D&D General What is player agency to you?

[hawkeyefan]

We could perhaps just agree that 5e's backgrounds are poorly thought out and explicated, and could do a much better job of spelling out what precisely they do.

Or perhaps they were designed, like a lot of 5e, to be interpretable in a number of ways to suit preferred play styles of players from previous editions.

no disagreement to any if this, all I am saying is that there is no guarantee to get one, and I repeatedly said the default is to get one, to not get one requires a good reason

Okay, so what would be a good reason?

 

[TwoSix]

This is exactly where my mind went. An audience means a meeting. No guarantee the noble isn't waiting for them with a large contingent of guards in tow!

If the PCs royally pissed of a noble and then DEMAND a meeting - they get one (it saves the noble having to track them down) but it isn't likely to go down how they want!

Exactly this. It's always worth remembering that in D&D-type games, the goal is to BYPASS obstacles with a minimum of complications, to obtain rewards/loot/XP. In a narrative game, the goal is to CREATE obstacles so that your character can accrue MORE complications that will change them.

It's why the accrual and granting of power in a narrative game is less burdensome than in a challenge focused D&D game, because the goal of the game isn't to defeat a pre-planned challenge.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That's where we differ, then. I would explicitly define that distinction as falling under agency.

Like most of these discussions, it's just semantics. And, more importantly, people assigning normative values to the words people are using that aren't intended. Playing a game with more or less agency doesn't make you a better or worse player, no more than Mike Trout is somehow a worse athlete than LeBron James because basketball players have more overall agency within their sports.

See, to me that illustrates why this is a nonsensical approach.

Saying that LeBron James has "more agency" than Mike Trout is already assuming a result. More agency how? Because basketball allows "more agency" to players to do what? They are completely different games. Mike Trout has a lot more agency to hit home runs and steal bases than LeBron James. Mike Trout has a lot more agency to swing a bat on the field of play. Mike Trout has a lot more agency to make as much money from his team as he wants without being subject to a (hard-ish) salary cap.

Again, if one game (basketball, or soccer) does not allow you to punch people, and another game (boxing, or UFC) does allow you to punch people, what additional information are you getting by characterizing boxing as having more agency than basketball? As opposed to simply observing that the rules in one game allow for punching people?

Stating that the rules in one game allow for more more player authorship over the fiction does not mean that the game has more player agency; it simply means that there is a different set of rules.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is exactly where my mind went. An audience means a meeting. No guarantee the noble isn't waiting for them with a large contingent of guards in tow!

If the PCs royally pissed of a noble and then DEMAND a meeting - they get one (it saves the noble having to track them down) but it isn't likely to go down how they want!

This is exactly right.

The way I look at it is that this opens up another path toward dealing with some obstacle or challenge.

And it's by no means a certain path... the noble must still be convinced/bribed/appeased/whatever in order for things to go the way the player wants.

 

[Pedantic]

See, to me that illustrates why this is a nonsensical approach.

Saying that LeBron James has "more agency" than Mike Trout is already assuming a result. More agency how? Because basketball allows "more agency" to players to do what? They are completely different games. Mike Trout has a lot more agency to hit home runs and steal bases than LeBron James. Mike Trout has a lot more agency to swing a bat on the field of play. Mike Trout has a lot more agency to make as much money from his team as he wants without being subject to a (hard-ish) salary cap.

Again, if one game (basketball, or soccer) does not allow you to punch people, and another game (boxing, or UFC) does allow you to punch people, what additional information are you getting by characterizing boxing as having more agency than basketball? As opposed to simply observing that the rules in one game allow for punching people?

Stating that the rules in one game allow for more more player authorship over the fiction does not mean that the game has more player agency; it simply means that there is a different set of rules.

While I agree with the general thrust of this, I do think we can meaningfully compare agency across disparate games, as long as we're inside the same frame. In your examples above, you'd probably be discussing the ability of players to adopt variable strategies and influence the outcome of a match. For example, you could make a pretty clear case that in American football, a quarterback has more agency than a linesman. There's more decisions that will have more impact on the final outcome of the play that fall to the quarterback, even though the activities a quarterback and a linesman engage in are distinct.

I don't think we need to draw the boundaries at the level of a given game, or a given set of rules, but I do think we do need to draw reasonable boundaries, which I tried to do earlier with "narrative" vs. "ludic." That, and I think it's important to note that agency across those disparate fields can be in conflict. A rule that might promote one kind of agency may inhibit another.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

While I agree with the general thrust of this, I do think we can meaningfully compare agency across disparate games, as long as we're inside the same frame. In your examples above, you'd probably be discussing the ability of players to adopt variable strategies and influence the outcome of a match. For example, you could make a pretty clear case that in American football, a quarterback has more agency than a linesman. There's more decisions that will have more impact on the final outcome of the play that fall to the quarterback, even though the activities a quarterback and a linesman engage in are distinct.

I don't think we need to draw the boundaries at the level of a given game, or a given set of rules, but I do think we do need to draw reasonable boundaries, which I tried to do earlier with "narrative" vs. "ludic." That, and I think it's important to note that agency across those disparate fields can be in conflict. A rule that might promote one kind of agency may inhibit another.

Like anything, if you carefully define terms and narrow the focus, then you might get some value out of it.

That said, I have yet to see it. Instead, it's always sweeping comments about "Game X having more player agency than Game Y," which is, AFAIC, a nothing statement.

