D&D General What is player agency to you?

[pemerton]

I am a huge fan of 4E D&D, but I have to admit that the method of play here is something I am unaware of. I am assuming this was discussed in the DMG? I'm wondering if this attitude is part of the reason people did not like that edition.

(Please note: no edition warring here, I'm not saying anything bad about any edition, nor am I trying to pick a fight. I just think this play style is controversial and wonder if it's one of the reasons for the game's controversy. I know the other reasons, but hadn't heard about this).

I think this might be directed to some of the examples I've provided, and @Manbearcat's commentary that points in similar directions. If I'm wrong, apologies - maybe what I say in this post will be interesting nevertheless.

As best I recall, Manbearcat and I first interacted in this thread: https://www.enworld.org/threads/why...a-noncombat-resolution-mechanic.326200/page-5 That was where we discovered that we had each, independently, arrived at much the same view as to the "inner logic" of 4e D&D as a RPG.

Some of the things that we had picked up on, as per that and many subsequent discussions, plus a shared play experience (https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-chamberlain-the-king-and-the-dragon-drobe.347648/):

*The way that PC build elements embed the PCs within situations of thematic tension and potency, that have no particular resolution built into them;

*The way that the default setting, as presented in the PHB, MM and DMG (and as explained in the Worlds & Monster "preview", which is one of the best GMing books produced for D&D), creates the "stage" and the material for those thematic conflicts to be established, pursued and resolved;

*The role of play-authored quests, which fairly obviously connect to the preceding two points;

*The obvious similarities between skill challenges and other forms of "closed scene" resolution (such as HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, the Burning Wheel Duel of Wits, etc), which rely on a certain "looseness" of framing and which cannot work if the default method of resolution is for the GM to work out what happens based on reference to notes/map key/etc (you can see this being discussed in the 2012 thread that I linked to just above);

*The transparency of the combat resolution mechanics, which (i) by default, provide a dramatic narrative of heroes-under-pressure-who-then-dig-deep-and-rally-to-overcome-their-opponents, (ii) give players a tremendous amount of latitude in deciding what sorts of actions to declare and thus how any given combat will actually unfold from moment to moment, and (iii) lead to the thematic concerns/orientation of players and their PCs being manifested in play, rather than having to be imposed via rules-negation/ignoring or rules-independent narration - the first time D&D has actually achieved this out of the tin.​

There's probably more that could be said, but that's the gist. The influence of (then) contemporary RPG design, and especially Forge-informed design, seems obvious - and was borne out by remarks by Rob Heinsoo at the time of launch about indie RPG influence on the game. (He also noted how the presentation of the game departs from the focus of indie RPGs.)

The DMG2 elaborates on some of this, although it also heads in a "shared narration/worldbuilding" direction that is probably optional relative to the points I've made.

My view is that a good chunk of the above - and hence a good prediction of the ensuing controversy - was foreshadowed by Ron Edwards in these passages:

if Simulationist-facilitating design is not involved, then the whole picture changes. Step On Up is actually quite similar, in social and interactive terms, to Story Now. Gamist and Narrativist play often share the following things:

*Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what.

*Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion.

*More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.

*Reward systems that reflect player choices (strategy, aesthetics, whatever) rather than on in-game character logic or on conformity to a pre-stated plan of play.​

Fortune-in-the-Middle as the basis for resolving conflict facilitates Narrativist play in a number of ways.

*It preserves the desired image of player-characters specific to the moment. Given a failed roll, they don't have to look like incompetent goofs; conversely, if you want your guy to suffer the effects of cruel fate, or just not be good enough, you can do that too.

*It permits tension to be managed from conflict to conflict and from scene to scene. So a "roll to hit" in Scene A is the same as in Scene B in terms of whether the target takes damage, but it's not the same in terms of the acting character's motions, intentions, and experience of the action.

