D&D General What is player agency to you?

[bloodtide]

You do realize

No. But it's not like the two of us could ever agree.

The group of people your talking about, are the people I'd never game with. My House Rules alone would stop them from even wanting to play in my game. They read the rule "you can not complain during the game. But anytime afterwards I will be happy to hear your complaint" and will immediately walk out, complaining that they can not complain.

Every so often someone lies to get in my game....but they don't last too long. Like the one player who was fine for the first couple minutes of the Underdark adventure. Until I mentioned in passing the slave pens in the drow market. She was triggered and then tried to ruin the game. But I had her leave quickly, and the rest of us got back to the game.

Just a couple weeks ago, for one of my new games, a player wanted to have his GF join. Except she was a hardcore PETA person....like she dress up like animals and throws red paint on dog walkers and veterinarians(and has videos of this). So her demand was no killing animals in the game and no "enslaved" animals in the game. I just flat out told her "nope". And she left, never to be seen again.

 

[pemerton]

Genuine question, do Dungeon World, Burning Wheel etc. have published adventures, that sounds pretty antithetical to the whole genre.

To add to what @Citizen Mane posted: The Sword, for Burning Wheel, is a single scene, to be played through with pre-gens. Thelon's Rift is a prelude to Torchbearer, and is reproduced in the Torchbearer volume Cartographer's Companion.

Here is a Burning Wheel scenario I wrote up, together with some designer notes; as far as I know no one has ever actually played it, but I think it is playable:

For setting details, I've stolen geographic labels from the World of Greyhawk and proper names from Dungeon World. Any others should do just as well.

The bridge
A situation for two Burning Wheel players and a GM.

Background: A river runs through the Welkwood, dividing the Elven kingdom of Celene and the human lands to the east. It was once traversed by a great stone bridge, crafted by the Elven shapers and a sign of friendship between the two peoples. The Elven bards would greet travellers and welcome many of them as Elf-friends. Seventy years ago, Ansley the Lion of Fax - lusting after the jewels of the Elves - led an incursion over the bridge. In the conflict the bridge was ruined. The Elven Protectors have left it in its fallen state, its stones lying in the long grass and the water. The Elves have retreated to their havens and citadels; and while the people of Fax now repent of Ansley's deeds, they lack the funds and skills to rebuild the bridge themselves.

PC 1: Dagoliir (Age 170 years; Born Wilder Elf, Song Singer, lead to Citadel, Bard, lead to Paths of Spite, Griever, Deceiver)

Will B6, Perception B6, Agility B6, Speed B4, Forte B4, Power B4, Spite B6,

Reflexes B5, Steel B5 (hesitation 4), Health B6, PTGS (Superficial B3, Light B5, Midi B7, Severe B8, Traumatic B9, Mortal Wound B10)

Resources B1, Circles B3, Reputation (+1D) as the last bard of the fallen bridge

Skills: Sing B4, Lyre B4, Elven Script B3, Conspicuous B4, Oratory B5, Persuasion B4, Song of Soothing B4, Sleight of Hand B3, Sword B3, Bridge-wise B3

Spellsongs: Song of Songs B3, Song of Merriment B3, Verse of Friendship B4, Tract of Enmity B5, Sorrow of Truth B3, Rhyme of the Unraveller G6

Traits: Charismatic, Deceptive, Vocal

Lives in the foundation hall of the ruined bridge, on the eastern side of the river; wears Elven clothes but goes barefoot; in the hall are Dagoliir's Elven lyre (+1D), Elven sword and the finery of their former office.

Beliefs: The ruins of the bridge exemplify the ruin of the world - its stones shall lie where they fell, and it shall never be rebuilt!; I will never forget Ansley's betrayal - it's better that I suffer than the humans prosper; I tire of living in squalor and solitude - why do none of my kin relieve me of my vigil?

Instincts: Always greet those who arrive at the river bank - and lift their purse if I can!; Always point out what is flawed; Sing the Rhyme of the Unraveller when anyone tries to build.


