D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Manbearcat]

Can we take some of the complication out by comparing a hypothetical d&d with higher or lower chances for success to actual d&d. Same for mouse guard, etc? Does that make the analysis easier?

I don't think we can because the relationship of agency and success rate is multivariate and dependent upon several variables (which is what I was trying to illustrate). And each of those variables are (or at least might be) multidimensional.

Here is an easy historical lament that you hear from players of martial characters talking about noncombat resolution (the lament is about their lack of agency in these situations):

* Martial character has a noncombat suite of abilities that lets them average 85 % success rate. Pretty high, right?

* While across a large distribution of tests, they sit at 85 %, target numbers can fluctuate pretty significantly to reduce individual test success rate dramatically (perhaps down to 55 %).

* Player doesn't know the target number and/or doesn't know how it might be derived.

* Failure is hard failure; whiffing and kersplatting. And hard failure can mean the situation has gone sideways if the GM says/feels its gone sideways.

* Unfortunately, the martial PC player doesn't know and can't well-project how many tests they're going to have to successfully resolve in any given situation. Might be 3, might be 5. 5 suddenly means "things going totally sideways" is absolutely in play. Across the course of two conflicts? Its basically a sure thing.

* The martial PC player doesn't have a suite of widgets/handles/resources to draw upon to discretionally amplify their odds of success based on their analysis/projection of the unfolding situation/consequence-suite in front of them.

* There is absolutely 0 incentive for failure. Failure is all bad, all the time. No "failure minigame" to power advancement or power Downtime (or whatever).

* GM doesn't telegraph/foreground consequences particularly well so the player isn't well-informed on their potential suite of consequences based on their approach to overcome the obstacle and ability/skill deployed.


You add all of that up and/or you take several key components of that together? Despite that high success rate on any given test, you are in a relatively information poor environment + a resource martialing/management-poor environment + situation sideways stakes on all tests + all the incentive structures pointing in one direction (succeed or potentially sideways).

EDIT - Addendum.

Ok, now lets consider all of the above EXCEPT...the player of the martial character, through intricate and complex PC build interactions, generate action resolution numbers that consistently overwhelm the mathematical foundation of the system. 100 % all day long.

What now? Is that "more agency?" What I would say about that paradigm is follows:

* The entirety of "agency" expressed in the proposed game engine and in the proposed play is in "deck-building." Its all pre-play. Can you generate a character, before play, that overwhelms the game's numerical chassis?

* Ok so what happens during play? Well, during actually play, we are now existing in a 0 agency environment. Decision-tree management, resource management, hard decisions where you struggle to fight for what you believe/prioritize ethos quandries, etc etc...irrelevant; kaput. All matters of agency have been settled before play even began.

So, despite the ability to generate 100 % success rate in action resolution because of the dynamics of intricate character building (pre-play), actual table time, actual play features no agency whatsoever. I think most people would call this a broken game or degenerate CharOps or something.

 

[Raiztt]

This is obviously controversial, given that my dislike of GM-driven, setting-oriented play is caused precisely by the lack of player agency.

I am really curious about something. Suppose, (for whatever reason), you're sitting down at my table for session zero at the start of a new group or 'campaign'. I give you the broad-brush strokes/bullet points of the game world as I've envisioned it. Nothing massively detailed, something like "Ok, here's a map, here are some major countries, here are some of the major world events from the recent past, and here is where I'd like to start us out at".
‎
‎ As per your preferences, have we already strayed too far from your preferred play style?

 

[Oofta]

I am really curious about something. Suppose, (for whatever reason), you're sitting down at my table for session zero at the start of a new group or 'campaign'. I give you the broad-brush strokes/bullet points of the game world as I've envisioned it. Nothing massively detailed, something like "Ok, here's a map, here are some major countries, here are some of the major world events from the recent past, and here is where I'd like to start us out at".
‎
‎ As per your preferences, have we already strayed too far from your preferred play style?

That's pretty much how I always set up my campaigns except I'll give multiple areas and a general idea of what the types of initial challenges are. I'll also open it up for discussion, I'm flexible. The players always decide the general direction, I just provide the setting and obstacles. People can come up with as complicated a backstory as they want, goals, desires and so on. All I ask is that they don't play evil PCs and the group has to agree on general direction and setting.

