D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Micah Sweet]

I think it can be hard to resolve combat without knowing what it is that the combatants want from it: what about it matters to them.

Yes.

There's nothing wrong with fiction about receiving orders from an authority.

But who gets to establish that fiction, including the content of the orders? And in accordance with what principles? The answers to those questions will tell us whether or not the players have agency over the content of the fiction.

The person giving the orders isn't a PC, so the fiction isn't established by the players.

 

[mamba]

I think it can be hard to resolve combat without knowing what it is that the combatants want from it: what about it matters to them.

from a mechanical perspective? I would expect this more on the story side

To me most of this is external to the chars, the dragon sits on the treasure, the players want to take it and the dragon wants to keep it.

The dragon and treasure are just that, not the representation of some childhood trauma one char has to overcome to forgive whoever for whatever and move on with their life, and the treasure is finding that peace.

If this is what combat is in your games, then yes, that is probably harder

 

[mamba]

The person giving the orders isn't a PC, so the fiction isn't established by the players.

in @pemerton ’s case it is, it just is not uttered by the players at the time

“Are you entangling this with things the players brought up, so it still revolves about their story?”
“Yes.”

 

[Micah Sweet]

in @pemerton ’s case it is, it just is not uttered by the players at the time

I will never understand that way.

 

[clearstream]

The player with the greatest agency would be the one who ignored the rules.

The reason why that is incorrect is that game rules are constitutive: followed for the sake of play that does not exist without them. In GM-led FKR play, the GM can be constitutive: players accept their contributions to the conversation for the sake of play that does not exist without them.

A few anchoring thoughts

• The exchange of agencies for the sake of play is voluntary and continuously revocable.
• It must be on terms and for purposes each player finds satisfactory.
• It's non-binary, and each facet is scalable.
• It can be informed, or it can exist in virtue of information restrictions.

To the extent that agency leverages the ludic-duality (that player is at once audience and author) it sustains a distinctive "ludic" mode of engagement with content. One that not available in reading (books, narration, diegesis) or viewing (mimicry, films, mimesis).

Therefore, a chief measure of player agency may be how successfully it affords players to author that which (and in the way in which) it is their creative purpose to experience the authorship of... which must vary by such purposes. Play itself is an exchange of agencies, done for its sake. No one can list all the feasible and effective terms of exchange until every possible TTRPG has been designed.*


*This doesn't rule out reflecting on what has been assayed to date and adopting a personal stance. In fact, it commends it.

 

[pemerton]

But who gets to establish that fiction, including the content of the orders? And in accordance with what principles? The answers to those questions will tell us whether or not the players have agency over the content of the fiction.

The person giving the orders isn't a PC, so the fiction isn't established by the players.

Let's suppose that the fiction is established by the GM - in accordance with what principles?

That might depend on further context. Suppose, for instance, that the king giving orders to the PC is something the GM is narrating because a player failed a check (most likely a social check, to trigger that sort of consequence), and hence the rules call for the GM to narrate something that negates the player's intent. Then whatever it was that the player had put at stake in their action declaration is intimately connected to whatever it is that the GM says about what the kings says.

I don't think I have a 4e D&D example to give, but here is something that happened in my last Torchbearer session:

Things started with an attempt, initiated and led by Fea-bella, to persuade Megloss to help them get the Elfstone from Gerda. Korvin added in some deception via Manipulator - there might be more than one gem! and Gerda might be more than she seemed, and so the PCs couldn't do it without Megloss.

Megloss, in turn, was dismissing the PCs as a hopeless rabble, and insisting that they head south to find Turner - a petty bandit captain in Megloss's sometime-employ - and join him in carrying out Nob H's plans. (Nob H is a bandit lord, and Korvin's enemy - this was his first occurence other than on Korvin's PC sheet).

The conflict ended with both sides reduced to zero disposition in the same exchange, and so each had to give the other a painful compromise: Melgoss would come and help with Gerda, provided that he got first pick of the gems; he would then take the PCs to Turner, and insist that Turner give Korvin his fine boots.

Focusing on what Megloss wanted from the PCs:

*The PCs had dealt with Turner in a previous session, after hearing rumours of bandits (those rumours, in turn, resulted when one of the PCs took action that triggered a role on the Tavern Rumours table) - Gerda had been one of Turner's gang before they got her to leave him and join them (which in turn gave her the opportunity to steal the Elfstone);

*That original encounter with Turner and Gerda had established that they were hired by Megloss to capture the Dreamwalker Fea-bella's ranger friend (the PCs had, subsequently, rescued the friend from Megloss);

*The player of Korvin had repeatedly complained about having no shoes (he wore them out in the journey that resulted in the PCs meeting Turner and co that previous time), and in the current session had complained about Turner having nice boots (this was the most memorable thing about Turner);

*Nob H the Bandit Lord is listed as Korvin's enemy on Korvin's PC sheet (a component of PC building).​

What Megloss wanted from the PCs, and got them to agree to do, was not spun from whole cloth by me as GM. The various elements, as well as some aspects of their relationship to one another and to the PCs, were already present in various priorities and orientations the players had established for their PCs.