*It retains the key role of constraint on in-game events. The dice (or whatever) are collaborators, acting as a springboard for what happens in tandem with the real-people statements.​

All of the above can be seen in 4e. Just giving some examples in order of those seven dot points:

*Picking up on a GM framing into a player-authored quest, or helping to establish one, will often involve author stance (ie the player declares the action in order to help sharpen thematic relevance and conflict, and then retrofits the requisite character motivation);

*Come and Get It - why the NPC/creature moves towards the PC can be resolved, ad hoc and casually, in the course of resolution, without being built into the system element (the attack power) per se;

*Skill challenges, as per the examples and discussion in the 2012 thread I linked to, or the Yan-C-Bin example in this thread;

*Magic item wishlists;

*Damage on a miss;

*The use of all sort of player-side "widgets" (powers, action points, healing surges etc) that permit the thematic meaning of the basic resolution elements to vary from conflict to conflict as the player makes choices that reflect what they take to be at stake for their PC;

*The role of checks in skill challenges, again as per the examples and discussions I've pointed to.​

These are some of the obvious ways in which 4e is resolutely non-simulationist in its approach to action resolution, and hence facilitative of "story now" RPGing. And they were and remain hugely controversial.

 

[Campbell]

As a baseline can we all agree to the following?

• A player who is more informed about the details of a situation has more agency over it.
• A player whose character has connections they can rely to provide more information on the situation and/or that they can call on for assistance with the situation (of course with prices with to pay) has more agency over the situation.
• A player whose character is more personally capable of dealing with the situation has more agency over the situation.
• In a game where GMs are more direct and less coy with information the players have more agency over most situations.

 

[Pedantic]

Okay. What do you think it is?

And what would be an example of a low agency game?

A low agency game is one where player actions have limited or little impact on achieving the game's goal. The classic example is a card game with cards of highly variable value, drawn from a shared deck. A player has input on how the game resolves, and can make themselves more or less likely to succeed through their play, but the order of cards in the deck will generally have more valence on who wins.

In a TTRPG, the classic example is a very linear module. We run into difficulties of context quickly after that though. Is a particularly permissive DM who will validate most player suggestions with success at their intended aims increasing or decreasing player agency? You could make a case either way, depending what you're contextualizing as the goal of play.

Alternately, a DM who adjudicates every course of action with a roughly equal die roll for success may be equally suppressing agency, in the opposite manner.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay. What do you think it is?

And what would be an example of a low agency game?

Any published module. If your PC can go off book and do whatever is in their knowledge and capacity to do, their player has all the agency I care about.

 

[clearstream]

As a baseline can we all agree to the following?

• A player who is more informed about the details of a situation has more agency over it.
• A player whose character has connections they can rely to provide more information on the situation and/or that they can call on for assistance with the situation (of course with prices with to pay) has more agency over the situation.
• A player whose character is more personally capable of dealing with the situation has more agency over the situation.
• In a game where GMs are more direct and less coy with information the players have more agency over most situations.

Do you know the game Mastermind. Can you say what agency is gained by revealing the code from the outset?

 

[bloodtide]

As a baseline can we all agree to the following?

• A player who is more informed about the details of a situation has more agency over it.

Agreed. Though I will say the player must make a huge effort to inform themselves...not ujst sit there and be fed by the GM.

• A player whose character has connections they can rely to provide more information on the situation and/or that they can call on for assistance with the situation (of course with prices with to pay) has more agency over the situation.

Agreed. Though again I will say the player must make a huge effort here. I'm not a fan of the "rule" where a player just has a best pal NPC that knows "everything". And, as with all information in the game it might well be false, misleading, half true, incomplete or such.

• A player whose character is more personally capable of dealing with the situation has more agency over the situation.

Agreed. Always a big point for me. If your character is a goblin streetsweeper, you can't do all that much by default...unless you make a huge commitment to do something.

• In a game where GMs are more direct and less coy with information the players have more agency over most situations.

Well...I won't agree here. I'm not a fan of the GM just lore dumping on players that just sit there. Again, like above, the players need to be active in finding out information they want.

A low agency game is one where player actions have limited or little impact on achieving the game's goal.

So A couple pages ago:

In my game: Group Z headed out into the wild to "look for the dragon" . They made plenty of checks to "randomly find the dragons lair. They did find some cave and explored them...monsters found, but not the dragon. Then they followed a heard of mountain goats around for a while thinking the dragon might come to eat them and they could surprise attack the dragon

It was said that by me allowing the players to take all the above actions gave the players "low,little or no agency". Do you agree? why or why not? (anyone can answer)

 

[clearstream]

I want to attempt to list out some facets of agency to understand all this better.