PC 2: Tripp (Age 35 years; City Born, lead to Noble, Bastard, lead to Soldier, Scout, lead to Peasant, Peddler, lead to Outcast, Strider)

Will B5, Perception B4, Agility B4, Speed B4, Forte B4, Power B4

Reflexes B4, Steel B5 (hesitation 5), Health B5, PTGS (Superficial B3, Light B5, Midi B7, Severe B8, Traumatic B9, Mortal Wound B10)

Resources B0, Circles B2, Noble father (the grandson of Ansley) who denies and despises Tripp, Infamous reputation (+1D) among the nobility as the bastard great-grandchild of Ansley the Lion, Affiliation (+1D) with the brave and sturdy woodsfolk of the Welkwood

Skills: Stealthy B3, Foraging B3, Orienteering B2, Observation B4, Mending B2, Sing B2, Etiquette B3, Haggling B4, Persuasion B5, Soothing Platitudes B4, Family Secret-wise B2, Forest-wise B2, Bow B3, Axe B4

Traits: Bastard, Blank Stare, Glib, Happy-Go-Lucky, Loner, Dreamer

Wears the clothes, boots and cloak of a traveller in the woods, and soft leather armour; carries travelling gear, a knife in a belt sheath, a kit for mending, a run-of-the-mill axe and a superior quality hunting bow (+1D).

Tripp has been visited while dreaming by the ghost of Ansley; and Ansley has described how, as the Elven Protectors routed his warband, he hid a pouch of Elven jewels in the foundations of the bridge.

Beliefs: It is a great life, wandering through this wonderful wood; I am not my ancestry; Ansley has visited me for a reason, so I will find the jewels that he cached.

Instinct: Whistle as I walk; Always offer a cheerful greeting; Never start a fight.


Additional setting details: Over the past 70 years, the river's course has shifted and the place where Ansley hid the jewels is now a couple of feet under the water, below Dagoliir's dwelling-hall. The jewels are a +3D fund.

As well as the stones in the river, there are also Dagoliir's old shoes. He lost them wading through the river during the battle 70 years ago. Being Elven shoes, while they are wet and damaged they can be mended.

I think when presenting a BW scenario for a one-shot (which I take it is the logic of Iron DM) the PC stats are crucial. I took inspiration in that respect from The Sword, which is an old BW demo scenario (I just had a quick poke around BWHQ to see if it's still there, but couldn't find it).

It's the intersection of situation, stats and Beliefs (and to a lesser extent Instincts) that suggest a way forward for the scenario.

There's no particular way that it's supposed to play out. But as I was writing it, and now re-reading it, a few ideas occurred to me.

The PCs probably meet, given one has an Instinct to whistle and cheerfully greet, and the other an Instinct to greet arrivals at the bridge. There's no reason to think an initial fight breaks out - Tripp prefers never to start a fight, and Dagoliir is bitter, not violent. Both PCs are built to be credible in a Duel of Wits (Dagoliir's Oratory is hampered by Deceiver but enhanced by Charismatic; Tripp's Soothing Platitudes and Falsehood are enhanced by Glib, and Blank Stare puts a penalty on some of Dagoliir's checks).

Tripp can pretend not to be related to Ansley (Falsehood - Tripp is cheerful but there is no Belief or Instinct about being honest). Dagoliir has a reason to help find the jewels (the third Belief) although also has a reason not to share them (and Sleight of Hand might come into play in that respect). Tripp might persuade Dagoliir that the best way to get revenge would be for the two of them to recover the jewels and then rub Tripp's father's nose in that fact!

Another option is that Dagolliir destroys what remains of the bridge (Rhyme of the Unmaker) to find the jewels.

I think that the jewels need to be more valuable than what I posted - probably +5D (the odd number makes it harder to agree on an even split, which is deliberate) - because one option should be that Tripp calls on the woodfolk to help rebuild the bridge, and +3D resources probably isn't quite enough to suggest that.

I also imagined smaller scenes, like Dagoliir disrupting stones that Tripp is moving into the river to help create "stepping stones". Or Tripp's whistling prompting Dagoliir to sing and play. If Dagoliir want to use Song of Soothing (the Elven version of herbalism), Tripp has Foraging to find the herbs. Tripp can find and mend Dagoliir's shoes (reducing his squalor).

There's no pathway in this scenario for Dagoliir to recover from Spite (that's a mechanically complicated process that requires the participation of another Elf whom the Dark Elf has wronged); but there is scope for Dagoliir to move on from the bridge, with or without Tripp. And with or without the jewels: after all, Tripp might lean hard into I am not my ancestry and forget about the dreams of Ansley.

So anyway, the sort of framework I had in mind was something more like the films Hero, or The Bridge on the River Kwai - unfolding over time, rather than a quick dust-up and it's all resolved. I haven't playtested it so don't know if it would work - but I think it could.

 

[pemerton]

A friend pointed me to this blog post by Christopher Chinn: Narrativism 101

Here are some excerpts - a pithy description of narrativist/"story now" RPGing:

Narrativism is a style of roleplaying where the whole point of playing is to have player characters freely make choices* and actions based on human issues.

