A Question Of Agency?

[Fenris-77]

That’s where I started at as well. But the more a critically think about what I mean and have heard meant by agency it’s looking more and more to be incompatible.

there’s a notion in your agency of the ability to do X and that by not having that ability you lack agency over X. That’s not even a valid premise in my agency. My Agency is about having meaningful choices in a situation.

The phrase 'meaningful choices' is exactly where I'd start a definition of agency from. My post from way upstream was precisely that, 3 levels or types of meaningful choice potentially possessed by a player.

 

[Campbell]

I have watched a fair amount of each play example. If I'm going to be honest I see roleplaying, but I am not seeing any signs of a game here. The videos and much of the discussion seem pretty similar to what Lewis Pulsipher called the California School in the pages of White Dwarf. There's some lazy engagement with mechanics and mechanical terms, but to me that isn't enough to like make it a game. In games players have objectives and get rewarded for pursuing. I'm not seeing anything that would allow me to evaluate player skill or direct connections between player decisions and like what happens. I get that you are like considering them in how things play out, but the events of play feel pretty disconnected from player action to me.

This is not me bagging on it by the way. I have done a lot of forum RP and Parlor LARPs. In the mecha game I run for some of my friends we did a session that was structured freeform although there was a more direct relationship between what the players did and what happened in the fiction there.

 

[FrogReaver]

The phrase 'meaningful choices' is exactly where I'd start a definition of agency from. My post from way upstream was precisely that, 3 levels or types of meaningful choice potentially possessed a player.

Yes it was but there’s still the notion that not having the ability to do things via 1 of those levels means you lack that level of agency.

or as I phrased above: not having the ability to do X means to you a lack agency over X is the notion present in your definition that isn’t present in mine.

I don’t lack agency because I’m level 1 and can’t kill the dragon. I have other meaningful choices I can make.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well the ripples are the choices, mine and the players. The wave interference are the consequences of those choice. Then on top of that new pebbles are thrown in by myself and the players creating new patterns on the "surface" of the setting. A major difference between my approach and the other being described is that I don't have a preconceived notion of where the pebbles may fall.

On my side it starts out with the description of the NPC characters, their motivations, and their plans. The NPCs plans get updated after every session to reflect what the player do or don't. That is in essence the interference patterns eluded to in my analogy. Because I don't control the what the player decide, things often and do take off in unexpected direction.

I ran 14 groups as part of the formal playtest of my Scourge of the Demon Wolf sandbox adventure. Plus the initial time using 3.X, then another time using GURPS, and three times with D&D 5e, and once heavily modified for Adventures in Middle Earth. All started with the same initial circumstances, one of them dealt with it the same way and had very different experiences. One group antagonized the village priest, another turn them into allay. Most groups kept the wandering beggars safe from the wolves and the angry villager who blame them for the current issue. One managed to unite the two group to stand against the Demon Wolf pack and led them to victory when they attacked.

The process is straight forward. Jettison one's preconceived notions, set the stage, see what the PCs do, and react in accordance to how the NPCs personalities and details are defined. After the session update the setting and its characters. Rinse and repeat throughout the life of the campaign following where the players go until it reaches a stopping point.

I espouse a point of view, OTOH, in which the entire "pond analogy" is inapt. I don't believe you can find a "surface of the pond" upon which ripples can exist. It is all just made up, and even the most detailed game world is so many orders of magnitude short of being defined enough to say what the implications of anything are, that GMs have virtually total freedom. You may be able to create an illusion of 'ripples on the pond' at some level of fidelity or other, but the actual process which is going on in the real world is that the GM is applying some sort of mental process within her head/on paper/with dice/whatever which produces a response to a player's inputs (in fiction or mechanical, or authorial) which embodies their process/principles/agenda in some way. By convention these include constraints on genre appropriateness, some degree of respect for player autonomy WRT their character, etc. although there is no firm set which are always inviolable.

Notice that this description is equally applicable to all modes of play, it isn't describing any one specific agenda. All RPG play embodies this 'pretending'. We, somehow, come up with a narrative and mechanical consequences for what transpires, and we (almost always) try to do so in a way which we can pretend is an amalgam of 'laws of the game world', 'circumstance', and possibly 'character free will'.

