A Question Of Agency?

[Ovinomancer]

Pointing out that what I’m suggesting lacks agency of some type doesn’t show what you are suggesting doesn’t lack agency of some other type.

Keep in mind my argument is that there are many types of player agency and many of these are mutually exclusive.

Name two mutually exclusive forms of player agency.

 

[FrogReaver]

Name two mutually exclusive forms of player agency.

What kind of a question is this coming from one who doesn’t even believe there are multiple types of player agency

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Funny you should mention that. In one of the 5E campaigns I'm running, a player decided his character was going to want to avenge his whole family. First information appeared in Session Five. The party killed the thing that killed his family in Session 41. They're now (as of Session 65) working their way up the food chain, working to fix something connected to what killed his family (a greater wrong than that, probably). Yes, that campaign is going exceptionally well, but it's clearly within the range of what 5E can do.

I'd be inclined to say the party has been tested, in their various goals and ideals, even without using the relatively weak mechanics in 5E for doing so (and they are weak, and I don't like them). I think the in-story resolutions were more satisfying than if they'd been triggered mechanically--but then, I would, and others will of course have other preferences/tastes.

Oh, I don't think it is impossible, or that hard, for a GM and players to 'figure it out', I just don't get why there is so much opposition to mechanics which can be applied to these things. There really are some aspects of this that cannot easily be handled the way you are talking about either. Those would include situations where the PC has some sort of idea or feeling imposed on them (the Launcelot example). You cannot explore that without some kind of process. Again, sufficiently 'woke' game participants could negotiate it, but its like why I asked if combat can be narrated. Sure, it CAN, but it virtually never is, and the reason is it just doesn't produce tension. It is also too hard to be objective about. GMs need the impartiality of the dice to produce that real danger of character death. Its hard to imagine a DM and players just narrating a TPK, right?

 

[prabe]

Oh, I don't think it is impossible, or that hard, for a GM and players to 'figure it out', I just don't get why there is so much opposition to mechanics which can be applied to these things. There really are some aspects of this that cannot easily be handled the way you are talking about either. Those would include situations where the PC has some sort of idea or feeling imposed on them (the Launcelot example). You cannot explore that without some kind of process. Again, sufficiently 'woke' game participants could negotiate it, but its like why I asked if combat can be narrated. Sure, it CAN, but it virtually never is, and the reason is it just doesn't produce tension. It is also too hard to be objective about. GMs need the impartiality of the dice to produce that real danger of character death. Its hard to imagine a DM and players just narrating a TPK, right?

I think the answer to your puzzlement is in your post, here, and the broad subject of the thread: I think many players (I'm one) would find the long-term imposition of a mental state--such as Launcelot being unable to resist loving Guinevere, and unable to resist acting on it--on their character to be an unacceptable removal of agency. Some--I'll admit I'm one--maybe find that sort of lack-of-control too reminiscent of their real lives, and play (among other reasons) so they can control something in ways they can't in reality. As you say, it's not difficult to figure out how to put character goals at risk without such impositions.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you get to decide you lust after the Queen, and then choose how to resolve that lust, how is that anything but just the equivalent of saying "there's a sack of gold on the floor." and then "I pick it up." Sure, that is depicting your greediness I guess? I mean, there's nothing wrong with a player deciding to go for something, but then someone else needs to resolve what happens, right? You need a test, maybe you can seduce her, or maybe not! But what if you want to resist the temptation? Your formulation doesn't really allow for any meaningful exploration of that. Your character is no more exploring 'altruism' because he passes up the gold you invented on the floor, than he is if he passes on his lust for the Queen.

One or the other, the lust or the resolution of the lust, must be handled by another agency, and since there are things at stake we usually commit at least some of that to a roll of the dice (not all games do this of course). I mean, I see nothing wrong with a player just 'doing color' by saying "My character thinks the Queen is hot, he's going to go take a shower." but big wow?

Seems pretty trivial to depict your character as lusting after the queen but trying to keep himself in check.

Or to pass altogether given that the king beheads those who look lustfully upon the queen.

in any event I’ve lost agency if I don’t get to make such meaningful character choices.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Hey, if you just want to throw out things like "control the language" and not participate, be my guest, but please don't blame me for clearly stating my position, or accuse me of vaguely sinister things like "attempts to control the language." This looks paranoid.

You are trying to define terms so that they support your narrative. And it is not helpful. It is helpful for me to be able to say 'I care a lot about agency over the mental states of my character,' most people understand pretty clearly what I mean, this is a sensible use of language.

Also, there's no such thing as inertia forces. Nor are they useful for discussing physics -- this is how centrifugal force persists.

Inertial forces may not be real forces but they're real concepts. In physics that indeed is meaningful distinction, but when we are talking something like games, that that are purely social constructs, that is not. There is no 'real agency' it is not a physical thing, it is just a concept.

I... uh... I'm actually struck momentarily speechless by this claim. You're saying that what's happening in the game is an arbitrary division from some other, non-game thing, that you want to be part of the game, but not part of the game? I can't even follow this.

