A Question Of Agency?

[Ovinomancer]

No, I am putting a lot of users on ignore after this thread. I think the venom has gotten much worse this time around

Well, your habit of quoting out of context and then misrepresenting the quote certainly doesn't assist this issue. You make a habit of accusing the other cookware of color.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So I was wrong, it was actually Ovinomancer that stated his position was incoherent. Bedrock then said he thought it was coherent. Then you jumped in, but instead directing your comment toward both of them (since it does equally apply), you directed it entirely toward bedrock, which had the effect of coming across as an agreement with Ovinomancer since you weren't equally spending your time pointing out that he could be mistaken.

Moral of the story, be careful when you jump mid discussion to criticize one person with a comment that also equally applies to the other.

If you're going to refer to me, please tag me, as otherwise it appears that you're trying to talk about me behind my back. I'm quite certain this isn't your intent, but since appearances are of great value to you, I'm sure you'll agree on this.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, as an English professor, I assert that your use of agency seems incoherent from my perspective, and, further, that most professional discussions of agency in literary studies these days make frequent use of crossdisciplinary concepts and terms from sociology, philosophy, etc.

Fair enough, if that is how it is used in literary studies. But my point is about how people have been using it to describe sandbox play. I don't find that use incoherent. Perhaps your playstyle preferences are impacting your objectivity as a professor?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I didn't read the article (and I am not going to because I don't do that as a general rule in these discussions, otherwise I'd spend most of my day reading articles). My point was simply that if he is coming at this from the perspective of the term as it is used in video games, then that might be part of the problem. Now if video games happen to use agency to mean things you can do in the setting through your character, obviously I wouldn't object. But I don't play video games, so I don't really have any interest in exploring what agency means in them.

I mean, it’s a pretty quick read. And for someone who is citing literature so much as being relevant to the topic, I’m surprised to see you be so resistant to a comparison to another medium. Especially one which, involving games, is actually very close to that of TTRPGs.

I mean....let’s discuss something, right? We’ve let the discussion devolve into talking about talking.

@Campbell , who I think you’ll agree, has been very clear, concise, and thoughtful in his approach to this conversation, has offered a relevant topic. And you don’t even engage at all.

What about the following post from @Manbearcat ? It builds on prior posts, but I think you can still pick up on the major points and comment. What do you think about what he says?

If I were to evaluate exactly what is happening here based on the matrix (no matter how fallible) I've devised, it would look like this:

THE IYLLIC D&D SANDBOX

* Protagonist Agency for players is either (a) non-existent or (b) its relatively diffuse. In case (b) (where some or all of the PCs do have some kind of explicit dramatic need that play attempts to resolve), it is diffuse because (i) there are a huge number of dramatic needs within the sandbox and (ii) those must all be given expression through the GM such that (iii) there will be many, many moments of play that entirely unrelated to/not framed around resolving PC dramatic need. (i-iii) are necessary in concert so the dreaded "Rowboat World" doesn't materialize through play.

The "Side Quest" is the classical manifestation of this. Through the confluence of an accretion of "Sandbox Dramatic Needs" + "Side Quests (where resolution of those Setting Dramatic Needs are the focal point around which play orbits)" = "Rowboat World" is kept at bay.

For these games (like the one BRG seems to be representing), diffuse Protagonist Agency (which means both in total and for any given unit of play, PC Protagonist Agency is diminished or non-existent because resolution of Setting Dramatic Need is the apex play priority) is "a feature, not a bug."

BLADES IN THE DARK SANDBOX

* Protagonist Agency is central to every unit of play and the entirety of play in total. Although the Setting's Factions and the Setting itself has Protagonist Agency, the Players Protagonist Agency doesn't become diffuse. It just means that every moment of play will involve some collision of the Crew's dramatic needs with other Factions/Setting and, thus, play will orbit around the Crew's dramatic needs. There won't be "Side Quests" that are "PC dramatic need-neutral."

The skirmish over, let's call it, "Haunted Painting Incident" is a perfect example of this realized in play. Its also a perfect example of a player "grabbing The Situation Piece (and possibly grabbing the Setting Piece depending upon how the action resolution mechanics/fiction resolves)" in a way that isn't present in the Classic D&D Sandbox (again, hence the "scandal" over this).

---

Both Sandboxes.

Different approaches to dramatic needs (and therefore Protagonist Agency).