1. who a character is in the game world (if I can't play a crooked cop, then I don't have agency to be a crooked cop)
2. what a character knows (about others, the game-world, the metagame)
3. what a character thinks (anything that overrides this, relieves me of agency in that moment)
4. how a character represents itself (as above)
5. how a character alters themselves, others or the game world mechanically (game mechanics they can avail of; I'm using mechanics to include anything explicitly systematised such as rules, parameters, tables, and metagame mechanics such as fate points)
6. how a character alters themselves, others or the game world normatively (e.g. where there is no mechanic to appeal to, to what extent I'm limited by principles such as "say yes or roll the dice", group ideas about plausibility, and even how flexibly the design and group conspire to rule acts into the ambit of general mechanics; note I'm using "principles" as short-hand to include anything normative other than explicit game mechanics)
7. other characters on each of 1) through 6) (if I can't decide who other characters are, what they think, how they represent themselves, and how they change themselves, others or the game world, I don't have agency over them: this includes adversaries)
8. game-world contents mechanically (can I create a building, a land-mass, a climate, a people and culture, epochs past)
9. game-world contents normatively (as above, but as afforded/limited by principles)
10. game-world events mechanically (can I decide events my character is uninvolved in, including past and future)
11. game-world events normatively (as above, but without mechanics to avail of, so as afforded/limited by principles)
12. character and world genre
13. subjects of focus (to what extent do I decide or influence what comes into and stays within the spotlight of play)
14. what players know (including any mechanics and norms relating to how they can apply what they know)
15. creative ambitions (to what extent do I decide or influence the creative ambitions of participants, e.g. participation drama, storytelling, exploration, mastery, etc, for one or for all)
16. situation and premises (to what extent do I decide or influence where play commences)
17. game mechanics (can I choose between, add or remove, apply or disapply, or modify game mechanics? for myself? for others?)
18. game norms (can I add or remove, apply or disapply, or modify our affording/limiting principles? for myself? for others?)
19. who the players are (game mechanics and norms cover their roles)
20. who the other participants are (e.g. GM, game mechanics and norms cover their roles)
21. when and where we play

That's probably not a complete list, but enough to be illustrative. So here are two connected observations and questions

A) The count of possible "actions or interventions producing a particular effect" in respect of the above is infinite, even were the count of "things or persons that act to produce a particular result" finite*. Put simply, there's no limit (infinite) to what a player (finite) can decide their character thinks. This implies that count of actions or interventions, things or persons, alone cannot tell us whether we have more or less agency in the context of TTRPG. A test for meaningfulness is required. Counting facets of agency (the list above) doesn't help, because all TTRPGs have the same list.

B) Is the sum of mechanical and normative agency constant? If not, then why can't I say that FKR offers the most agency possible? Is the sum of agency across participants constant? If so, then why can't I say that solo and coop TTRPG offers the most agency possible for players? (And the former by far the most for any given player!) One option is to agree with those statements, solo-FKR offers greatest agency to any given player.

I've of course omitted story, exploration, and mastery from the above list. They're not absent, however. Rather they exist in the arrangement and unfolding of the above. The narrativist position is essentially that if GM is doing a large part of that arranging and unfolding, then all the less agency left over for players. This is obviously a claim to a bigger infinity (all possible agency) being diminished by the subtraction of a smaller infinity (the part exercised by GM), so the countervailing positions are a) if a player has infinitely many actions or interventions available to them anyway, how does one assert any meaningful curtailment of their agency - it's still infinite! - and b) what if GM's choices in fact make even more "actions or interventions" available to players (i.e. trade-offs are non-zero sum)?

Which is why I think it comes down to what you care about. I don't think chess players consider their agency less than rugby union players just because the possible permutations are technically finite for chess and infinite for 15-aside rugby union played on an open field. But shouldn't I at least concede the technical point that chess players have less agency than rugby union players? As I said above, doing so sets aside due acknowledgement of what agency in games is all about. It's not something that can be simply ennumerated: the only agency that can be counted is that meaningful to the distinct play under consideration.

I realised that the above perhaps places a burden on me to define ludic-agency. Drawing upon Bernard Suits, It's something like this: the power players have to intentionally satisfy their prelusory goals without abandoning their lusory-attitude, thus within the lusory-means. To the extent I count GM as part of the lusory-means, they cannot perturb player agency except where the given player's prelusory goals require control of facets of agency that mechanics and norms of the distinctive play under consideration give to GM.


