A Question Of Agency?

[Ovinomancer]

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.

In an absolute sense, yes. In reality, it's much more complex because the absolute rarely holds. There are the real world social rules and friendships and such that can result in a GM not actually being able to negate a given action, so agency can exist. However, in any case where the GM can use the power of no, then agency doesn't exist -- you're asking permission, not doing on your own.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

In many countries heads of states rarely, if ever, use their veto power.

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.

Because it only matters if they do. It doesn't matter if they could, but don't.

The idea that agency doesn't only require that no one overrules you, but also that no one even in theory could is simply absurd and utterly useless definition of agency.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In many countries heads of states rarely, if ever, use their veto power.

And? I'm not intimately familiar with all the Parliamentary governments, but in the US, the Congress has no ability to pass a law -- this is the President's authority and agency. Similarly, the President has no ability to propose a law -- this is the Congress' authority and agency. The President's veto, used or not, means Congress has no agency to pass a law.

Now, in reality, Congress has a check on this and can force a law over a veto with the proper actions, so Congress does retain some agency here, but that's because they have a way to overcome a no.

Because it only matters if they do. It doesn't matter if they could, but don't.

So, if you have to ask to do a thing, you have agency to do it if you're given permission? Because, if I have the authority to say no, and don't, then what has happened is that I have given permission. I can't see a form of agency that requires seeking permission to be extant.

The idea that agency doesn't only require that no one overrules you, but also that no one even in theory could is simply absurd and utterly useless definition of agency.

It's the fundamental block. In my reply to @prabe I noted that actual situations in a social setting are far more complex and an on paper authority to say no may not translate into an actual ability to say no. However, in any situation where no can be deployed unilaterally by another, you lack agency in that situation -- you must seek permission to play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I don't think we will ever resolve this divide, but we are not talking about agency as it pertains to sociology. We are talking about agency as it pertains to RPGs and it came to RPGs by literature, and there I think it is much closer to this idea of acting freely in the world the story takes place. It is broad concept so it has a lot of uses. But I don't think it is just a synonym for power or authority. It is about being the character being able to make meaningful choices.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

It's not just if it violates player agency, thought that is a good question. The question is also whether giving the players the ability to turn something established into a dream state that didn't actually happen is fundamentally a different kind of ability (in relation to agency vector/type) than anything else we are talking about.

Judging by how hated the idea of a player being granted access to such a mechanic is on both sides of this discussion I'd say it's at least worth mentioning, even if we don't delve deep into exploring it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Ovinomancer

Your contribution needing to go through a review process doesn't mean that you didn't exercise agency in creating that contribution. Without you there wouldn't even be a thing for the final arbiter to approve.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Ovinomancer

Your contribution needing to go through a review process doesn't mean that you didn't exercise agency in creating that contribution. Without you there wouldn't even be a thing for the final arbiter to approve.

I'm mostly with you but there's a couple of things.

1. We really need to be specific about the the thing we are saying someone has agency over. I think alot of nuance gets lost when we aren't specific here. If he's talking about agency to make Proposition 1 become law and you are talking about agency to write proposition 1 then you are just talking past each other. The bigger point and it's what you are trying to bring out I think, is that you cannot have proposition 1 without the lawmakers exercising their agency to write proposition 1 and Ovinomancer is trying to bring out that you can't have it without the prime minister exercising his agency to not veto proposition 1.

2. Which is why I think the concept of co-agency is actually important. There are instances where it takes more than one exercising their agency for something to happen. I think what may be happening in our RPG agency discussion is each respective side assigning full responsibility for a thing coming into being to either the player or DM when both are actually responsible in many of the systems we are analyzing.

 

[FrogReaver]

From my perspective if not constrained at least by social expectations that they will play with integrity absolutely there is no meaningful agency to be had. From my perspective if manipulation of setting to achieve certain outcomes or picking and choosing when to apply the rules when not guided by something exceptional in the fiction, or fudging dice rolls is ever an option then it is always an option. By choosing not to do these things in a given moment of play you are still making an active decision as a GM. You have all the influence. The players have none except through you.

It pretty much ruins the integrity of the whole thing for me personally.

First, I can understand that the mere possibility of a thing happening could cause the whole game to feel like it lacks integrity. I think someone earlier noted something like: it's actually our views on whether the important parts of the game have "integrity" that makes us experience agency. I agree with that. One cannot feel something relating to the game lacks integrity without feeling a lack of agency.

I think that same reason applies to me and my dislike for other styles. While for you, integrity is about the ensuring the game is played fairly. For me I view examples of unfair play as being so rare and often when done by the DM to be done for good reasons that it doesn't cause the game to feel lack it lacks integrity even if such things are possible or come up from time to time. What does cause the game to feel like it lacks integrity for me is a few things. Mechanics that function by making unrelated bad thing happen on a poor roll make situation/setting feel like it lacks integrity. Mechanics that give players power of the situation or setting outside their character - (this probably needs to be more precisely formulated) also cause that same lack of integrity for me.

Why do those things cause a feeling of lack of integrity for me? I think it's that I relate them back to the real world. I don't have the agency in the real world to just change details about whatever situation/setting I find myself in without actually acting in the world. Nor does the world function by causing "unrelated" bad things to happen when I fail at a thing.

 

[FrogReaver]

First is GM Fiat, in games that allow for it. It's not really an action resolution thing, but it's frequently technically allowed (did it myself this past Wed, when I described that an NPC had a leg brace and this wasn't a change, just something I hadn't figured out yet previous session).

Did you really arbitrarily give the guy a leg brace or was there maybe some reason behind it?

 

[prabe]

Did you really arbitrarily give the guy a leg brace or was there maybe some reason behind it?

I needed him to have a reason to have retired from adventuring. I've made it clear that in-fiction, sometimes things are beyond healing magic.