A Question Of Agency?

[darkbard]

Now, onto AGENCY TYPE:

Tactical Agency - The ability to make a move that affects, both in degree and in kind, the relationship of objects/goals/stakes within the immediate gamestate.

Strategic Agency - The ability to make a move that affects, both in degree and in kind, the relationship of objects within the setting such that downstream decision-points and gamestates are likely significantly altered.

Protagonist Agency - The ability to have resolving a PC's dramatic needs be either the outright premise of play or primarily propel the trajectory/arc of play.

One of the reasons I've been reluctant to frame agency in terms of types is that I see your tactical and strategic agencies as means of achieving protagonist agency. That is, that protagonist agency is a metagame concern (what system do we play, what are its governing principles, and how does the game distribute agency among participants) and that tactical and strategic agency are the system's architecture, the gears and levers of actually playing the game. But I'll need to think about this some more.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's been my experience, as well, with BW, BE, and Sentinel Comics... especially with the duel of wits requirement for stakes to be agreed to in BW (I found it; I had, at Luke's suggestion, expanded the scope on that particular rules element. It's still present in DoW in Gold.)

I'll note, tho', that the Sentinel Comics rules do allow a lot of GM force to be applied, in ways not like how AW is written. (It's a genre appropriate level of force.)

And to explicate my comment about group vs GM for success with complication - listening to the players is often far better than GM only, no matter the rule system, when using success with complication. Why? More independent views give the GM more creative options than just his/her/xer own ideas. It's just as true in D&D as it is in Blood and Honor, Fate, or Cosmic Patrol. It's served me well since I started moving more towards complicated success instead of outright failure.

The only issue with this is that it moves the players from character advocacy into story advocacy. If this isn't a concern, then no problem. I like both, but prefer them separate, kinda like how I enjoy a salad but don't want any veggies on my burgers.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I want to clarify and expound on my post and hopefully it starts some functional conversation.

As of right now, I think many of the people I typically agree with on these issues has at least SOME level of disagreement with me on this so it would be especially interesting if those folks who typically agree with me, but disagree with me here, would critique what I write below:

AGENCY VECTOR AND TYPE

So I wrote above about Character Agency, Situation Agency, Setting Agency. These are vectors for player agency, not types (more on that below). On any given Venn Diagram featuring these 3, there will be some overlap, but the majority of the space of each is discrete with no overlap. To unpack that further:

Character Agency - The PC is here. The time is now. The relationship of relevant objects (including the PC themselves) within the gamestate are thus. Without changing any of here, now, and thus for any given action declaration, make a move where either/or/both here and thus are changed (now will fundamentally change because time will have moved forward after the action declaration).

Situation Agency - The immediate conflict is x, the corresponding stakes are y, the relationships of relevant objects within the gamestate are z. Make a move that affects either/or/both y or z, which will in turn impact certain qualities of x (the level of danger, the participants, the prospects of success).

Setting Agency - The ability to make a move that interfaces with/leverages the offscreen whereby some new aspect of the shared imagined space (setting) becomes established/fleshed-out (in a way that doesn't violate what has been already established through play). This could be something relevant and interesting...or it could just be interesting with the prospect of becoming relevant later.

Now, onto AGENCY TYPE:

Tactical Agency - The ability to make a move that affects, both in degree and in kind, the relationship of objects/goals/stakes within the immediate gamestate.

Strategic Agency - The ability to make a move that affects, both in degree and in kind, the relationship of objects within the setting such that downstream decision-points and gamestates are likely significantly altered.

Protagonist Agency - The ability to have resolving a PC's dramatic needs be either the outright premise of play or primarily propel the trajectory/arc of play.

---

I don't see any other vectors or types. If anyone sees a different one, critique away. FYI - I don't see how "emotions, feelings, or immersion" are "agency" here. All of those things will be the experience created by the unique characteristics of a person's cognitive landscape/framework connecting + the systematized aspects of games (what is the premise of play, what kind of conflicts, what kind of fallout and how is that actualized).

I'm running long here so I need to wrap this up.

One thing I find interesting in examining the matrix above is the Martial vs Spellcaster in D&D divide. Look at how much of all of the above the classic D&D Spellcaster interfaces with vs the Martial character:

* They have tons of agency through their Character because its impossible not too. HOWEVER, they can subvert the ability of NPCs to express agency via their spells.

* They have tons of ability to dramatically alter or reframe Situation via their spells.

* They have a unique ability to express agency through Setting within their spells, which grows as levels accrue (becoming somewhat rote at 10+ in high level Spells/Rituals).

* Their Tactical Agency is profound. They can fundamentally alter or reframe any given combat or noncombat encounter with a singular spell (god help us if they deploy more than one).

* Their Strategic Agency is without equal. They can dictate when/where and even if/what...becoming a triviality as levels pile on.

* Because of all of the above, they get to dictate (a) what the game is about and (b) the trajectory through which that "what is this about" manifests more than any other character. The only way this doesn't turn out is f (c) they give up this capability of their own volition or (d) the GM assumes an adversarial arms race against the Spellcaster...leveraging the offscreen/secret backstory in order to block their ability to put into affect (a) and (b).

(D) particularly becomes a thing when the GM is trying to impose their own metaplot or keep a game on the AP's rails.

---

Thoughts?

EDIT - One thing I've tried to examine often (and this dovetails precisely with "The Spellcaster Issue" cited above) is when one or more vectors/types of agency clash with a play priority and what gives way. I find, far too often, that what gives way is Protagonist Agency (if it was even present to begin with). THIS sort of agency loss is a non-starter for a lot of people expressing distaste with certain "GM moves" in this thread.

