A Question Of Agency?

[Lanefan]

@Manbearcat - though I might not 100% agree with your Agency Types breakdown, it's not bad; and props for putting the thought and effort into it.

After looking over it for a minute, I think the defined Agency Types are solid.

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.

Thinking about D&D 3.5 / PF1, for example, a character's build would fall under the other two vectors.

If we're talking about core stats (bonuses, BAB), that's only relevant to Situation ("Because my fighter has an 18 STR, a +6 BAB, and is wielding a longsword, he is able to make an attack move that can cause harm to the ogre") and Setting ("He's obviously a large, powerful individual who will be viewed by inhabitants of the fiction thusly").

If we're talking about background / personality / traits / bonds / flaws / appearance, that's all Setting.

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

My take on it is Character Agency refers to the simple notion of, within genre (setting) and established fiction (situation), the ability to declare actions and-or roleplay your character in the moment without fear of veto or arbitrary denial. Of the various types this is the one most here-and-now at the table during play and requires the presence of both Situation and Setting (regardless who controls these); Situation is a bit more macro, covering as it does the framing around the character; and Setting even more so as it represents the backdrop onto which that framing is put.

Is that vaguely right?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I think here you might be talking about agency within the fiction - the typical wizard clearly has more options than the typical fighter in terms of what it can do, and how, and when; but on a macro or meta scale the player of each - one would think - would have approximately equal agency (at whatever level that table/system is using) over the situation, the setting, and the direction taken by the characters.

What we're discussing, I think, revolves more around variances in "whatever level that table/system is using", and what levels are acceptable to and-or expected by which people.

 

[Fenris-77]

It’s not even an example. It’s a type/vector.

Well yeah, but if it doesn't exist in an actual game, or get used in actual practice, who cares?

 

[Lanefan]

Do you have a game in mind (not Free-Form where its just table consensus/social contract) where this is actualized in play via structured procedures/action resolution...or maybe a quick play excerpt, because if we're not talking about Flashbacks or Immediate Interrupts in 4e, I'm not sure I have any actual experience (in terms of actual expression of agency through the play of a game...again, not just a moment of consensual storytelling) with what you're talking about.

I know you're not talking about immersion. That was for everyone involved in the conversation (because immersion gets brought up on this particular facet of TTRPGs a lot).

I think what @FrogReaver is going after are things like dream sequences, where play rolls on as usual for a while until the PCs wake up in the morning and realize everything they just did was a dream. They didn't use those charges in their wands, they didn't take all that hit-point damage, they didn't die (but might wake up screaming if they dreamed they did!) - that sort of thing.

Here the retcon, of course, is that none of it happened; and the question is whether this violates player agency.

I've run scenes and even one or two entire adventures like this a few times, usually without lasting consequence to the PCs other than a) they remember anything they learned in the dream as it was so vivid, and b) they keep any experience points they earned in it as experience is largely built on memory.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think what @FrogReaver is going after are things like dream sequences, where play rolls on as usual for a while until the PCs wake up in the morning and realize everything they just did was a dream. They didn't use those charges in their wands, they didn't take all that hit-point damage, they didn't die (but might wake up screaming if they dreamed they did!) - that sort of thing.

Here the retcon, of course, is that none of it happened; and the question is whether this violates player agency.

I've run scenes and even one or two entire adventures like this a few times, usually without lasting consequence to the PCs other than a) they remember anything they learned in the dream as it was so vivid, and b) they keep any experience points they earned in it as experience is largely built on memory.

Spoiler

 

[Campbell]

I think what @FrogReaver is going after are things like dream sequences, where play rolls on as usual for a while until the PCs wake up in the morning and realize everything they just did was a dream. They didn't use those charges in their wands, they didn't take all that hit-point damage, they didn't die (but might wake up screaming if they dreamed they did!) - that sort of thing.

Here the retcon, of course, is that none of it happened; and the question is whether this violates player agency.

I've run scenes and even one or two entire adventures like this a few times, usually without lasting consequence to the PCs other than a) they remember anything they learned in the dream as it was so vivid, and b) they keep any experience points they earned in it as experience is largely built on memory.

I personally would consider that a really big deal. Like Texas big. I probably would never trust the integrity of the game ever again. I might continue playing if there were other compelling reasons, but would not put much mental energy and emotional investment into play after that.

 

[prabe]

I would consider that a really big deal. I probably would never trust the integrity of the game ever again.

I know of a DM who wanted to run Tomb of Horrors, and was explicit that it was going to be a dream sequence and that the characters would not actually be at risk. In that instance, it wasn't a retcon, though, more like a prior agreement. While dropping "it was all a dream" might be a cheap move without warning, I wouldn't object to it as something agreed around the table.

 

[Campbell]

I know of a DM who wanted to run Tomb of Horrors, and was explicit that it was going to be a dream sequence and that the characters would not actually be at risk. In that instance, it wasn't a retcon, though, more like a prior agreement. While dropping "it was all a dream" might be a cheap move without warning, I wouldn't object to it as something agreed around the table.

If I as a player knew ahead of time that's fine. It's the pulling the rug out from underneath that I broadly object to. I also think if we are going to have dream sequences they should have an impact that lasts beyond in some way. I'm not a fan of filler content in any way.

 

[Lanefan]

I personally would consider that a really big deal. Like Texas big. I probably would never trust the integrity of the game ever again. I might continue playing if there were other compelling reasons, but would not put much mental energy and emotional investment into play after that.

Thing is, sooner or later it's almost bound to happen in my game, as entering a dream dungeon then or later is a possible wild magic effect.

Edit to add: the downstream impact is what they learn: I've used these dream dungeons as exposition platforms more than once.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

They wouldn't, which is why there's usually a different way to go that doesn't involve the veto -- like a veto override or a vote of no-confidence. If one person can say no, there's no agency for anyone else there. Now, the apparatus of state is usually operating on multiple fronts, and veto only covers one, so the precise statement is that if the head of state can veto without available recourse, then parliament has no agency on that matter. Bringing the matter up to a veto, in the complex world of politics, obviously carries some agency in other areas, but, yeah, that bill ain't passing.

I'm really struggling to see how this is a controversial statement. I like to think I'm a pretty smart guy and I consider things, but the very concept of agency is absolutely anathema to someone else being able to gainsay you unilaterally and without recourse.