 

[Raiztt]

I just think I detected/thought of a reason people might be chaffing so hard against each other in this thread and it has a lot to do with what they want as a player.

When I am a player, what I want is to explore. I want to overcome obstacles, I want to learn secrets, discover hidden places, etc. So, because of that, it is absolutely at odds with my purpose to do much authoring of the game world. Then, I'm not exploring - I am creating.

It was really fun to discover the creepy and eldritch horror at the bottom of the moat house in RttToEE because I didn't know what was down there. It would not have been fun if I just got to decide what was at the bottom. I want the world to exist independently of myself. I do not think this reduces my agency one whit, because I express my agency in the form of exploration, not in the form of creation.

That is the reason why Mamba was correct when he said:

There are two philosophies here and in both the players have plenty of agency.

What provides agency for collective narrativist does not provide meaningful agency to myself. Agency can't really be decoupled from your goals as a player, and different players have different goals.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I apologized to @Aldarc privately, but for the record that exchange got out of hand and I apologize. I was using "oppress" as a synonym for "restrict" and wasn't thinking of any other implications of the term and how it might be otherwise taken.

While I obviously prefer classic or trad-style play, in terms of player agency being simply the ability of players to affect the fiction (however they do it), I think it is clear that narrative games offer more than other types. I also agree with @Manbearcat that the cognitive load on the GM's creativity in such a game, coming as it does in table play as improvisation, is likely to be higher at the table than games I prefer.

Obviously I don't want that kind of player agency as a player or a GM in games I play, and I don't like the inherent restrictions on the GM that playing those kinds of games as they are intended would require. And I don't think that any style, no matter how long it's been around or how popular it is or was, should be considered an acceptable target for insult, that obviously includes games I don't prefer as much as it includes those I do.

Again, I apologize.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I just think I detected/thought of a reason people might be chaffing so hard against each other in this thread and it has a lot to do with what they want as a player.

When I am a player, what I want is to explore. I want to overcome obstacles, I want to learn secrets, discover hidden places, etc. So, because of that, it is absolutely at odds with my purpose to do much authoring of the game world. Then, I'm not exploring - I am creating.

It was really fun to discover the creepy and eldritch horror at the bottom of the moat house in RttToEE because I didn't know what was down there. It would not have been fun if I just got to decide what was at the bottom. I want the world to exist independently of myself. I do not think this reduces my agency one whit, because I express my agency in the form of exploration, not in the form of creation.

That is the reason why Mamba was correct when he said:

What provides agency for collective narrativist does not provide meaningful agency to myself. Agency can't really be decoupled from your goals as a player, and different players have different goals.

My thinking predominantly aligns with yours, in terms of where my fun is generated as a player.
However I can clearly see the appeal from the other side, so much so that I have incorporated some of their ideas from posts in threads like these within my traditional style of play and for the most part, my players have taken to them.

Just for example - I allowed the players to create 5 NPCs, with as much of a write-up as they wanted, which their characters encountered within their home city base. They had the freedom for their PCs to have positive, negative or neutral relationships with them and now as DM I'm able to lean on their creativity to flesh out further stories with these NPCs using their write-ups as a guideline.
One of them created a curious crow that would now and then be seen observing him in the city. Another player created a cleric he would often seek counsel with...etc

That is just 1 example of many concepts I've incorporated.
I would have never thought of doing this had I not been exposed to posters who've enjoyed games with a stronger collective agency in the narration.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My thinking predominantly aligns with yours, in terms of where my fun is generated as a player.
However I can clearly see the appeal from the other side, so much so that I have incorporated some of their ideas from posts in threads like these within my traditional style of play and for the most part, my players have taken to them.

Just for example - I allowed the players to create 5 NPCs, with as much of a write-up as they wanted, which their characters encountered within their home city base. They had the freedom for their PCs to have positive, negative or neutral relationships with them and now as DM I'm able to lean on their creativity to flesh out further stories with these NPCs using their write-ups as a guideline.
One of them created a curious crow that would now and then be seen observing him in the city. Another player created a cleric he would often seek counsel with...etc

That is just 1 example of many concepts I've incorporated.
I would have never thought of doing this had I not been exposed to posters who've enjoyed games with a stronger collective agency in the narration.

I actually like that idea as well, provided it all happens before the campaign begins and play proceeds the classic way in regards to player/DM distribution of authority once things start at the table.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I have something I hope will be constructive to add.

