A Question Of Agency?

[Bedrockgames]

Except now that you have encountered other definitions or understandings of player agency, so hopefully you will stop claiming in the future that your understanding is the only one you have encountered consistently.*

Sure, but it is a definition I've only seen used by a handful of people (who come from a specific style and adhere to a much more theory focused approach to play and design than I do).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Having awareness of such wider discussions of player agency outside of your circles will certainly help prevent insular group think that regards your understanding as the One True Way.**

Again, my reading of the thread is different here. I think I was showing a lot of openness about different approaches. And I think my definition was flexible in this thread for those approaches. Nor is my view insular, it is based on playing with a wide range of players, from all over the world. But I do think the definition I am using is the one with the most currency.

 

[Aldarc]

Sure, but it is a definition I've only seen used by a handful of people (who come from a specific style and adhere to a much more theory focused approach to play and design than I do).

Would you be able to represent this other definition fairly?

Again, my reading of the thread is different here. I think I was showing a lot of openness about different approaches. And I think my definition was flexible in this thread for those approaches. Nor is my view insular, it is based on playing with a wide range of players, from all over the world. But I do think the definition I am using is the one with the most currency.

Certainly not when compared to views of player agency in the video game industry. I agree with @innerdude that your definition kinda feels outdated.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Having awareness of such wider discussions of player agency outside of your circles will certainly help prevent insular group think that regards your understanding as the One True Way.**

One of the reasons I post in threads like this, one of the reasons I posted at story-games.com, is I like getting pushback. But that doesn't mean I am going to agree with people just because they are pushing back in numbers. I like getting their points of view, but I will almost always take the arguments of people who seem to be seriously engaging me more serious than those who just seem to be bent on either attacking or winning. I really don't think one true wayism is a problem for me (as I have expressed an interest in a variety of games and styles in this thread, including games that fall into the style the other side is advocating for). And when I have said to posters on this thread, I am actually interested in X type of mechanic, something narrative and cinematic for this specific thing I am doing; any suggestions? I get crickets. This is also why I was willing to share my campaign info and post sections I've written on this style (I was trying to get a more genuine exchange of ideas and move past our disagreement over a word).

 

[Bedrockgames]

A good example would be the Fate roll to Create An Advantage using Contacts. In character this is the character finding who they need to in the town or city - but this means that the player gets to endow traits about that contact rather than pick from the half dozen or so pre-prepared contacts. My character can move freely in their area of expertise precisely because the setting is malleable and they are part of that setting. Play I expect from a predefined rigid sandbox (and yes I am calling sandboxes rigid here even if a whole lot less rigid than metaplot heavy games and adventure paths) would restrict my character in ways that meant they were less a part of the setting.

I am not telling you you should play sandboxes, classic, OSR or otherwise. Nor am I saying you need to find the most agency in them. All I am saying is, my sense of this term is it cropped up around discussions about railroads, and that is how it entered my vocabulary. You and pemerton are defining it more around the player's power in the setting (and a few people around the characters). I am not particularly interested in jargon or terms as they've been hashed out here, I am always more interested in what words seem to mean among the broadest number of people. It could be I am wrong on that, that I only have a narrow view of the hobby. But I genuinely don't think so in this case (which again, shouldn't make us mortal enemies or anything, it just means, I have a very different sense than you of what this word means in the wider hobby). If fate achieves what you want in terms of agency, more power to you. I am not interested in convincing people to play games they are not going to like. So you won't hear me saying to you, after you've made your preference clear to me: but you will get MORE agency if you play sandbox. I get it, you mean something different than I do by agency, and that is totally fine (and even if you and I shared a definition, but you just didn't experience more agency in a sandbox like the ones I run, then I wouldn't push it). I am not out to win converts here

 

[Aldarc]

Also, RPG Heroes Podcast: Ep. 11 - Sandboxing in RPGs ft. John Harper

It's about an hour of everyone's time. John Harper is introduced around the 8 minute mark, if you wanted to skip the background info on sandboxes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

All I am saying is, my sense of this term is it cropped up around discussions about railroads, and that is how it entered my vocabulary. You and pemerton are defining it more around the player's power in the setting (and a few people around the characters). I am not particularly interested in jargon or terms as they've been hashed out here, I am always more interested in what words seem to mean among the broadest number of people.

But I am literally using your definition of the term that "[player agency] has always meant, your ability to move freely through your character in the setting." And then I am taking that as a baseline and showing where there is more agency available than in a sandbox by using Fate as an example.