The same sorts of principles could be applied in establishing what a king orders the PCs to do in an audience with them.

I will never understand that way.

To see how it works, in a technical sense, consider the example just given.

As to why it is appealing, for the reasons I have given in this thread; @Steve C has also stated similar reasons in some posts, including this recent one:

An audience could very well create an issue where the noble makes direct demands of the characters, and I think that would be part and parcel with people's expectations for D&D.

<snip>

I do get the sense, however, that it could lead to a feeling of railroading and a loss of agency. Not something that I'm interested in: I want to empower characters and have them build relationships with the world, not make them feel like they're stuck.

I hope it's reasonably clear, in the example, how the building of relationships, and the commitments and orientations of the PCs by the players, are fostered and reinforced by me as GM.

 

[mamba]

I will never understand that way.

It is not that hard to understand, the absolute overriding emphasis is to never deny player agency, unless it is in accordance with the rules of the game, to maximize player agency and thereby, hopefully, player enjoyment.

Think of it as you and your friends having this little creator god who absolutely adores them and created a world essentially for them. Everything exists in relation to them and they are the sole focus of the creator god.

There are still Physics and things, and not everyone is friendly to his buddies, because the creator god is just a small god and is not powerful enough to solve everything for his little buddies. So they still need to eat, sleep, can get hurt when they trip, for that matter can trip, etc., but outside of that all his attention is on them, their wishes and desires.

Even if the little god cannot outright grant them, he absolutely is rooting for them and makes sure they get the best shot he can offer to fulfill their needs and desires.

Not that hard to get, whether you want to play that way is a separate issue

 

[pemerton]

It is not that hard to understand, the absolute overriding emphasis is to never deny player agency, unless it is in accordance with the rules of the game, to maximize player agency and thereby, hopefully, player enjoyment.

Think of it as you and your friends having this little creator god who absolutely adores them and created a world essentially for them. Everything exists in relation to them and they are the sole focus of the creator god.

I would put it a bit differently.

There is a type of human creative endeavour called storytelling. It includes certain elements which can be understood at least semi-technically: characters who have dramatic needs; rising action; perhaps most importantly crisis or climax in which the question of whether the character will fulfil their dramatic need is posed and answered; and, as a result, resolution one way or another.

The appeal of RPGing, for me at least, is that it enables the creation of stories with (i) no one having to be the storyteller, and (ii) the possibility of having the experience of "being" the character. This is a distinctive type of aesthetic experience.

Key to achieving (ii) is to have PC build establish dramatic needs for those PCs. These are the player priorities that I have talked about in this thread. And I've said a bit about how various RPG systems permit players to express them (eg player-authored quests in 4e D&D).

Key to achieving (i) is to have a system for framing, and for resolution, that will make dramatic need salient without anyone have to choose, in advance, what the resolution of those needs will look like. I've given examples, and explanation, that show how certain GMing principles can achieve this. (There are other RPGs with principles that are a bit different from what I've discussed that can also do this, most prominent Apocalypse World and some of its offshoots.)

The alternative approach being set out in this thread, in which players play characters who are to a significant extent self-inserted lenses whereby they learn what the GM has in mind for the fiction, and prompt the GM to present and develop those ideas, is to me a quite different experience. It involves comparatively less creative engagement from the players. Their role is to provide characterisation for their PCs, and to unravel the "mystery" of the GM's world - to work out how it operates, what its various components are and how they related, etc. Players, in this approach, perform a role that is more cognitive than creative.

 

[clearstream]

I would put it a bit differently.

There is a type of human creative endeavour called storytelling. It includes certain elements which can be understood at least semi-technically: characters who have dramatic needs; rising action; perhaps most importantly crisis or climax in which the question of whether the character will fulfil their dramatic need is posed and answered; and, as a result, resolution one way or another.

The appeal of RPGing, for me at least, is that it enables the creation of stories with (i) no one having to be the storyteller, and (ii) the possibility of having the experience of "being" the character. This is a distinctive type of aesthetic experience.

Key to achieving (ii) is to have PC build establish dramatic needs for those PCs. These are the player priorities that I have talked about in this thread. And I've said a bit about how various RPG systems permit players to express them (eg player-authored quests in 4e D&D).

Key to achieving (i) is to have a system for framing, and for resolution, that will make dramatic need salient without anyone have to choose, in advance, what the resolution of those needs will look like. I've given examples, and explanation, that show how certain GMing principles can achieve this. (There are other RPGs with principles that are a bit different from what I've discussed that can also do this, most prominent Apocalypse World and some of its offshoots.)

