D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Oofta]

Because one is real and one is not real.

We're playing a game of make believe. Agency in the game is limited what we can do as players in the game.

 

[Pedantic]

I don't think it makes conversation impossible. It just requires us to realize that things we don't personally value have value to others and be mindful of that in our conversations.

To be clear, I mean quite specifically the conversation we're having about what constitutes high vs. low agency. The conversation requires consensus on terms to be possible; unlike most games, we have not agreed preemptively on the goal we're trying to achieve and particularly frustratingly for that conversation it is perfectly possible to have players at the same table, playing the same game, do so with different understandings of the goal.

Comparisons of agency requires context and a commonplace on that context, which we do not have. Comparison would be possible if we had specific stated goals for play, even if those goals were different and/or we were discussing different games.

 

[hawkeyefan]

We're playing a game of make believe. Agency in the game is limited what we can do as players in the game.

Yes.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by that "common refrain". Here is what has been my repeated refrain in this thread, for over 2000 posts now:

in the RPGs I know that have higher player agency, the players cannot "alter game reality" in the way some posters in this thread are talking about. Rather, they establish their own goals and aspirations for their PCs (including working with the group collectively to establish the appropriate backstory and setting elements to underpin those goals and aspirations), and then the GM relies on those goals and aspirations as cues for their own narration of framing and consequence.

There may also be techniques that permit the players to declare actions or make decisions pertaining to their PCs' memories. This goes together with the players' establishing goals and aspirations, to overall produce characters that have "thicker" lives, relationships, etc than is typical of much D&D play.

That first paragraph explains how it is that free choices made by players for their PCs produce a focus on "human issues".

As I have also repeatedly emphasised in this (and other) threads, it establishes the contrast with puzzle-solving or similarly oriented play, in which the GM establishes the fiction in accordance with their priorities, and the players then have to work that out (by "exploration"-oriented action declarations). Rather than a focus on "human issues", this second sort of approach generates a focus on "solving" or "manipulating" the already-established fiction.

 

[soviet]

The people who keep saying that narrativism is all about players 'authoring the fiction' are the people that don't like narrativism.

Narrativism is all about players driving the fiction.

 

[Raiztt]

Rather than a focus on "human issues"...

I'm really not interested in whether or not Tordek the dwarf fighter has unresolved issues with his father. I am interested in how he and his party are going to steal the cursed ruby of slakesh.

 

[Campbell]

One of the most important reasons to recognize a distinction between player and character agency is that even if players are limited to only the choices the in-character choices, they make we have to recognize the impact of the at the table social dynamics on how they can exercise the agency their character possesses.

Take the example of getting ready for a journey that characters plan to take off on in a couple days. It's fairly normal for that to be handled in maybe like 20 minutes of playing time. Players will be lucky to be able to do one or two small things in preparation mostly so as not to occupy too much table time or take too much spotlight.

Another example is that often negotiations can take hours or days, but they are often truncated at the table. The ability to slowly wear people down after hours of talking and drinking with them is fairly common in real life negotiations, but will seldom be something we see in negotiations at the table because no one has time for that because there are monster fights to get to.

 

[Raiztt]

Narrativism is all about players driving the fiction.

Worth pointing out that in your typical three act structure or classic heroes journey, the protagonist (or in this case, PCs) don't drive the story. The story happens to them and they react to it.


The easiest cultural touch stones to reach out to, (A New Hope and LotRs), the story is thrust upon the protagonists and it largely isn't concerned with what their goals are prior to that thrust.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The people who keep saying that narrativism is all about players 'authoring the fiction' are the people that don't like narrativism.

Narrativism is all about players driving the fiction.

players can drive the fiction perfectly well without the ability to directly affect how the fiction exists as players (not characters)

 

[soviet]

Worth pointing out that in your typical three act structure or classic heroes journey, the protagonist (or in this case, PCs) don't drive the story. The story happens to them and they react to it.


The easiest cultural touch stones to reach out to, (A New Hope and LotRs), the story is thrust upon the protagonists and it largely isn't concerned with what their goals are prior to that thrust.

Narrativism isn't trying to emulate a three-act structure or classic heroes journey.