*Obviously, I mean the players make choices through using their characters, but as far as the fiction is concerned, it’s the PCs “making choices” within the fiction.​

And a nice description of some parameters that follow:

You can’t have the players freely make choices if the choices are already made. This means techniques like Railroading/Illusionism will not work here. It also means “preparing an adventure with multiple paths” also doesn’t work, because freely means just that- freely. . .

There’s a second important thing that comes of it- if the responses and choices of the players are freely available, there’s no way to really predict where things can or will go – which means play (and the role of a GM) has to be based in improvisation and flexibility. This stands in sharp contrast to many games which assume the only way to play is to have a pre-defined story or outcomes. . . .

While any sandbox type game might allow characters to freely make choices, the focus on the human issues is a second, and critical aspect.​

There's also a companion blog, What Narrativism Isn’t. It includes the following, which makes point that I and others have been posting repeatedly in this thread:

The biggest confusion I see is confusing rules or mechanics that allow the players to narrate the world or change setting aspects for actual Narrativism. This almost always also ties into the strawman argument that you’d have players declaring their characters are gods, shoot down the sun, and magically have money come falling out their asses. . . .

Some games have rules that give players more power to narrate or control the story, but a) that’s not Narrativist anymore than rolling a D6 would be, and b) many of those games also don’t have people doing ridiculous things to break the fiction.

A secondary issue is that while Narrativism puts dealing with human issues as the point of play - that doesn’t mean the “realism” or genre of the game is thrown out – the human issues are addressed while holding TO the fictional expectations for your game. (That is, if it’s completely realistic, then no one will go flying in the air because they’re in love).​

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Burning Wheel has three scenarios in the Adventure Burner, but most of that book is really advice on how to run BW. Of the scenarios, I've run and played in "The Sword," which is more of a convention demo than anything else. I've never played or run "Trouble in Hochen" or "Thelon's Rift," but I know there's at least some fondness for the former in the community.

Torchbearer definitely has adventures, but given that it's BWHQ's riff on Moldvay D&D, that's probably not surprising. I've run "Under the House of Three Squires" from the 1e book, and we had some fun with it in my group. I'm only familiar with a few others. Sean Nittner's Stone Dragon Mountain can be run as a campaign, for instance, but my game fizzled out before I could run it in part or whole.

I can't speak to Dungeon World. I don't think it does, but I came to it pretty late and have never been very plugged into it.

Yeah, I think some other PbtA games do have scenarios, but I haven't played anything beyond AW, DW, and Stonetop a bit. The first 2 of those probably wouldn't really support adventures, though you could write up some scenarios for DW probably. Stonetop of course has a pretty well-defined setting, but there's more 'hooks' for extensive stories, not 'scenarios'.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Genuine question, do Dungeon World, Burning Wheel etc. have published adventures, that sounds pretty antithetical to the whole genre.

Agon presents 14 islands you can use, but an island is very basic. Most of them are no more than 1500 words, just a starting situation, a couple of possible contests, a number of character sketches, and one or two suggested final 'battles' that would wrap up the island. Usually a couple of locations will be mentioned as well, but not with many details.

For instance I ran Nimos the other day, it starts with a starting scene (Arrival), and then outlines 3 potential contests the PCs might initiate based on how they react. After this several more contests (Trials) are outlined (three for Nimos). 2 possible finale (Battle) scenarios are then outlined. Then there's a list of Characters (7 in this case). This is followed by descriptions of 2 places (the Arrival describes another one), a Special Reward, and a section containing 2 Mysteries, which are basically choices the Strife Player will need to make about how the plot works (though you aren't bound by them). 3 pages total, about 1000 words.

There are some tables and advice about building additional islands. Presumably they would be pretty similar to the ones provided. I think there's a few 3rd party islands out there as well, I haven't really looked. I wouldn't call Agon a game that really caters to a long campaign though, each PC has a pretty finite lifespan, and rather quick character progression (both heroes in my game are on their 2nd island and are already hitting D8 'name' dice).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Just a couple weeks ago, for one of my new games, a player wanted to have his GF join. Except she was a hardcore PETA person....like she dress up like animals and throws red paint on dog walkers and veterinarians(and has videos of this). So her demand was no killing animals in the game and no "enslaved" animals in the game. I just flat out told her "nope". And she left, never to be seen again.

It is almost as if you encountered your mirror universe twin! lol.