Gamestate is just shorthand for holistically referring to what's going on in the game. However hard you imagine what your character is thinking, though, this isn't part of the game until you actualize it in the game. You may think you're playing the game, but you're just imagining things (literally). The game doesn't care, nor does anyone else, until and unless you introduce it to the game. That's the only place where you can then evaluate agency -- does your introduction result in agency for you, the player? Most of the time, it doesn't. I mean, talking in funny voices with the other players is hella fun, I love it, but it doesn't do anything agency wise within the game -- it's, in fact, a meta-game of entertaining your friends, which you can do with or without the RPG you're playing. It's just freeform roleplay, for the most part. It only impact agency in the game when you provide an action that the game can operate on. I love acting out characters, but this isn't agency -- the game certainly doesn't allow or disallow it. Just like the Monopoly discussion earlier -- a funny voice and some characterization does not add agency to Monopoly.

Dude, the whole game is just people imagining things! That's like the whole bloody point! The game doesn't exist outside the imagination of the players. That my character is feeling sad is exactly equally valid 'game state' than an imaginary door being locked, and another character saying something to cheer my character up is just as valid alteration of a gamestate than a rogue picking the lock of that door by making a skill check.

 

[FrogReaver]

Maybe I should pose this question. Why would anyone not want to play in a game where they have agency over their characters mental/emotional states?

To me it seems the only reason one wouldn’t want that in a game is it was mutually exclusive with some other kind of agency they preferred more.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What kind of a question is this coming from one who doesn’t even believe there are multiple types of player agency

If you can't answer, that's okay.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You are trying to define terms so that they support your narrative. And it is not helpful. It is helpful for me to be able to say 'I care a lot about agency over the mental states of my character,' most people understand pretty clearly what I mean, this is a sensible use of language.

I'm not sure what you mean by defining terms specifically. I look at what you wrote and clearly read it as "I care about having full authority over the mental states of my character." This is a fine statement, absolutely nothing wrong with it as a preference, it just doesn't have anything to do with agency because there's nothing at stake to make a choice about -- it's empty calories. It's also incorrect, in that I'm certain you haven't banned or refuse to play in games that feature Charm, Suggestion, Domination, or other effects/spells which rather forcefully usurp this authority you're referencing.

So, no, it's not about redefining things -- I've been very steady in all my used definitions from the start of this thread, and explained their underpinnings. It's that you're using agency in ways where you just mean you have final authority, except when you don't but those cases are okay because you're used to them.

Inertial forces may not be real forces but they're real concepts. In physics that indeed is meaningful distinction, but when we are talking something like games, that that are purely social constructs, that is not. There is no 'real agency' it is not a physical thing, it is just a concept.

No, they're not real concepts. Inertia is a concept. It's not a force. There's no concept of inertial force. Physics doesn't use anything like "inertial forces." Agency is a concept, but this is a hasty generalization. Agency existing as a concept does not provide any substance to a different claim.

Dude, the whole game is just people imagining things! That's like the whole bloody point! The game doesn't exist outside the imagination of the players. That my character is feeling sad is exactly equally valid 'game state' than an imaginary door being locked, and another character saying something to cheer my character up is just as valid alteration of a gamestate than a rogue picking the lock of that door by making a skill check.

Let's unpack this. The game involves imagination, but it isn't imaginary. There are rules that are not imagined as part of the game, for instance. If we want to change the game, ie, that game involving those rules, then we have to act within those rules. You imagining your character is sad has no weight within any RPG without an action involving the rules. It is a separate thing. A different game, which is what I said about this being a meta-game where you entertain your friends but don't invoke the game rules. Now, if you state that your character is sad, and this imposes a gamestate within the rules that other players can interact with with those rules, then we're in agency land, because we're operating on choices that have consequences. If it's just you and your friend Bob having a sideline pretend game about your character being sad and Bob saying nice things, that's awesome! I do that all the time -- one of my fondest memories around games was having a 20 minute in character conversation about whether or not another character made a shot while my character was unconscious -- I played my character as not believing it and the other player tried to convince that it happened. Twenty minutes, in character, hella fun. And at no point did it involve any agency.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Maybe I should pose this question. Why would anyone not want to play in a game where they have agency over their characters mental/emotional states?

To me it seems the only reason one wouldn’t want that in a game is it was mutually exclusive with some other kind of agency they preferred more.

I'd say it would have to be a peculiar thing for me to agree to play such a game. If this seems to not reconcile with anything I've said here, then you should consider if you have an incorrect understanding of my arguments. No game I've played lacks this agency, although 5e has less than others and more than some. I mean, Dominate and such being a thing is kinda a huge sticking point in claiming 5e has more of this than other games. It has absolute negation of this agency in ways that other games I've played largely lack. The closest thing in Blades is what happens if you fail a Resist against a hostile ghost manifestation, and which usually ends up as some kind of fear reaction.