So, it is reasonable to talk about generating an 'impression' or 'illusion' of 'ripples on a pond', or some other pattern, but I often see people reasoning as if this analogy really literally applies to their game worlds, but it does not.

 

[Campbell]

So as a player of games for a choice to be considered meaningful in the scope of gameplay it should relate back to what I am trying to achieve as a player. It might be provided by the game or provided by the player. It's also not about quantity here, but quality. A choice that has more of an impact on whether I achieve my goals is more meaningful than a bunch of choices which barely impact my ability to achieve my objectives.

 

[prabe]

Yes, I think you're close to my thinking on this.

I get the sandbox approach those guys are describing, and I agree, there's not a script or anything like that. I do agree that this grants more agency than let's say something like adventure path play.

I agree. I wouldn't describe my own campaigns as sandboxes, but there are points where the party can choose from numerous (in some cases innumerable) options. Heck, my Saturday campaign is kinda at a point like that, and they're high enough level that I'm probably going to ask them what they're thinking of doing, so I can be ready for it (or at least think about it before it happens).

But I think these are degrees, right? So is there another degree? Does that degree involve players having some authority typically held for the GM? If so, how and why?

I definitely think it's possible for a game to be written so some GM-ish authority devolves to the players. I think it's possible for a game to constrain its GM tightly enough that it feels as though that's happening, even though it's not exactly (I think this is what PbtA games do, but I'm far from an expert and I'm more than willing to acknowledge error if need be). There are games that specifically call for the players to be involved from the start of the campaign in setting-building (Dresden Files and Fate Core come to mind). I think it's possible for a given GM to recognize that running a more collaborative-built world doesn't work as well in their brain (it me) without it meaning that the games or the GM are bad.

Why? Because creative people are drawn to TRPGs, and it's a waste not to use all the creativity at a given table. Just because I didn't like the collaboratively built setting I ended up running (not to mention the process took my table way, way longer than advertised) doesn't mean I don't like the idea. It's why--though I've griped a little here and there about an instance of getting 11,000 words of backstory--I have blank spaces in my world and I explicitly ask for how people's characters came to be where they are at the start of the campaign; and, I specifically grab things from those backstories and use them to set up stories in the campaigns and tie the characters to the setting and the campaigns.

And I think a major area you're touching upon is why we may see the trends in the first place, and why we may see resistance to any questioning of those trends. Yes, players who have limited agency may leap wildly at any possible opening to express their agency. And this may cause issues because they don't yet know how to handle that responsibility. You don't give a kid who just got his learner's permit the keys to an 18 wheeler with 12 gears and say "bring her back in one piece, you hear?"

Yeah. The guy who gave me 11,000 words of backstory has since acknowledged that he went at least a little overboard--as an example.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yes it was but there’s still the notion that not having the ability to do things via 1 of those levels means you lack that level of agency.

or as I phrased above: not having the ability to do X means to you a lack agency over X is the notion present in your definition that isn’t present in mine.

I don’t lack agency because I’m level 1 and can’t kill the dragon. I have other meaningful choices I can make.

I didn't suggest that in order to show a lack of agency, but rather to highlight the agency present in even an extreme example. On the one hand the ability to even make that (terrible) choice is actually agency, something you wouldn't see in something like an adventure path because the Dragon wouldn't have been presented. On the other is the range of other meaningful choice available in that situation even if you can't actually kill the dragon.

I wouldn't discuss agency in terms of agency over at all, but rather just agency to.

 

[FrogReaver]

I didn't suggest that in order to show a lack of agency, but rather to highlight the agency present in even an extreme example. On the one hand the ability to even make that (terrible) choice is actually agency, something you wouldn't see in something like an adventure path because the Dragon wouldn't have been presented. On the other is the range of other meaningful choice available in that situation even if you can't actually kill the dragon.

I wouldn't discuss agency in terms of agency over at all, but rather just agency to.

I’m sure to you there’s some vast difference between over and to but without more elaboration It sounds more like you are just quibbling semantics.