This is a HUGE pivot point of this conversation. One side is saying that (to take this exact example) that the Blades Sandbox approach invests the Players with more Protagonist Agency. The other side is either (a) disputing this differential in Protagonist Agency (for reasons that aren't clear to me...but I would definitely say that there is just some fundamental disagreement/misunderstanding of these concepts/paradigms that are stifling clarity and consensus) OR (b) the other side is saying that a Sandbox (or play in general) that orbits entirely around Player Protagonist Agency is not desirable for them.

To me (a) is not defensible, but (b) is 100 % defensible.

Further, I'd say that another HUGE pivot point of this conversation is a player "Grabbing Situation Piece or Setting Piece".

One side says that a more prolific ability for player to grab those pieces means (a) more breadth (at least) of Tactical and/or Strategic Agency and (through this) (b) an amplification of ability to positively resolve Protagonist Agency (because you can advocate harder and better for your dramatic need...your dramatic need doesn't become more relevant because its at optimum relevance already...but your ability to have your advocation for it result in positive affirmation becomes more potent).

The other side (a) disagrees with this (one reason is because of a misappropriation and misapplication of The Czege Principle...which the intent is to substantiate the claim "Tactical or Strategic Agency is subordinated by the Schrodinger's Painting") or (b) doesn't feel this is desirable.

To me (again), (a) is not defensible, but (b) is 100 % defensible.

---

Ironically (BRG would disagree with this I'm sure), this gets us right back to The Right to Dream essay on The Forge. (b) in both of the above (x is not desirable) is precisely because it makes those people feel like it negatively impacts their play priority of experiencing this particular variety of Sandbox play. And if it does negatively impact their experience, that is 100 % defensible! But just say that!

@hawkeyefan , you bet and sounds good!

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, it’s a pretty quick read. And for someone who is citing literature so much as being relevant to the topic, I’m surprised to see you be so resistant to a comparison to another medium. Especially one which, involving games, is actually very close to that of TTRPGs.

I just don't, as a general principle, go down that rabbit hole in internet discussions. Occasionally I will, if someone introduces a concept or idea I think is worth spending time on. But I spend enough time discussing things online, I specifically put this limit on myself because in the past it was taking up too much of time and I wanted to be more efficient with internet use.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Campbell , who I think you’ll agree, has been very clear, concise, and thoughtful in his approach to this conversation, has offered a relevant topic. And you don’t even engage at all.

I have no issue with how Campbell has been interacting with me on this thread. And my statement wasn't intended as a dismissal of his notion. If he or you want to discuss the video game useage, feel free to paraphrase it and I will weigh in if that is informing where he is coming from.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What about the following post from @Manbearcat ? It builds on prior posts, but I think you can still pick up on the major points and comment. What do you think about what he says?

I am no longer reading Manbearcat's posts. But just looking at it, I think he doesn't understand what we are talking about with sandbox (hard to say though because I find his use of language incredibly confusing)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Also folks, if you use the laugh button to ridicule one of my posts, I will definitely be putting you on ignore

 

[FrogReaver]

Its the ability to (a) have an explicit Dramatic Need, (b) have play (macro) orbit around that Dramatic Need, and then (c) have your Tactical and Strategic decision-point menu and their attendant fallout (micro) pivot around your advocation for your Dramatic Need.

Dramatic Need is not a meta-concept. Its not "to have fun with friends" or "to tell a compelling story" or "to get xp, treasure/gold, and levels" or "to win."

Its literally to address and resolve a character premise like "my brother is my hero...I want to be just like him." So play would challenge these concepts. "Is he your hero...really?" "Do you actually want to be like him or just think you do?" "CAN you be like him?"

If I were to evaluate exactly what is happening here based on the matrix (no matter how fallible) I've devised, it would look like this:

THE IYLLIC D&D SANDBOX

* Protagonist Agency for players is either (a) non-existent or (b) its relatively diffuse. In case (b) (where some or all of the PCs do have some kind of explicit dramatic need that play attempts to resolve), it is diffuse because (i) there are a huge number of dramatic needs within the sandbox and (ii) those must all be given expression through the GM such that (iii) there will be many, many moments of play that entirely unrelated to/not framed around resolving PC dramatic need. (i-iii) are necessary in concert so the dreaded "Rowboat World" doesn't materialize through play.

Agreed.

The "Side Quest" is the classical manifestation of this. Through the confluence of an accretion of "Sandbox Dramatic Needs" + "Side Quests (where resolution of those Setting Dramatic Needs are the focal point around which play orbits)" = "Rowboat World" is kept at bay.

For these games (like the one BRG seems to be representing), diffuse Protagonist Agency (which means both in total and for any given unit of play, PC Protagonist Agency is diminished or non-existent because resolution of Setting Dramatic Need is the apex play priority) is "a feature, not a bug."

