A Question Of Agency?

[Manbearcat]

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.


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

On the first paragraph, I need some clarity:

Is it your opinion that if you don't have complete autonomy over a thing/situation then there is no agency erected? If you're not saying that, but you are saying that x % autonomy is required, then what value (obviously roughly) is x?

On your 2nd paragraph, that is precisely why I invoked The Czege Principle and Ouija Board play. If (a) you get to decide if a thing you care about is tested and (b) the outcome of the test is 100 % volitional, then where is the crucible? If there is no crucible then there is no test. There is just moving a planchette across a board and pretending there is some external volitional force at work and the attendant theatrics.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I don't know PV, so I cannot say what the actual mechanic is there, but I can certainly imagine a game where it is decided by the GM, as framing, that "Your character's lust is aroused by the Queen." OK, so you decide you're not going to give in to that, and this is established as a fact by your choice (just like you could go left at a T intersection). That doesn't mean their won't be consequences! "Your heart pines for your love, you can't focus on your sword practice, you take a -1 to all attacks." I mean, maybe that's a bit simplistic, but... It is better even if it is a story thing, "The King invites his greatest knight to the tournament, and when you don't appear the Queen's honor is sullied." etc. At no point is the character FORCED to do something. You might also be able to establish that you have purified your soul and purged yourself of these base feelings through some sort of action declarations which succeed. I don't know, these are things that I can imagine happening in a game of this sort and none of them involve forcing anyone's character to do anything.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Well, no. I'm not trying to render judgment on any style of play. My earliest RPG play was Basic D&D followed quickly by AD&D. We made characters, we went into the dungeon to kill monsters and take their stuff. I would not say this was mindless hack and slash because it was incredibly formative for me and many of my friends. It also involved a great deal of problems solving and a pretty strong imagination.

None of our characters in those games had any overt indications to the DM about what we'd like to see happen in play, or what our characters goals would be, beyond the default assumption of "accrue treasure and magic loot, grow in power and influence".

The fact that later games have said to give these things to characters, but have to varying degrees actually provided some framework for them is another matter entirely.

Also, I've played plenty of games where I create a character and play doesn't necessarily revolve around his goals or anything. I don't think that means I'm not playing a character.....it just means the focus of play is elsewhere, most likely some common goal shared by the group. those games are perfectly worthwhile for me and I enjoy them. Would I say that they're high on player agency? Nope.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't know PV, so I cannot say what the actual mechanic is there, but I can certainly imagine a game where it is decided by the GM, as framing, that "Your character's lust is aroused by the Queen."

If one could decide of their own volition whether their character lusts after the queen doesn’t that result in more agency than not being able to make that decision at all?

The choice will have meaningful consequences or at least potentially so. In other words, framing in circumstances like you indicated above do take away a players agency.

 

[Manbearcat]

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?"

Ive seen this before.

Here is what I’ll say on it:

1) I think it’s a little too abstracted and “fun” isn’t remotely concrete enough of a marker. Where it has use is if you sub out "isn't fun" and sub in "isn't tested and therefore there can be no 'meaningful decisions' because 'meaningful decisions' in games require (a) a premise and (b) extra-volitional opposition."

2) Authorship means no (b). However, if there is (b) (again, assuming (a) exists), then we have a test and downstream meaningful decisions that will distill whatever is relevant to the premise (even if the player has input into the initial framing; eg "player-authored kicker in indie games").

 

[FrogReaver]

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?)

Seems like a rather narrow definition of meaningful.

Whether it’s objectively meaningful or just meaningful to me, it matters to me how my character plays. If something is going to force my character to play or think or feel a certain way it is removing from me a meaningful choice, aka agency.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

On the first paragraph, I need some clarity:

Is it your opinion that if you don't have complete autonomy over a thing/situation then there is no agency erected? If you're not saying that, but you are saying that x % autonomy is required, then what value (obviously roughly) is x?

I hope I understood you correctly. Of course agency over certain thing can be partial, and if that was a thing you want to have agency over, more is better! Now if we are talking about internal life of the character, as a player, I prefer to have almost complete control. Now some brief, passing 'guiding'* influences might be tolerable, but things that somehow permanently alter my character's values, personality etc without my approval would be a no go.

*By this I mean a situation where the character is briefly affected in some way, and this might make doing some things harder, (or easier) but ultimately I get to decide how I handle it.

On your 2nd paragraph, that is precisely why I invoked The Czege Principle and Ouija Board play. If (a) you get to decide if a thing you care about is tested and (b) the outcome of the test is 100 % volitional, then where is the crucible? If there is no crucible then there is no test. There is just moving a planchette across a board and pretending there is some external volitional force at work and the attendant theatrics.

But you don't get to decide when it is tested, as you don't control the world nor do you control the other players, and all these may challenge your values. A crude example: A character has a value X and belief Y. A situation arises where following belief Y would lead them to violate value X. Though of course it is usually far more subtler and more complicated than that. A lot of LARPs run solely on this: characters interacting with other characters that are written to challenge their values and beliefs. (Come to think of it, a lot of reality TV shows choose their contestants based on this same principle...)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Seems like a rather narrow definition of meaningful.

Whether it’s objectively meaningful or just meaningful to me, it matters to me how my character plays. If something is going to force my character to play or think or feel a certain way it is removing from me a meaningful choice, aka agency.

Yeah, this too. Very succinct.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

The point is, the game cannot be ABOUT those things, unless there is some arrangement wherein the test of them is the function of one participant in the game, and the formulation and motive to resolve/explore them comes from a different participant (Czege Principle). In a 5e game you can say that your character wants to "Avenge his father" and make that a central motivation, but unless you can actually put that to test within the fiction (IE will you let the orphans burn in order to track your father's killer) then it isn't really central. In this example it cannot happen unless either the GM adds this content to play, or the player somehow evokes it via mechanics/process.

I mean, sure, RPGs don't need to test anything about the character, but then what is the character to the story? It is just a 'game piece', right? I mean this would be very true if all your abilities, AC, HP, etc. didn't matter and combat was decided by a coin toss, or by narrative description. It is equally true about the PC's beliefs and personality. If they are only addressed by narrative description or by happenstance, then they really don't matter. At best they will be minor factors in the game. Only by testing them, and for the same reason we have a combat system mechanics are beneficial here.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

Why do we have a combat system in D&D? The 'test' can be a narrative one, can it not?