Honestly though, I doubt she'd last in ANY game for long. There certainly ARE people who are just looking to be a pain, rare though it is to run into one. I remember a guy that played in our game once who was utterly obsessed with England and could only eat what he thought was English food and speak with a proper accent and etc. Yeah, he pretty much crashed and burned, but not before we discovered he actually believed that there is such a food as an 'English Muffin' in England (and that it is exactly like what we call by that name in the US). Sigh.

 

[pemerton]

Agon presents 14 islands you can use, but an island is very basic. Most of them are no more than 1500 words, just a starting situation, a couple of possible contests, a number of character sketches, and one or two suggested final 'battles' that would wrap up the island. Usually a couple of locations will be mentioned as well, but not with many details.

<snip>

There are some tables and advice about building additional islands. Presumably they would be pretty similar to the ones provided. I think there's a few 3rd party islands out there as well, I haven't really looked.

Look no further:

Kassos
A steep-sloped island of handicrafters and traders

Signs of the Gods
Demeter (Goddess of Law): Her sign is the seal - promises made and obligations kept.

Hephaistos (God of Crafting): His sign is a star-shaped brooch wrought out of tin, the imposition of form onto the chaos of the natural world.

Zeus (Lord of the Sky): A storm rages and torrential rain is falling as your sailors dock your vessel.

Arrival
Water flows through the streets of the town, sweeping away the market stalls and hand carts.

A crowd gathers at the edge of a cliff that overlooks the port - led by Dares, the priest of Zeus, they are going to throw a young man, Pythios, over the edge as a sacrifice.

A middle-aged woman, bedraggled in the downpour, recognises you as heroes and looks at you imploringly. She is Chryse, mother of Pythios.

You must choose swiftly: will you listen to Chryse (Arts & Oration to stop the crowd performing the sacrifice), or comfort her (Resolve & Spirit: if she wins, she hurls herself into the sea after her son), or join the crowd on the cliff (Resolve & Spirit: if the heroes win, the Strife Level is lowered by one)?

Trials
To learn the truth about Dares choice of sacrifice: he is in debt to Chryse (Craft & Reason in the temple records; Arts & Oration vs Dares).

To repair the drains and sewers (Craft & Reason; Arts & Oration may add an advantage from willing townsfolk).

To offer a different sacrifice to Zeus to end the storm (Resolve & Spirit; if the storm continues, raise the strife level and repairing the drains and sewers becomes Perilous).

Battle
Will the heroes confront the wild cultists who dance in the under temple, praying for the sky and earth to swallow up the town and restore Kassos to its primeval state? Threats: the cultists kill Dares; more rain falls.

Or will the heroes topple Dares from his position of influence? Threats: Dares destroys the records in the temple; violence breaks out among the townsfolk as old debts are called in and new ones established in the struggle for power.

Characters
Dares, Priest of Zeus (d8). Cunning (d6). Pious (d8, and Sacred in his temple).
Chryse, Townswoman (d6). Devoted to her son (d8). Honest (d6).
Townsfolk (d6). Industrious (d6). Cooperative: Advantage on any endeavour where they work together.
Thesela, cult leader (d8). Zealous (d6). Hidden knife (d8 Perilous). Accompanied by her cultists, she is Epic.

Places
The buildings in the town have copper downpipes; the sewers and drains made of brick and clay pipe, into which these flow, are in disrepair.

The temple of Zeus contains records of all debts and promises.

The under temple, lit by torches, has brick walls but an earthen floor.

Special Rewards
Trade goods to fill the hold of your vessel.

Mysteries
Why does Zeus send rain? Is it at the supplication of the cultists? To punish Dares for allowing the temple to fall into debt?

Who are the cultists? Are they townsfolk who despise urban life? Are they descendants of the farmers and hunters who once ruled on Kassos? And do they have some hold over Dares such that he dare not drive them from the under temple?

 

[clearstream]

Narrativism is a style of roleplaying where the whole point of playing is to have player characters freely make choices* and actions based on human issues.​

​

*Obviously, I mean the players make choices through using their characters, but as far as the fiction is concerned, it’s the PCs “making choices” within the fiction.​

That's a helpful link, and segues to a comment I wanted to make - or a question, rather: how is agency measured? Measuring agency would be fundamental to knowing if I have more or less agency under some set of rules. As is my wont, I'm going to argue that different groups may both enjoy more of whatever agency is meaningful to them, while still potentially having less of whatever agency is meaningful to others.