I’m making an important distinction that is part of your definition but isn’t mine. Do you understand the distinction i am making?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, that’s exactly what it is. And although there are pathways, it is possible to not stick to the paths, but it’s recommended when the crew does this that the GM make seizing the claim harder or more involved.

As for what I thought might be questionable to you about this, there are two things, I think. First, the players are immediately aware of this map as soon as they pick a crew; it’s actually right on their crew sheet. None of it must be discovered or learned through play, although the specifics may need to be.

Which leads me to the second point; each of the claims is presented very loosely from a fictional standpoint, but each has a specifically defined mechanical advantage. What is “Turf” exactly? What is a “Vice Den”? Sure, we have ideas, but the specific details are not yet set, and likely would not become so until the claim comes up as a possible point of interest.

It’s also very possible for the players to initiate a lot of this, possibly including some of the details for a claim.

For instance, the crew may have a need for more turf (turf is just territory that makes it easier for your crew to advance to a higher tier, which improves your gear and standing and so on). The crew may also be tussling with a specific gang, the Red Sashes, let’s say. So they may propose something like “We need some more turf if we’re gonna move up a tier, so we gotta grab some turf, but we don’t want to make any new enemies, so let’s grab something from the Red Sashes. They have to have some kind of turf in the area, right?”

Then the GM would likely add some details to round it out, and then that would be the next Score for the crew.

Now, this may also come from the GM, too. It doesn’t have to just come from the players. The GM may even let the players propose one idea, and then add another. So he may respond to the above with “Yes, the Red Sashes control the waterfront along the canal between Song Street and Bell Street. They have street kids who sling spark there. It’s a central location with access to a few nearby districts, so it’s a profitable spot. As such, it’s well defended. But...if you’re interested in seizing some turf, the area called Underbridge is similar to the waterfront , but it’s closer to you, and less well guarded. But, it’s run by the Crows....so you’d have an easier time taking that, but then you’d be pissing off a whole other gang. What do you want to do?”

So these details are not at all set ahead of play. And the players can initiate some of their goals and possibly even details about those goals. But I think the example here still shows how a GM can take that and then craft a meaningful choice out of it.

What do you think about that?



It handles it very differently than you describe, honestly. Like the book is an exceptional example of a sandbox. It gives you all these different elements...districts, factions, institutions, cultures....but it lets you place them in the sandbox where you’d like. It let’s you pick and choose which are interesting to you and which you’ll use in play. And this is true of the players as well as the GM.

The players will pick their crew type and the district where they lair and also the district where they operate (these may be the same or may be different). These decisions start to feed into others which starts to naturally suggest certain factions and so on.

But the things don’t become specific until they need to be. The GM does not determine every holding of each gang and how many men they have and so on. Each of the main factions gets a half page entry that briefly describes them, lists a few members and a couple traits for each, and offers a couple of assets, and some general goals.

Do you think that the lack of specificity would be an obstacle to sandbox play? And I mean like a significant obstacle, not just something the group would balk at because it’s unfamiliar?

I might analogize this all a bit to a hexcrawl. There is a basic high level map of a 'wilderness area' and then the PCs move around in it, expending resources in different ways and choosing directions to go in (possibly informed by rumors, maps, clues, etc.) which satisfies their needs/goals. As they move across this landscape lower level details are filled in as-needed. Usually in a true sandbox there will be a few well-established 'lairs' or 'locations' where play shifts to a 'dungeon mode' of tactical exploration. I wouldn't try to draw too many parallels though. Classic hexcrawl/sandbox play virtually never involves any player input into what exists on the map. It is all either 'keyed' or randomly generated, or perhaps in a few cases extrapolated by the GM from previous events and findings.

 

[Fenris-77]

I’m sure to you there’s some vast difference between over and to but without more elaboration It sounds more like you are just quibbling semantics.

I’m making an important distinction that is part of your definition but isn’t mine. Do you understand the distinction i am making?

This = not having the ability to do X means to you a lack agency over X hasn't ever been a part of my definition of agency. If you think otherwise then we have some crossed wires somewhere.