The alternative approach being set out in this thread, in which players play characters who are to a significant extent self-inserted lenses whereby they learn what the GM has in mind for the fiction, and prompt the GM to present and develop those ideas, is to me a quite different experience. It involves comparatively less creative engagement from the players. Their role is to provide characterisation for their PCs, and to unravel the "mystery" of the GM's world - to work out how it operates, what its various components are and how they related, etc. Players, in this approach, perform a role that is more cognitive than creative.

Nicely articulated. I've been attempting to advance some related theory and this is roughly where I am at present.

1. At least two human creative drives find expression in TTRPG - storytelling and exploration.

2. Players engage with these drives in a ludic-duality - at once audience and author. This ludic-duality makes experiencing content in the form of game distinct from experiencing similar content in other mediums.

3. Norms of play have formed around weightings of the duality - either more toward audience, or more toward author. This is only weight, neither is absent.

So to consider some pairings

i) Storytelling=audience. This mode maps to forms of trad play that prioritise a satisfying story. Players are pre-destined protagonists in a story told by game designers and/or GM. Perhaps it is the most naturally obvious mode (to engage with games in ways familiar from other media.)

Ii) Storytelling=author. This mode maps to what you have described. Participants collaborate to create their story through play; it emerges in a dramatic situation presented by game designers and/or GM.

iii) Exploration=audience. This mode maps to forms of trad play in which players explore content prepared by game designers and/or GM.

iv) Exploration=author. This mode maps to forms of sim play that leverage the collective genius of participants and irrealities of subject. Participants collaborate to investigate subject through play, typically one nominated by and with tools provided by game designers and/or GM.

I'm reminded of the lean-back / lean-forward dichotomy of video / games. One is receptive - let me experience something - the other is active - let me make something happen. These preferences can move around the table and change over time. In a similar vein, no one is assumed to do pure storytelling or pure exploring: the two are mixed in varying degrees.

Finally, there are techniques connected with the specific properties of TTRPG that can serve any pairing. Such as

a) Fiction-first. TTRPG is distinct from other games in heavily committting to a fiction state (along with a system state.) Fiction-first most importantly observes the continuous flow of momentum back and forth between them.

b) Internal-cause. In fictional realities, extrapolating from world laws strengthens immersion (and avoids jarring disjunctions.)

There are others, but I felt those two worth listing provocatively in just this way. Related to the thread topic, I think what counts as ideal player agency shifts according to the preferences outlined above as pairings (actually a continuum).

 

[Oofta]

I would put it a bit differently.

There is a type of human creative endeavour called storytelling. It includes certain elements which can be understood at least semi-technically: characters who have dramatic needs; rising action; perhaps most importantly crisis or climax in which the question of whether the character will fulfil their dramatic need is posed and answered; and, as a result, resolution one way or another.

The appeal of RPGing, for me at least, is that it enables the creation of stories with (i) no one having to be the storyteller, and (ii) the possibility of having the experience of "being" the character. This is a distinctive type of aesthetic experience.

Key to achieving (ii) is to have PC build establish dramatic needs for those PCs. These are the player priorities that I have talked about in this thread. And I've said a bit about how various RPG systems permit players to express them (eg player-authored quests in 4e D&D).

Key to achieving (i) is to have a system for framing, and for resolution, that will make dramatic need salient without anyone have to choose, in advance, what the resolution of those needs will look like. I've given examples, and explanation, that show how certain GMing principles can achieve this. (There are other RPGs with principles that are a bit different from what I've discussed that can also do this, most prominent Apocalypse World and some of its offshoots.)

The alternative approach being set out in this thread, in which players play characters who are to a significant extent self-inserted lenses whereby they learn what the GM has in mind for the fiction, and prompt the GM to present and develop those ideas, is to me a quite different experience. It involves comparatively less creative engagement from the players. Their role is to provide characterisation for their PCs, and to unravel the "mystery" of the GM's world - to work out how it operates, what its various components are and how they related, etc. Players, in this approach, perform a role that is more cognitive than creative.

You had me agreeing right up until that last paragraph and especially the last sentence. When I playing a PC instead of DMing, my creativity is different but it is still creative. I'm focused on only one aspect of that fiction but it is not a passive role. A cognitive role implies something akin to reading a book or watching video which is simply not the case.

The scope of my creativity is obviously limited, but the fiction I create can also be far deeper. The other limit is, of course, that I'm sharing a role with up to 5 other people. But if the DM is running a published module and tends to stay within the confines of that module? Then in some ways they are typically less creative and have less agency in many ways than I do as a player.

Of course all of this varies. I've built up some of my PCs in order to see things through their lense and others have been for games that were more popcorn games without a lot of depth or creativity on either side. But the best games? The ones I enjoy most? We can spend a significant amount of time exploring our characters through RP with other players and the decisions we make both in and out of game time. Part of the fun of playing is determining who my PC is and how they influence the decisions they make. That to me can be just as creative and sometimes more creative than running a game.