation...eg without walls and obstacles in a dungeon and without the premise of treasure extraction without being slain there is no "meaningful" agency being executed in a Moldvay Basic dungeon crawl...see (2) below):

1) I believe you wanted to invoke agency in the external world earlier but you were rebuffed or no one engaged. Now might be a time to do so. I'm going to put to the side for a moment the present consensus in neuro/cognitive science on when the frontal cortex comes online when executing a decision-tree (which has huge implications on perceived agency). Our perception of our autonomy over our internal workings does not comport with what is actually happening. The endocrine system has a significant role to play in our execution of our decision-trees. Emotional or physical damage (a concussion or lesion/tumor on the brain's infrastructure or the feedback loop of despair or some other form of emotional trauma and philosophical fallout).

What do you think about system architecture simulating these inputs?

That it is pointless. It is quite likely that everything we do, every feeling, every decision is due a deterministic physical systems (or random physical systems depending on your chosen interpretation of quantum theory) and to take this to logical extent we might as well simulate the character fully with random charts and the player becoming just a spectator.

2) It seems to me that having absolute autonomy over your internal workings is, from first principles, an interesting violation of the Czege Principle in any game that cares at all about testing your beliefs/ethos, instincts, and nature. If you have absolute autonomy over these things...then any "test" is the equivalent of playing at Ouija Board. Its all theatrics, pantomime, characterization. Its the illusion of a crucible rather than an actual one.

No?

The 'test' can be a narrative one, rather than mechanical one. It happens via interacting with the environment and the other characters.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It sure as heck has sounded as though in Monsterhearts another player could choose to pull my character's strings. Since there is no way in hell I will play that game I'll have to leave an answer for that for those as have played it. I figure @pemerton will correct my misapprehensions about Burning Wheel.

In Fate, taking a Consequence (I think that's the term--it's at least the idea, and I don't feel like digging out my Fate books) is IIRC usually the result of a conflict, as a concession to avoid being Taken Out (removed from play, possibly but not necessarily killed); so the player has agency to accept the deal, but after that needs to live with the result--which might be a change to an Aspect important to the player--for ... some time (it's in the rules, I forget, I don't want to dig the books out).

As to which PC has more agency ... A risky action is a risky action, and they both chose to take that (enter the conflict/combat), so the difference in agency comes after the combat. A dead PC (probably) has no agency, but if the PCs don't die, I'd be inclined to say the player in 5E has more agency after the conflict--mainly because of how Compels work in Fate, and any Fate GM worth his salt would want to hammer on that unwanted Aspect mercilessly.

So I didn't mean for my post to sound as challenging as it may have. I asked because I'm not entirely sure how those rules in those games work. My familiarity with Fate is very minimal. I've played PbtA games, but not Monsterhearts specifically. And Burning Wheel is a game I haven't played ever. My understanding of these games is largely limited to what I hear in these discussions, and my understanding is that generally speaking, there can be consequences that could impact ideas or beliefs and such, but I honestly am not sure exactly how they work.

Sure. Monsterhearts 2 (p.18).

Honestly, I don't know if I see this as being a huge infringement on PC concept or beliefs, as described here. Although, I think perhaps I would need to know more about Strings and what they do to fully comprehend.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To me it would feel as a serious removal of agency.

I think it depends on the specifics and how it comes about in play.

I don't really like those magical abilities. But they're pretty rare. And them being magical makes them indeed less bad in a sense that they're effectively an external force. The mechanics that force my character to feel or behave in a certain way feel like mind control to me, and it is less jarring when they are actual mind control in the fiction too! But anything that takes away the control of the character from the player should IMHO be used super sparingly.

Liking them or not, sparingly or not, they exist. The game that is being put forth as an example of this concept of player agency meaning absolute control of the PC has built in rules that remove or suppress that.

Now, you don't like it, I get that and I understand why. I'd also likely suggest they be used sparingly, generally speaking, unless loss of control or similar themes were a big part of play. Monsterhearts using this kind of stuff to represent raging hormones is pretty thematic.

That may mean that game isn't for everyone....and I get that. I'm guessing so did the designers.

Ask the player, it's their character. Sounds super boring to me, but whatever. And if there truly was a player who was not interested portraying their character as real person who is affected by things that happen to them, I have hard time imagining that any mechanics would be much of help.

I mean, from some of the examples here, it absolutely sounds like there are plenty of folks who don't want there to be any risk of someone else telling them something true about their PC. Which is fine. Whether mechanics may help.....I mean, I don't know if that player would like it, but if there were mechanics, then yes, I'd expect it to come into play.

If such a person tried such a game, they may indeed say "Yeah, I had a feeling this wasn't for me". But it's possible they could say "this is actually a pretty interesting angle."

Who knows?

That is one way to make things meaningful, but not the only one. Furthermore, I think you demonstrated in your earlier example an excellent narrative way to represent the risk; create situations which test the characters values. That is the way to do it, no mechanics needed.

Sure, but the mechanic was that the belief was stated openly and clearly as part of the character, same as alignment or race or whatever else. Yes, games can do this without any mechanic or character trait....but they would require the player and GM to discuss the matter openly. Then the GM will know to put that belief to the test.

 

[Manbearcat]

I’ll answer for me. I disagree with current theories. However, It is irrelevant to a discussion of agency. It doesn’t matter how things happen in the real world. I don’t play an rpg to emulate real world processes.


But rpgs don’t have to test those things, at least not directly and definitely not using mechanical resolution.

The question I would use: Is my choice about those things meaningful to how my character plays? If so then that is a meaningful choice which is at the heart of agency.

On the first part, I brought that up because I’m fairly certain CL brought that up early and (a) I believe it was because he was smuggling “immersion as coefficient to agency” into the calculus and (b) it was relevant to my point (2).