With reference to the blog post quoted, I want to say that narrativism isn't about necessarily making more choices, because what counts as "more" depends on how you measure it, but rather more choices of a specific kind.

You can’t have the players freely make choices if the choices are already made. This means techniques like Railroading/Illusionism will not work here. It also means “preparing an adventure with multiple paths” also doesn’t work, because freely means just that- freely. . .​

​

While any sandbox type game might allow characters to freely make choices, the focus on the human issues is a second, and critical aspect.​

So the blog post isn't saying that sandbox play offers less agency than narrativism. It's saying that it offers the wrong kind of choices. That straightforwardly endorses my opening hypothesis.

The blog post overall says what the right kind are. There are two conditions. One it states outright - they're choices focused on human issues. This is about premises: problematic features of human existence to be resolved. The second condition is implied, but not overtly stated. I just want to pull in another quote from the blog to explain that.

You may have restrictions about the situation or the characters that somewhat confines things (“You are all police, dedicated to protecting the public – no one should be, or become a crooked cop in this game”), but that’s the buy-in to the situation, not the same thing as preplanning situations and having a limited idea of how it can be solved/dealt with.

It turns out the agency can be restricted. During play of the game, I cannot become a crooked cop. That's disallowed. Restrictions are basic to games: that's what rules are all about. Creating the distinct play, rather than just any play!

Does this mean that a sandbox where I could become a crooked cop offers more agency? Not at all. It just points out that the agency we're interested in differs. The second condition is in fact agency over resolution of premises. That's why

Railroading/Illusionism will not work here. It also means “preparing an adventure with multiple paths” also doesn’t work, because freely means just that- freely.

Freely doesn't mean "free to do anything", it means that players (not game designer, not GM) are free to resolve the premises however they desire. That is a powerful agency and distinct to narrativism. Coming back to my opening thought: I don't believe it necessarily amounts to more agency, because what measures "more" depends on what I am counting.

Is the measure of agency how many times I as a player get to say something that happens in our fiction or system? Is it the breadth of choices I get to choose between? Is it effect, or how powerfully I can impact the game world? As quoted from the companion blog

Some games have rules that give players more power to narrate or control the story, but a) that’s not Narrativist anymore than rolling a D6 would be, and b) many of those games also don’t have people doing ridiculous things to break the fiction.​

So no, it's not just any kind of power. Offering me four apples and one pear isn't giving me more agency than offering me a single pear, if all I want is pears!

 

[FrogReaver]

A friend pointed me to this blog post by Christopher Chinn: Narrativism 101

Here are some excerpts - a pithy description of narrativist/"story now" RPGing:

Narrativism is a style of roleplaying where the whole point of playing is to have player characters freely make choices* and actions based on human issues.​

​

*Obviously, I mean the players make choices through using their characters, but as far as the fiction is concerned, it’s the PCs “making choices” within the fiction.​

And a nice description of some parameters that follow:

You can’t have the players freely make choices if the choices are already made. This means techniques like Railroading/Illusionism will not work here. It also means “preparing an adventure with multiple paths” also doesn’t work, because freely means just that- freely. . .​

​

There’s a second important thing that comes of it- if the responses and choices of the players are freely available, there’s no way to really predict where things can or will go – which means play (and the role of a GM) has to be based in improvisation and flexibility. This stands in sharp contrast to many games which assume the only way to play is to have a pre-defined story or outcomes. . . .​

​

While any sandbox type game might allow characters to freely make choices, the focus on the human issues is a second, and critical aspect.​

There's also a companion blog, What Narrativism Isn’t. It includes the following, which makes point that I and others have been posting repeatedly in this thread:

The biggest confusion I see is confusing rules or mechanics that allow the players to narrate the world or change setting aspects for actual Narrativism. This almost always also ties into the strawman argument that you’d have players declaring their characters are gods, shoot down the sun, and magically have money come falling out their asses. . . .​

​

Some games have rules that give players more power to narrate or control the story, but a) that’s not Narrativist anymore than rolling a D6 would be, and b) many of those games also don’t have people doing ridiculous things to break the fiction.​

​

A secondary issue is that while Narrativism puts dealing with human issues as the point of play - that doesn’t mean the “realism” or genre of the game is thrown out – the human issues are addressed while holding TO the fictional expectations for your game. (That is, if it’s completely realistic, then no one will go flying in the air because they’re in love).​

Great explanation. Though I’ll note it sounds quite a bit different than the now common refrain on these forums that one of narrativism games primary differences from d&d play is about ‘who authors the fiction’.