I dislike trying to separate agency into different types, because I think it obfuscates the issue, which is, to me, who can say no. If someone else can unilaterally say no, then I do not have agency. To have agency, though, more needs to be present that just the lack of negation, namely places where decisions matter to the game.

The first set of buckets you've listed doesn't really illuminate these points, because no game really separates play into these categories and then define who has what say where. That it works to show that a wizard in D&D has more agency than a fighter isn't because of the framework you've built, but because the magic system in D&D has more places where the GM cannot or is limited in how they say no. As such, the framework doesn't do a good job of answering the questions of who has agency in which bucket because agency isn't assigned by the bucket, but by access to the magic system. By this I mean that the separation of agency doesn't clarify where the wizard has more agency because the wizard doesn't actually have agency by these buckets, but rather has access to a system that occasionally provides agency in these buckets. The buckets don't really define where agency is available, the tool of magic does.

Secondly, your second framework is a bit of a mishmash. As others have noted, the protagonist bucket is very blurry with the other two -- can I have protagonist agency and not have tactical or strategic agency? I don't really see how. I also don't see how I could have strategic agency without tactical agency. This division is messy and unclear and far to interdependent to really call out the nature of either. I can see how I can have tactical agency but not strategy agency (I can operate in a combat how I want, but the outcome of the module is fixed). So, maybe a reframing that shows that you need a to have b, and a and b to have c, etc. I'm still not sure this is very illuminating, but perhaps.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I dislike trying to separate agency into different types, because I think it obfuscates the issue, which is, to me, who can say no. If someone else can unilaterally say no, then I do not have agency.

I am glad you finally said it so plainly, though it was apparent that this is was basically where you were coming from. I have to say that to me this definition is blatantly absurd.

 

[FrogReaver]

I am glad you finally said it so plainly, though it was apparent that this is was basically where you were coming from. I have to say that to me this definition is blatantly absurd.

and if I’m not mistaken this isn’t even one he uses consistently. For example, consider mechanics that force my character to like another. I can’t say no to that so no agency under this definition. And yet that mechanic is spoken of as providing greater agency.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am glad you finally said it so plainly, though it was apparent that this is was basically where you were coming from. I have to say that to me this definition is blatantly absurd.

I would like to hear an example of a place you have agency where another person can unilaterally negate it.

and if I’m not mistaken this isn’t even one he uses consistently. For example, consider mechanics that force my character to like another. I can’t say no to that so no agency under this definition. And yet that mechanic is spoken of as providing greater agency.

Nope, because I've been absolutely clear that this is a place where you would not have agency. Have I not pointed out things like Charm, Suggestion, and Dominate routinely as examples of where this happens in D&D? I'm not doing this because I don't think these things remove agency, but to show that your stance that such things in other games show less agency than in D&D is false -- they exist in both places.

This is, of course, accepting ad arguendo that this is a thing that routinely happens in other games. It does in some, but not in others.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am glad you finally said it so plainly, though it was apparent that this is was basically where you were coming from. I have to say that to me this definition is blatantly absurd.

To actually expand on this rather than just the request for an example that disproves it above, my point is that someone else being able to negate your decision removes agency. Lack of such a negation does not show agency, though. As such, it's not a complete definition, but rather a statement of where something doesn't exist. To put it in math terms, I can absolutely say that having a negative number is outside the set of all positive integers, but not having a negative number doesn't mean you're in the set of all positive integers -- one-half isn't sufficient. However, being negative is absolutely enough to say that it's not in the set of all positive numbers without the need to look at any else.

Likewise, if someone else can negate unilaterally, I don't have agency.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would like to hear an example of a place you have agency where another person can unilaterally negate it.

The proposition is so absurd that it is hard to address. It is like saying that if the head of state has a veto power then the prime minister or the parliament has no agency.

 

[prabe]

Likewise, if someone else can negate unilaterally, I don't have agency.

So ... I'm not looking to argue, here, but when would you say the ability to negate removes agency? Does the fact the GM can say "no" to any given action the players propose mean (to you) that the players never have agency? Even if the GM approximately never says "no"? I think it's obvious that some games will vary more in this regard from table to table than others will.

 

[Manbearcat]

In terms of the Vectors, I'm actually having a hard time seeing how Character Agency isn't actually subsumed into either Situation or Setting.

<snip>

What is it in particular you're thinking about in therms of Character as a vector?

I would say there is a another agency vector to mention. It doesn't come up in any game that I'm aware, but the agency to alter established fiction at least needs mentioned IMO. Think, retcon.

Going to answer both of these in one post.

Take Flashbacks in Blades or Immediate Interrupts in D&D 4e.

Flashbacks and Immediate Interrupts ("retcons" in this case) will (a) ALWAYS being agency expressed via the Situation vector, (b) SOMETIMES be expressed via the Setting vector, (c) but NEVER expressed via the Character vector because of the violation of the now proviso.

The player, through the character, is proposing an alteration to the Situation (we're not actually in dire straights because I've stashed some guns in the laundry chute or this spell doesn't hit us because I erected this arcane barrier just in time) and maybe the Setting (its a double-cross because I greased the palm of this NPC or the people in the marketplace are my agents so a riot will break out to get these agents of the Court Mage off our tail). But this is always expressed as an alteration to the present course of the gamestate/fiction via the deployment of these player-facing mechanics.

And again, I'm not going to (and its not appropriate to) smuggle in an "immersion rider" to this. Some folks find this jarring. Others (like myself) not only don't find it jarring, they find it immersion-enhancing. But its still always Situation and sometimes Setting as a vector for agency because its always a proposed amendment to the temporal continuity of play (the now proviso). I think that's important (and others clearly do), so I think something distinguishes these things are important (while not smuggling BUT IMMERSION into it).