Maybe we should analyze a part of RPG's that should be less controversial and have less moving parts - Character Building.
I'm going to start with 5e D&D as an example.

Basics:
Choose a Race
Choose a Class (and any sub-choices under class)
Choose a Background
Assign Stats

The questions:
1. Does adding more Race or Class options increase player agency? Does subtracting Race or Class options decrease player agency?
2. If table practice is rolling for Stats in Order is that lower player agency than rolling and choosing where to assign?
3. Would player agency be lowered if the option of Background was entirely removed?
4. Does it matter for player agency if the players and GM's arrive at these decisions together or if the DM arrives at these changes himself?

In general I don't see any impact on player agency here. Exception: if absolutely every character creation option was simultaneously taken away (example: roll and be assigned a pregren character based on your roll).

I'm curious what others will say.

Another important question to consider - Compare the player agency in D&D character creation to the player agency in character creations for games where choices made in character creation tend to have a greater impact on the direction of play than they do in D&D.

1. Adding options does increase agency, but it has diminishing returns. Going from one race to four is obviously an increase, going from four to seven is, but at some point you're o longer meaningfully adding anything. the 42nd planetouched race probably doesn't make the game feel much broader than the 41st one did.

BUT at the personal preference level: adding the race I want to play make me feel like I have more choices, even if it's the 77th race added to the game. In other words, the feeling of agency (and agency is a feeling) is aided by adding choices I'm interested in, not any choice at all.

2. Roll in Order would be less agency, because it artificially restricts what other choices I can reasonably make. Sure, I'm allowed to play a wizard with 18 strength and 6's everywhere else, but that's not a reasonable option to present.

If I'm down to play whatever class, this might not affect my feeling of agency, but if I wanted to create a character to tell a story about, then this will feel bad. Different strokes and all that.

3. Technically yes - but bckground features are generally pretty weak overall so I'd suspect most people would barely notice. Denying background features mid-game can feel like a lack of agency if handled poorly, but can increase the player's engagement if handled well.

4. GM running by fiat means less agency for players. This is pretty much an absolute.

I should note though, that my hypothesis is that agency isn't a 'more is better' thing - you need to feel like you have 'enough' agency in order to have fun, but more than enough doesn't necessarily or even usually mean more fun. Each person has their own minimum, and below that the game won't work for them. And since there are different kinds of agency, it's important to note that a person will care about some more than others (or even not care at all about some types.)

And yes, gms have their own agency preferences that need to be met for them to have fun.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Another hopefully constructive addition.

The chance of success for a dice roll. Do higher or lower chances of success impact player agency or is the question of player agency independent.

I think some will say players that have success more often weighted in their favor have greater control over the narrative and thus greater agency.

I think others will say that player agency is independent of the chance for success because whatever the chance of success you had a meaningful choice to pick that or a different action.

Thoughts, opinions?

Really swingy die like the d20 can make characters feel inconsistent, especially if you're rolling a lot for things you're supposed to be good at overall.

BUT the die also creates space for adding agency: the more you can impact the dice roll, the more mechanical agency you have. This is why people who really engage with the system in PF2 or 3x DnD can feel like they have a lot of control in those games but little in 5e - even though the odds are often the same. 5e limits you to one source of advantage, which is pretty easy to do in most games, which can flatten play by making simple tactics dominate and not need adjustment to circumstance.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I am really curious about something. Suppose, (for whatever reason), you're sitting down at my table for session zero at the start of a new group or 'campaign'. I give you the broad-brush strokes/bullet points of the game world as I've envisioned it. Nothing massively detailed, something like "Ok, here's a map, here are some major countries, here are some of the major world events from the recent past, and here is where I'd like to start us out at".
‎
‎ As per your preferences, have we already strayed too far from your preferred play style?

For myself: I'd still have questions. Mostly about what sorts of characters you want, and how to tie them to the world you've presented.

Do you have an overall plot in mind (subject to stuff that happens in play, of course) or is this more of a sandbox where we need to bring our own goals.

I was thinking of playing a centaur. Are there centaurs in your setting? If not, can they be added or should I shelve this concept and play something else (I got a whole list here; I won't feel bad if this idea doesn't work this time.)

If I play a cleric, how fleshed out are the religions? Can I make up details of the church/practice/theology or do you want to control all of that?