On the second part, this is where “meaningful” comes in. I don’t agree that “meaningful” is subjective when it comes to game theory. It can easily be sussed out what it means in any given situation (and it relates to the Czege Principle). It’s not a moral judgement.

“Meaningful” connotes an actual trial or crucible about a thing staked (which presumably is either THE premise or A significant premise of play). For this we need (a) framing/framework, (b) one or more obstacles/adversity/sources of antagonism, and (c) means (of which we don’t possess autonomy over) to resolve what happens when our guile/guts/will/skill collide with (a) and (b).

I think we can all agree that maps onto dungeon-crawls with its walls and traps and puzzles and monsters and loadout and resolution procedures. From the intersection of this crucible, our decisions are tested and given meaning (through this crucible we can derive if we are sufficiently skilled or not).

Why can’t this formula be mapped elsewhere; through this crucible we can derive if my PC’s brother is a hero or a scoundrel and then how my PC now perceives his brother and/or the nature of heroes ad scoundrels?)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

People also think they experience centrifugal force, but there's no such thing, it's a misinterpretation of inertia and centripetal force. Same here, thinking there's different types of agency in RPGs is a misinterpretation, usually due to ingrained thought processes, and not actually because there's different types of agency. There's only one agency -- the player's. And, I say this because, just a few short years ago, I'd have been on your side of the argument (and was, I believe). I made similar arguments, but, on reflection, I found them unable to withstand scrutiny.

Your attempts to control the language and impose your worldview is not helpful and makes discussion more difficult. (Also inertial forces are useful concepts for discussing physics.)

In specific, you're referring to the agency to determine your character's "inner life." The issues here are that this is just window dressing -- it doesn't invoke agency. It doesn't because nothing in the gamestate changes regardless of how hard you imagine your character's inner life. It's only when you engage the game with an action declaration that agency is invoked, so there's no such thing as agency over your character's "inner life" in this regard.

'Gamestate' is here used as another way to arbitrarily divide thing that happen in game to those that matter and those that do, according to the preferences of the speaker, in attempt to represent a subjective judgement as a basis of something objective.

The second angle of attack you've deployed is that it's a loss of agency to have aspects of your character be placed in question or at risk. This is fundamentally flawed because of course aspects of your character are placed at risk all the time else you don't even have a game. Hitpoints are placed at risk. Equipment is placed at risk (those terrible rust monsters!). Etc. The issue here isn't a difference in a kind of agency, but a confusion that beliefs and desires are somehow a different category. This is the ingrained thought process showing up, because D&D has long established that this is an area that game just doesn't address at all. It's not that it's a special area, or needs special treatment, but just a choice in design that's now been internalized as an important distinction. And, it is, in that it's a clear delineation about what the game will be about. D&D will not be about being unexpected turned on by something else (well, it is, but it's usually lampshaded by "magic"), but instead about your character's physical well-being in dangerous situations. That's it -- it's not a special kind of agency, it's just a design decision about the themes of the game. Character emotions are no more sacrosanct than hitpoints. It's preference that makes the difference here, not a unique subcategory of agency.

Whether they're 'different types of agency' or 'agency over different types of things' is meaningless semantics. The distinctions are nevertheless experienced, thus they're real.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, but the mechanic was that the belief was stated openly and clearly as part of the character, same as alignment or race or whatever else. Yes, games can do this without any mechanic or character trait....but they would require the player and GM to discuss the matter openly. Then the GM will know to put that belief to the test.

I mean it requires the character to be an actual, well a character, to have personality, values etc and the GM to be aware of what these are. Which to me seems like a pretty standard assumption in any RPG that is not some sort of utterly mindless hack and slash.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

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

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

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.

This feels a bit overblown to me. I mean, I've been playing this type of games for 12 years now, and I have almost never had a case where a character's thoughts were dictated by the result of resolving a check, a GM framing, etc. @pemerton had an example of a charm spell, and of a situation in Prince Valiant where this kind of thing came up. I'm sure we could come up with charms and dominations and whatnot in D&D as well. We're going to run into these in years of play, but they don't form the mainstay of play, of any type. In fact I'd say the Prince Valiant example is pretty significant here, in that it illustrates that this stuff comes up in games WHICH ARE FOCUSED ON IT. The whole subject is very applicable to Arthurian Romance, Le Morte d'Artur is FILLED with characters possessed by lust, or magic, or whatever, its a trope! That trope is far less likely, usually never does, show up in most other games (when would it show up in Traveller for instance, basically never).

I think that we can thus conclude that it isn't a 'type of agency' which is 'disabling' anything. It is a specific genre element of certain games, and one that you would thus accept as a possibility when playing in that genre. Nor does it remove all ability to play your character, it simply imposes an obstacle, a challenge which the player needs to figure out how to overcome or factor into the character's story somehow. Launcelot can still run around and do knightly things, even if he's lusting after the Queen. The player just has to decide if he'll act on those feelings, or not, and if not he may need to validate that with some mechanics perhaps? I don't know PV well enough to know how that works.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Aside: I saw the Czege Principle get invoked a few times over the course of the thread, and I just want to say that current designers don't really take it as a given anymore (if it ever was, I don't know). In particular, solo RPGs are growing in popularity, and if I understand the formulation of "When one person is the author of both the character's adversity and its resolution, play isn't fun" correctly, those games completely fly in the Czege Principle's face.

Not sure what implications this aside has for the current discussion of agency, vaguely feeling there may be a thread to pull here but not sure what it is.

Supporting quote, with relevant text reposted below:

"In my opinion, there have been a wealth of amazing solo RPGs that have effectively challenged the Czege Principle. Creative answers have emerged to the question, "how CAN it be fun for a player to introduce and resolve their own opposition?"