*Due to the inclusion of norms, and considered across the domain, that count is of course also infinite.

 

[Aldarc]

The game is the prison.

Who let Foucault in the thread?

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

Sure, but that's the point. What I can do in the game as a player varies between TTRPGs and sometimes within TTRPGs. I can do more as a player in some TTRPGs than in others. In some TTRPGs or tables, like potentially yours, what I can do as a player will be limited to what I can make my character do in the fiction. What I can do as a player may even be further limited by the GM's own exercise of authority over the fiction, narrative, etc. In other TTRPGs, that is not the case, where I may have more that I can do as a player in the game. Regardless of whether we are playing make belief, only the agency of the player is real. Reifying character agency as if it were real obfuscates and needlessly muddies the water regarding that central point about player agency.

No, you just redefine agency to mean something I disagree with.

You are restricting the meaning of agency so that it only fits your play preference aesthetic while intentionally and harmfully excluding player agency in other TTRPGs that I like! Any definition of player agency in TTRPGs that excludes the full range of player agency in other TTRPGs is utter poo poo!

 

[pemerton]

As a baseline can we all agree to the following?

My feeling is No, for reasons to follow:

• A player who is more informed about the details of a situation has more agency over it.
• A player whose character has connections they can rely to provide more information on the situation and/or that they can call on for assistance with the situation (of course with prices with to pay) has more agency over the situation.
• A player whose character is more personally capable of dealing with the situation has more agency over the situation.
• In a game where GMs are more direct and less coy with information the players have more agency over most situations.

In order of dot points:

*Some posters have clearly asserted that agency correlates to meaningfulness/significance of choice, where that meaningfulness/significance can be a consequence of *GM-established fiction of which the player is ignorant.

For instance, on this account choosing between two options (say, turning left or right at a T-intersection) would be meaningful if the GM's notes record different things down each of the paths, and hence this would be an agency-laden decision even if the player is choosing in ignorance.​

*Given the discussion of the Noble background in this thread, I think that some posters regard it as agency-laden if the GM adjudicates, case-by-case, how a PC's connections might respond to the PC reaching out for information and/or assistance.

*I don't think all posters in this thread accept that capacity to deal with a situation via declaring actions for one's PC is a hallmark of agency. Because that it is to focus on outcomes of action declaration, at least to some extent, and I think some posters have rejected the relevance of such considerations to agency.

*The last one seems like it will not generate universal agreement, because of instances likes those I mentioned in relation to the first dot point.​

 

[Oofta]

Okay. What do you think it is?

And what would be an example of a low agency game?

I've explained multiple times. A low agency game would be one where the choices of the players don't really matter, where their decisions have little impact on the outcomes. But a lot of people don't care about agency all that much, it is no the holy grail of gaming, it's not what a lot of people care about. I'm playing Curse of Strahd right now and while we make some decisions that theoretically matter, it's a linear campaign. But that's okay, I'm still having fun playing, which is what I care about.

Frankly a lot of DMs simply aren't very good at running freeform campaigns, they just don't get how to make them work. I started playing Dragon Heist a while back and it was a lot of fun. We started a business, convinced a ghost to be our bartender, had a lot of fun with it. Then COVID hit and it just fell apart. Earlier this year had a chance to play it again and ... blah and dull. Nothing against the DM, he's a nice guy, but he just didn't understand how to use the book as more of a setting book than a linear module.

As far as agency? A person has agency if they have a decent understanding of goals and ways to achieve those goals. They don't have to have perfect understanding of what consequences of actions will be, but they should have a decent idea. They don't always have to achieve goals but they should feel like they had a shot, especially when they're making the high risk but high reward choices.

My definition of agency has little to do with games, game terminology or specifics. It's that people can make meaningful choices within the constraints of the game, society or their current situation to have a decent shot of achieving their goals with a reasonable understanding of risk and reward.

I like to think I have agency in my own life even though there are plenty of constraints and limitations on what I can do. I don't control anything outside of what I personally do or say, I don't always know exactly what will happen when I try to achieve a goal.

I view games the same way. The exact options the player has don't matter. What matters is that they have options that they understand and have, at least most of the time, have a decent idea of consequence to success or failure.

There are many different ways to give people a sense of agency in a game. No game has the corner on the market of agency, or fun.