D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Scott Christian]

Not to my knowledge. I get told, point-blank, that people just fiat declare they win everything forever, or that GMs are ridden roughshod all the time. I ask for example games, and get told "oh, all of 'em!" It's quite infuriating, and I think I've had enough of it for the next month or so.

To be fair, I get player declarations. I really do. I mean, even when we were kids, and my friend's PC found, trained and started riding a giant eagle, and he said to me, the DM: "Wouldn't it be cool if I had a claw on a chain that I could attack with? Could we try to do that?" And three sessions later, after having to melt his precious armor, he had that exact weapon. That is a player creating the fiction. But, there is a clear distinction - it is out of character. And even if it was in character, it would probably be one of those in/out of characters.

But what you want. What you really really want, are simple examples. And...

The examples you crave will never be given without a long, ponderous, and often heavy-handed dose of vocabulary of non-succinct terms. I have read this book before, and it never ends the way I want it to.

 

[pointofyou]

I think there's a distinction between the idea that people are 'describing a style of play that doesn't exist' and people are 'critically thinking about the examples given with the lenses/definitions they've been using throughout the whole thread.

I am not convinced it's possible to think critically about a game if your lens for looking at it doesn't correlate to how it mostly actually played. One can certainly read a game and decide to give it a pass but that isn't the same as critical analysis.

 

[FrogReaver]

I am not convinced it's possible to think critically about a game if your lens for looking at it doesn't correlate to how it mostly actually played. One can certainly read a game and decide to give it a pass but that isn't the same as critical analysis.

When one is 1) given an example of play for such a game 2) discussing broad concepts then 3) one can critically think about how those concepts fit into that example. If the game is actually played differently then the example given then the issue is really that the example should have highlighted the actual play!

 

[TwoSix]

People who are discussing a game like D&D view player agency within that game in a certain way. To them, the idea that a player has authority over the fiction is anathema, just as the idea that the GM would have authority over the player's declarations is anathema. On the other hand, there are games in which it is perfectly acceptable (and encouraged!) for a player to have authority over the fiction- and there are also games in which it is perfectly acceptable for the GM (or even other players) to have some authority over the player's declarations and history.

Yes, I certainly think that any determination of "agency" (which is a pretty nebulous term) is entirely dependent on the framing of the scenario of agency.

Like, I would say a starting pitcher has more "agency" in baseball than the other position players, because the starting pitcher has by far the most control over the course of the game, as they touch the ball for every pitch on their side.

But, I would also say that a basketball player has more overall agency within their games than a baseball player, as a basketball player can impact every possession within the game, both on offense and defense, and the fact that there only 5 players per side in basketball compared to baseball's 9.

But (again!), I would say that a baseball player and a basketball player both have equal agency as people because they can both choose to ignore the rules, disrupt the game, or just leave entirely. When you leave the frame of "competitive sports", then the difference in rules between baseball and basketball cease to be relevant.

For a simulationist type game, one player assumes more agency (the DM), and the other players assume less precisely because the demands of the play style require it. Simulationism play is based on a deliberate eschewal of agency over the fiction by the non-DM players in the pursuit of a specific relationship between those players and the fiction. The players have less overall agency in the frame of "all the various types of TTRPG play", but they have the exact amount they need in the frame of "playing a simulationist TTRPG".

Just because a position player in baseball has less overall "agency" than the starting pitcher doesn't mean baseball is broken, or that baseball is somehow worse than basketball.

(I mean, basketball IS better, but for a host of other reasons. )

 

[pointofyou]

When one is 1) given an example of play for such a game 2) discussing broad concepts then 3) one can critically think about how those concepts fit into that example. If the game is actually played differently then the example given then the issue is really that the example should have highlighted the actual play!

If one has not at least read a game one cannot analyze it in any way.

 

[FrogReaver]

If one has not at least read a game one cannot analyze it in any way.

But I just described how they can do it...

 

[Scott Christian]

What's been altered? If the character has a trait or background or something similar that strongly implies they're familiar with the castle, then how is it altering reality that they may know such secret routes? It seems more like building upon what's already there. You yourself describe it as "adding", which it is.

What this has to do with agency is it gives the player more areas in which they can steer the direction of play.

Unless it's been established prior that they absolutely do not know such routes, nothing is being altered.

I would argue in a D&D game, where the player's PC knows the castle, the DM would simply give them a map of the castle - secret doors and all. So it wouldn't be making up a secret door, it would be: "Look everyone, I know where the secret door is." If the secret door was not on the map, the player could ask if there were any not on the map, thus planting the seed in the DM's mind. They may say yes and draw them in, or they may say no. It seems cool, so many DMs might go along with it. Others might have a very specific reason why they are not there, like the antagonist sealed them up because they don't want people who know about it to take advantage of it. And another DM might have already put them on the map, but trapped the hell out of them because that's what the antagonist would do if they knew about them. But in the end, it all boils down to the DM.

 

[pointofyou]

But I just described how they can do it...

If one is attempting to analyze someone else's description of something one has not experienced or read then what one is analyzing is not the thing but someone else's report of it. It's like trying to analyze a novel by reading a review of it.

 

[Raiztt]

1. I'm not a fan of the players or characters.

I think I found a problem.

Look since this is enworld I'm sure this has already gone off the rails but I can just save you some time and tell you: If your representation of the facts/your players is accurate... they just don't want to play the kind of game you want to run. So either change the way you run your games or find a different group.

 

[pointofyou]

I think I found a problem.

This does seem to be the root of it all.