 

[TwoSix]

See, to me that illustrates why this is a nonsensical approach.

Saying that LeBron James has "more agency" than Mike Trout is already assuming a result. More agency how? Because basketball allows "more agency" to players to do what? They are completely different games. Mike Trout has a lot more agency to hit home runs and steal bases than LeBron James. Mike Trout has a lot more agency to swing a bat on the field of play. Mike Trout has a lot more agency to make as much money from his team as he wants without being subject to a (hard-ish) salary cap.

Again, if one game (basketball, or soccer) does not allow you to punch people, and another game (boxing, or UFC) does allow you to punch people, what additional information are you getting by characterizing boxing as having more agency than basketball? As opposed to simply observing that the rules in one game allow for punching people?

Stating that the rules in one game allow for more more player authorship over the fiction does not mean that the game has more player agency; it simply means that there is a different set of rules.

Sure, but that doesn't make it nonsensical, it means you need to define the frame first before you try and use the term.

For competitive sports, the frame is relatively simple; how much does an individual's contribution correlate with winning games? An individual basketball player, simply by the nature of participating in every offensive and defensive possession as one of 5 teammates, and generally playing 70-75% of the entire game time, has much more agency over the final results of the game than an individual (non-pitcher) baseball player. That's why LeBron was able to drag a relatively mediocre Cavs roster to the Finals in 2007, for example, while incredible individual contributions from Mike Trout (and more recently, Shohei Ohtani) have never resulted in the Angels even making the playoffs.

Contrast this with tennis, in which the individual competitor has almost entirely complete agency over whether they win or lose. (Barring bad calls/injury/exceptional circumstances.)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sure, but that doesn't make it nonsensical, it means you need to define the frame first before you try and use the term.

For competitive sports, the frame is relatively simple; how much does an individual's contribution correlate with winning games? An individual basketball player, simply by the nature of participating in every offensive and defensive possession as one of 5 teammates, and generally playing 70-75% of the entire game time, has much more agency over the final results of the game than an individual (non-pitcher) baseball player. That's why LeBron was able to drag a relatively mediocre Cavs roster to the Finals in 2007, for example, while incredible individual contributions from Mike Trout (and more recently, Shohei Ohtani) have never resulted in the Angels even making the playoffs.

Contrast this with tennis, in which the individual competitor has almost entirely complete agency over whether they win or lose. (Barring bad calls/injury/exceptional circumstances.)

I understand your point, but I don't agree with the term "agency" in that usage!

Why does agency necessarily mean "individual ability to determine winning." By that metric, the players who have the highest WARP in baseball therefore have the highest ... agency? But wait ... why wouldn't we just say that they have the highest WARP?

In other words, why are we using this one term with a completely different meaning ("agency") as a stand-in for another term (individual ability that correlates to a "win" statistic) when we can just say ... the individual contribution?

Because when we do, and we get away from the weird jargon ("player agency") we would immediately see that the rules of the game are what really matter- in other words, individual sports, because the rules only allow for one player, will always have a higher "player agency" than team sports.

Kinda like how people are defining "player agency" in these conversations. "Well, if a player can author the fiction, that's player agency. Therefore, the more authorship of the fiction, the greater the player agency!" If that's really what they're talking about, you don't need to use that jargon- just say, "This game allows more player authorship of the fiction."

See? Easy!

 

[Pedantic]

I understand your point, but I don't agree with the term "agency" in that usage!

Why does agency necessarily mean "individual ability to determine winning." By that metric, the players who have the highest WARP in baseball therefore have the highest ... agency? But wait ... why wouldn't we just say that they have the highest WARP?

In other words, why are we using this one term with a completely different meaning ("agency") as a stand-in for another term (individual ability that correlates to a "win" statistic) when we can just say ... the individual contribution?

Because when we do, and we get away from the weird jargon ("player agency") we would immediately see that the rules of the game are what really matter- in other words, individual sports, because the rules only allow for one player, will always have a higher "player agency" than team sports.

Kinda like how people are defining "player agency" in these conversations. "Well, if a player can author the fiction, that's player agency. Therefore, the more authorship of the fiction, the greater the player agency!" If that's really what they're talking about, you don't need to use that jargon- just say, "This game allows more player authorship of the fiction."

See? Easy!

Sure, but the term is pretty clear in most usages outside of this one. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, look at board games. They can be wildly different in play, randomness, all kinds of factors, but we can meaningfully compare "agency" in the sense of "how much impact on victory do the decisions of players at the table have?"

There are games that have essentially none, games that have a lot, and a lot of games that use variability in such a way that players have only a little. The term has utility in that context because the frame is clear. We're mostly fighting with competing conceptions of what TTRPGs are here, such that we can't come to an agreement on what our frame is.

 

[TwoSix]

Like anything, if you carefully define terms and narrow the focus, then you might get some value out of it.

That said, I have yet to see it. Instead, it's always sweeping comments about "Game X having more player agency than Game Y," which is, AFAIC, a nothing statement.

The problem always comes back to people thinking "This game has less agency" is a normative statement, not simply an explanation of play priorities.

"Characters in an OSE game have less agency over the fiction than characters in FATE" shouldn't be a controversial statement. I mean, going back many years, the statement "I just want to have control of my character and what they attempt, not anything else" has been a standard reply for many people who prefer trad/simulationist play; what is that statement if not an explicit desire to have less agency over the fiction?