I'm not inventing jargon. I'm taking the term as you have defined it and showing why sandboxes are lacking in agency compared to other playstyles. If you don't like the jargon then stop using it. But it is under your own definition that sandboxes are not king of the hill.

So you won't hear me saying to you, after you've made your preference clear to me: but you will get MORE agency if you play sandbox.

By your own definition of agency this is false and I have shown why and how other games give more agency. Just repeating your statement that there is more agency available in a sandbox simply doesn't work when by your own definition of agency there are games with more agency available, like Fate or Apocalypse World. I've yet to see you offer any counter-argument or even try to fix your definition.

I'm not inventing jargon. I'm using your jargon and following through on the consequences. Which means that either the definition you have given of agency is inaccurate and misleading or that there are games that offer more agency than sandboxes. From my own play experience it is the latter that is true. A "Play to find out what happens" game done well offers more agency (or at the very least more concentrated agency) than even a sandbox that has been done well where your characters are essentially an outside force. Both, however, offer far more agency than an adventure path.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Neonchameleon - what definition of agency are you rolling with here? I'm just trying to piece together the gist of your reply to Bedrock above...

 

[Bedrockgames]

But that's not what you are saying. What you are saying is "My style is the best at X" which is at best a statement that needs to be proved - and can be disproved by counter example.

If you think that the implication that not having the best agency (or anything else) is in any way an insult or of itself makes other gaming styles wrong then you shouldn't be trying to claim your way of playing has the best X because when you do you are saying that literally everyone else is wrong. And you do not have a leg to stand on when your own feelings get hurt because it's pointed out that you are not at some theoretical maximum here and others can give more. It's you saying "Any other than the best is wrong" rather than "This is a valuable factor in a complex situation."

If only the style of play that is best at X is right then I can guarantee that your style isn't it no matter what that style is. Humans are complex and "best at X" normally ends up being a paperclip maximiser.

If you want to talk about something as used by the OSR community try using "OSR" rather than "Old School"? Otherwise you will get people like @pemerton legitimately pointing out old school sources. Meanwhile OSR refers to a specific approach.

And to me classic Old School sandboxes have therefore and by that definition always seemed to me to have less agency than games run more like Fate where my characters are much more able to influence the setting. Classic sandboxes keep me detached from the setting and restrict my agency because my character does not move anywhere near so freely.

A good example would be the Fate roll to Create An Advantage using Contacts. In character this is the character finding who they need to in the town or city - but this means that the player gets to endow traits about that contact rather than pick from the half dozen or so pre-prepared contacts. My character can move freely in their area of expertise precisely because the setting is malleable and they are part of that setting. Play I expect from a predefined rigid sandbox (and yes I am calling sandboxes rigid here even if a whole lot less rigid than metaplot heavy games and adventure paths) would restrict my character in ways that meant they were less a part of the setting.

But I am literally using your definition of the term that "[player agency] has always meant, your ability to move freely through your character in the setting." And then I am taking that as a baseline and showing where there is more agency available than in a sandbox by using Fate as an example.

I'm not inventing jargon. I'm taking the term as you have defined it and showing why sandboxes are lacking in agency compared to other playstyles. If you don't like the jargon then stop using it. But it is under your own definition that sandboxes are not king of the hill.

By your own definition of agency this is false and I have shown why and how other games give more agency. Just repeating your statement that there is more agency available in a sandbox simply doesn't work when by your own definition of agency there are games with more agency available, like Fate or Apocalypse World. I've yet to see you offer any counter-argument or even try to fix your definition.

I'm not inventing jargon. I'm using your jargon and following through on the consequences. Which means that either the definition you have given of agency is inaccurate and misleading or that there are games that offer more agency than sandboxes. From my own play experience it is the latter that is true. A "Play to find out what happens" game done well offers more agency (or at the very least more concentrated agency) than even a sandbox that has been done well where your characters are essentially an outside force. Both, however, offer far more agency than an adventure path.

Sorry, I don’t agree. And as I said, we are at an impasse (not trying to ignore your argument but I have responded to variants for it all over this thread (which is a pretty long thread).

 

[Campbell]

I wouldn't even go that far. What I am saying is my style places high value on agency, and is structured around avoiding railroads. And that I understand agency to mean, for me and for most people i've met in the hobby, to be having freedom to act and make meaningful choices in the setting as your character. Personally, I think it is a great style for achieving this, possibly the best. That is about the extent of my claim. But I do think this conversation is at an impasse. And I am sorry, but a circle of posters asserting a definition of a term that I simply don't encounter in the hobby, is not going to get me to change my mind about it

I think largely what we are seeing is a pretty strong difference of opinion in what makes a choice meaningful.