D&D General What is player agency to you?

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is why, to me in my subjective tastes, PbtA isn't a "game" as I understand it and more of like a group story telling session. A slightly more complex group improv.

Hmmm, DW is quite definitely a game. The roles are quite well-defined. The move structure makes it all quite clean. The structure of play is less about where you are and what you are doing, that just constrains what moves are allowable. It can be almost board game like.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the idea that traditional play can't be player focused is a strawman. It certainly isn't a given that any given game is player goal centric, but it certainly can be. I know my games are. I always have multiple threads going, multiple options the players can choose from. If someone has an individual goal, I'll try to figure out how to fit it in.

I just don't see how a narrative game can be that much more focused on individual wants in needs that can't also have similar fiction arcs in standard D&D. If we don't see that much in D&D I suspect it's largely because the people playing the game aren't exactly clamoring for it, it's not what they want or need in a game.

I think you can do it, but you have to be more flexible about how things center more on the PCs than is typical in those games. There's such a thing as vanilla Narrativist play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, it's not, because we don't even agree on what agency means.

So what do you think it means?

Let's set aside RPGs for just the moment... what would player agency mean for a board game? What about chess? What about basketball?

Players have agency in these games as well. So maybe think about what it looks like in those games and then see how that compares to your thoughts about player agency in RPGs, and see how things line up.

 

[Raiztt]

So what do you think it means?

...an agent is a being with the capacity to act, and ‘agency’ denotes the exercise or manifestation of this capacity.

Agency is the ability to do things, simpliciter.

Attempting to secure a meeting with someone is an act of agency, whether you actually get it or not. The outcome is irrelevant vis a vis a.) did you do something and b.) could you have done otherwise?

This is why i said that "authorship" is a better word for narrativists to use. Because unless your DM sits you down and says "Ok, you do this and now this happens to you, and now you do this", you have agency in both types of games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not sure many PbtA fans would be happy to compare their experience to a board game.

 

[Oofta]

I think you can do it, but you have to be more flexible about how things center more on the PCs than is typical in those games. There's such a thing as vanilla Narrativist play.

Define "typical". Typical D&D modules aren't character centric, although some attempt to be. If it's not typical in D&D in my experience it's largely because a lot of people don't want a player-centric game. Perhaps a better term would be character goal centric game? A lot of people just want to explore a world or be given a limited set of options on a linear path. A fair number DM's also just aren't very good at improvisational game developments.

 

[Raiztt]

Define "typical". Typical D&D modules aren't character centric, although some attempt to be. If it's not typical in D&D in my experience it's largely because a lot of people don't want a player-centric game. Perhaps a better term would be character goal centric game? A lot of people just want to explore a world or be given a limited set of options on a linear path. A fair number DM's also just aren't very good at improvisational game developments.

IMO, there is nothing worse than the player who wants the game to be about "who" they are rather than "what they do".

 

[Oofta]

So what do you think it means?

Let's set aside RPGs for just the moment... what would player agency mean for a board game? What about chess? What about basketball?

Players have agency in these games as well. So maybe think about what it looks like in those games and then see how that compares to your thoughts about player agency in RPGs, and see how things line up.

To me agency boils down to the ability to make reasonably informed choices having a decent understanding of alternatives an probable results. So it doesn't matter what n number of choices a player has in front of them, any two games have basically the same agency as long as they both have n number of choices. The outcome doesn't need to be guaranteed, nor does the person need total control over the outcome (even if successful).

 

[soviet]

Agency is the ability to do things, simpliciter.

Attempting to secure a meeting with someone is an act of agency, whether you actually get it or not. The outcome is irrelevant vis a vis a.) did you do something and b.) could you have done otherwise?

This is why i said that "authorship" is a better word for narrativists to use. Because unless your DM sits you down and says "Ok, you do this and now this happens to you, and now you do this", you have agency in both types of games.

So if we both played nobles in the same long running campaign, and every time I used my noble background to secure an audience it was granted and led to new adventures and opportunities that dominated the session, but every time you requested one the GM said 'sorry, the Duke's out fishing', you and I would have the same level of agency in that campaign?

 

[mamba]

I'm not sure many PbtA fans would be happy to compare their experience to a board game.

or that it is an endorsement…