I’d suggest the difference in that concept and the concept presented in your post here is why people often walk away from these discussions with a flawed idea about narrativsm gameplay.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's a helpful link, and segues to a comment I wanted to make - or a question, rather: how is agency measured? Measuring agency would be fundamental to knowing if I have more or less agency under some set of rules. As is my wont, I'm going to argue that different groups may both enjoy more of whatever agency is meaningful to them, while still potentially having less of whatever agency is meaningful to others.

With reference to the blog post quoted, I want to say that narrativism isn't about necessarily making more choices, because what counts as "more" depends on how you measure it, but rather more choices of a specific kind.

I think this represents a common confusion between agency and agenda. Different tables/players/games may have different agendas, that is what they desire to get out of play, what they enjoy, varies (or what the game is designed to give). Agency OTOH is a pretty specific set thing, and I have no problem with the dictionary definition here:

"the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power : a person or thing through which power is exerted or an end is achieved" - Mirriam-Webster

When used in the possessive sense, as a descriptor, as in "I don't have any agency", it clearly indicates that the possessor of this trait or thing has the capacity, condition, or state necessary for acting or exerting power, and is thus in some sense "a person or thing through which power is exerted." There are not 'types' of agency, though certainly I agree it can be exercised in respect of different 'capacities'. When we discuss games with different agendas, then yes, it seems true that different players will be more or less concerned with agency over different "conditions, or states of acting." One might simply wish to use her character as a viewpoint pawn to explore different areas of another person's constructed setting; another might wish to arrange a drama exploring his character's persona and how it operates and evolves in the face of adverse conditions. They will certainly find different 'capacities' in which they will desire to exercise their agency, but it is still fundamentally the same thing they are exercising, as I see it.

So the blog post isn't saying that sandbox play offers less agency than narrativism. It's saying that it offers the wrong kind of choices. That straightforwardly endorses my opening hypothesis.

I can see what you are saying. I think there's a further observation here, which is that narrativist play wouldn't work if you didn't have all the sorts of agency that a sandbox does, and then more. I mean, I guess I could theoretically imagine a narrativist RPG with adequate agency in which the PCs have no freedom of movement, but they would simply require some other equally potent ability to make general narrative choices. Sandboxes are a bit more specific construction that, definitionally, foregrounds place, but place is also almost always vital in narrativist play as well.

The blog post overall says what the right kind are. There are two conditions. One it states outright - they're choices focused on human issues. This is about premises: problematic features of human existence to be resolved. The second condition is implied, but not overtly stated. I just want to pull in another quote from the blog to explain that.

It turns out the agency can be restricted. During play of the game, I cannot become a crooked cop. That's disallowed. Restrictions are basic to games: that's what rules are all about. Creating the distinct play, rather than just any play!

Does this mean that a sandbox where I could become a crooked cop offers more agency? Not at all. It just points out that the agency we're interested in differs. The second condition is in fact agency over resolution of premises. That's why

Freely doesn't mean "free to do anything", it means that players (not game designer, not GM) are free to resolve the premises however they desire. That is a powerful agency and distinct to narrativism. Coming back to my opening thought: I don't believe it necessarily amounts to more agency, because what measures "more" depends on what I am counting.

Is the measure of agency how many times I as a player get to say something that happens in our fiction or system? Is it the breadth of choices I get to choose between? Is it effect, or how powerfully I can impact the game world? As quoted from the companion blog

I'm not sure I would center things on your 'resolution of premises'. Maybe I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to convey by that. I would just point out that the blog in question is pretty clear about its two points. These are not 'kinds of agency', they are agenda (in rough form at least)! To play with respect to human issues, and to allow the players freedom to go in the directions where questions about those issues lead, those are the traits of narrativist games. In order to do so, the players need agency in several capacities, like freedom to move into fictional positions which are relevant to the human issues at question, and the agency to design characters who will represent various positions with respect to those issues. The agency to declare certain types of resolutions may also be important depending on the premises of the specific game. I'm thinking here of Agon, a game where the PCs explore the nature of heroism, where any player can win any one given contest by simply declaring, during the recitation of the outcome, "I give my life to succeed." (presumably you say how). Most RPGs don't include this feature, but it adds a nice dimension to Agon, even if you are not going to exercise that option very often.

So no, it's not just any kind of power. Offering me four apples and one pear isn't giving me more agency than offering me a single pear, if all I want is pears!

Again, I think your formulation is OK, I do understand it. OTOH it can lead to some sorts of confusion and it might be better to differentiate more clearly between agency and agenda.