Agreed

BLADES IN THE DARK SANDBOX

* Protagonist Agency is central to every unit of play and the entirety of play in total. Although the Setting's Factions and the Setting itself has Protagonist Agency, the Players Protagonist Agency doesn't become diffuse. It just means that every moment of play will involve some collision of the Crew's dramatic needs with other Factions/Setting and, thus, play will orbit around the Crew's dramatic needs. There won't be "Side Quests" that are "PC dramatic need-neutral."

Agreed

The skirmish over, let's call it, "Haunted Painting Incident" is a perfect example of this realized in play. Its also a perfect example of a player "grabbing The Situation Piece (and possibly grabbing the Setting Piece depending upon how the action resolution mechanics/fiction resolves)" in a way that isn't present in the Classic D&D Sandbox (again, hence the "scandal" over this).

I disagree. It's not so much that you are wrong in anything said here but I think you are omitting to much.

It is correct that "grabbing" the situation and setting piece in that example isn't present in Classic D&D Sandbox. But that it's not present in D&D is not actually the reason anyone is objecting to being able to do those things.

---

Both Sandboxes.

Different approaches to dramatic needs (and therefore Protagonist Agency).

Agreed

This is a HUGE pivot point of this conversation. One side is saying that (to take this exact example) that the Blades Sandbox approach invests the Players with more Protagonist Agency.

Agreed.

The other side is either (a) disputing this differential in Protagonist Agency (for reasons that aren't clear to me...but I would definitely say that there is just some fundamental disagreement/misunderstanding of these concepts/paradigms that are stifling clarity and consensus)

I don't dispute that Blades gives what you call Protagonist agency to players while that kind of agency is virtually absent from a classic D&D game.

OR (b) the other side is saying that a Sandbox (or play in general) that orbits entirely around Player Protagonist Agency is not desirable for them.

Yes, it isn't desirable to us but it's not simply that it's not desirable. That's not the argument we are making. We are saying that the techniques used to add protagonist agency removes some of the kind of agency we really care about.

To me (a) is not defensible,

Using your definition of protagonist agency I 100% agree.

but (b) is 100 % defensible.

Further, I'd say that another HUGE pivot point of this conversation is a player "Grabbing Situation Piece or Setting Piece".

One side says that a more prolific ability for player to grab those pieces means (a) more breadth (at least) of Tactical and/or Strategic Agency and (through this) (b) an amplification of ability to positively resolve Protagonist Agency (because you can advocate harder and better for your dramatic need...your dramatic need doesn't become more relevant because its at optimum relevance already...but your ability to have your advocation for it result in positive affirmation becomes more potent).

I think I disagree here.
a) Being able to grab those setting/situation pieces means you have new vectors that you can use to apply tactical/strategical/protagonist agency. Maybe that's all you mean by more breadth, but I'm not willing to commit to the more breadth description just yet.

b) I think you have protagonist agency because you have access to the setting and situation vectors. I don't think you can really have this kind of agency without this. I think you are making the rest needlessly complicated.

*This leads me to believe that tactical and strategic agency are the only types of agency you have listed and that protagonist agency is neither a type nor vector by your definitions but rather something else. Possibly area would describe it well. In which case perhaps there are other areas where the strategic and tactical types can be applied to the character vector.

The other side (a) disagrees with this (one reason is because of a misappropriation and misapplication of The Czege Principle...which the intent is to substantiate the claim "Tactical or Strategic Agency is subordinated by the Schrodinger's Painting") or (b) doesn't feel this is desirable.

I disagree with this.

To me (again), (a) is not defensible, but (b) is 100 % defensible.

---

Ironically (BRG would disagree with this I'm sure), this gets us right back to The Right to Dream essay on The Forge. (b) in both of the above (x is not desirable) is precisely because it makes those people feel like it negatively impacts their play priority of experiencing this particular variety of Sandbox play. And if it does negatively impact their experience, that is 100 % defensible! But just say that!

@hawkeyefan , you bet and sounds good!

And thus I would disagree with this conclusion as well.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I have no issue with how Campbell has been interacting with me on this thread. And my statement wasn't intended as a dismissal of his notion. If he or you want to discuss the video game useage, feel free to paraphrase it and I will weigh in if that is informing where he is coming from.

Okay. I was trying to give you something more relevant to the topic to focus on and perhaps offer an opinion. I figured you’d want to get out of this back and forth squabbling, something I can get caught up in myself and which i’d like to move on from.

If not, then okay. Enjoy.