D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Oofta]

...

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!

Have I ever said that other games are poo poo? Ever? I've consistently stated that PbtA games are not for me, but surprise surprise not every game will work for everyone. There's lots of things others like that I don't, that's not a reflection on their opinion or the product they enjoy.

I just gave a longer version, but my version is incredibly broad. Short version? You have multiple options to achieve your goals, you have a decent idea of what the risk and benefits are. You can make meaningful choices that matter.

I don't see how my definition of agency can be a putting down or limiting any particular game unlike others who say that only narrativist games can have high player agency.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Most likely but not necessarily. There’s the case of a no agency situation that isn’t no agency due to lack of info. In that case no.

There’s also the question on game premises. If the game is intended to leave some detail secret to the players then that also isn’t impacting their agency in the game. All games have premises/restrictions in order to establish the ‘game’.

• 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.

I’d suggest the same 2 exceptions I mentioned in the first point would apply here.

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

Same again.

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

This seems like a restatement if your first?

The more we talk about agency the more I think part of the problem is that agency is such a multidimensional term.

1. Informed
2. Choice
3. Meaning

We can argue something is or isn’t agency based on any of these dimensions. We can even compare more informed but less meaning or less informed but more choice. In short more of something along one dimension doesn’t mean more agency if any of the other dimensions changed. It makes it quite a nuanced and complex question. Especially when we couple all this with game premises and sussing out what’s restricted by game premises.

I’d suggest it’d be more productive to just talk about those dimensions independently.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don’t know enough of them well enough to have an opinion, but for those that do

Can you rank ‘narrative games’ by the amount of player agency they provide? and why?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

These are heroic journey stories in which the REAL ACTION involves the character of the protagonists and their growth. Frodo indeed has the One Ring dropped on him, but it is he who shows the determination to defy the will of Sauron, the fortitude to carry the burden all the way to the very Samath Naur. Yes, fate is an element in the story, just like it would be (in the guise of a GM) in a Dungeon World game. Likewise Luke, the 'journey' isn't from Tatooine to the Death Star to a rebel base. The journey is discovery, finding out who he is, what he's capable of, understanding his real place in the world, and the question is whether he will do what he must, or will he become like his father? These are EXACTLY character focused dramas where the questions entirely relate to them, and the setting and situation are simply there to pose the questions in an actionable form. This is exactly in the spirit of narrativist gaming as I understand it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

This is the most uncontroversial statement in the entire thread . Not that a tool or two which allows players to make an adjustment to things here and there by expressing their agenda is necessarily bad, but games like PbtAs show it is NOT central to the narrativist paradigm.

 

[Aldarc]

Have I ever said that other games are poo poo? Ever?

You misunderstand me or are avoiding the point. It's hard to say.

I'm saying that any definition of player agency that does not include the full range of player agency in all TTRPGs is a poo poo definition. If that is your definition of player agency, then yes I am saying that you have and are using a poo poo definition of player agency that reeks of OneTrueWayism regardless of whether you recognize that stench for what it is or not. It reminds me of all the people in this forum past and present who told me that some of the tabletop roleplaying games that I enjoyed weren't "true roleplaying games," except here I am being told that my player agency in these games that is outside of your definition isn't actually player agency. Those sorts of arguments can burn in Hades. I have no patience for those sort of people then, and I have even less patience for those sort of people now.

I don't see how my definition of agency can be a putting down or limiting any particular game

You honsetly don't see how saying the full range of player agency that exists in other games doesn't constitute as agency would be insulting, putting down, or limiting any particular game? So if I provide a definition of player agency that excluded your games and gaming preferences, you would not be insulted by that?

For the record: I am NOT doing that with the definition that I have been advocating. My broader definition of player agency is intentionally about establishing a definition that creates a bigger tent that accurately includes the range of player agency in as many tabletop roleplaying games as possible.

unlike others who say that only narrativist games can have high player agency.

Unlike others? Unlike others? What about you and what you are doing here above? Don't finger point at others with "whataboutism" because we are talking about what you are saying and arguing here with your definition. Your definition of player agency does not take into account how player agency operates in other table roleplaying games. You may not care for those other games, but that doesn't mean that the only legitimate definition of player agency exists within the more restricted frame of reference of your personal play preferences.

And for the record, @pemerton has rebuked your characterization of this argument numerous times, as he has also discussed how D&D can also be played with higher agency, such as in his 4e D&D games. He is not saying that only narrativist games can have player agency. So stop repeating this strawman.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There's nothing stopping that in D&D either. The players in my campaigns always have a choice on what they do or do not do, what they do or do not pursue.

From amongst the choices given, which are without reference to any trait, drive, or need of the character. They choose which area of the world to explore, and that is fundamentally the impetus, to 'fill in the map' in some fashion.

That may not always be the case, the players may choose to sacrifice some agency in order to play a module for example, but D&D does not preclude player and character driven fiction. It just doesn't happen using the same mechanisms as PbtA.

It doesn't contain the mechanisms and structure which support that kind of play, trust me. I mean, what you are saying is not that controversial, we've talked about vanilla narrativism. Yes, you can do it, but its a big mismatch with D&D the game. If you want to play that way, you really should play, say, Dungeon World, because it will be 100x easier to pull off.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Any definition of player agency in TTRPGs that excludes the full range of player agency in other TTRPGs is utter poo poo!

Have I ever said that other games are poo poo? Ever?

If there is one thing I've learned from being on Enworld, it is never ignore a pooh pooh.

I knew a poster who got pooh poohed. He made the mistake of ignoring the pooh pooh. He pooh poohed it. Fatal error. Because it turned out in the end that the poster who pooh poohed him had been pooh poohing a lot of other posters. Who pooh poohed their pooh poohs. In the end we had to abandon the entire thread. Discussion totally destroyed, by pooh pooh.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is the most uncontroversial statement in the entire thread . Not that a tool or two which allows players to make an adjustment to things here and there by expressing their agenda is necessarily bad, but games like PbtAs show it is NOT central to the narrativist paradigm.

I guess my big question around this is:

If driving play doesn’t require the player controlling something outside their PC then why am I always told d&d can’t do that? Or am I mistaken there and everyone believes d&d can do that?

I’d suggest the way PbtA games are set up is to give players control over the high level agenda (something outside the PCs). I think that’s something d&d doesn’t do without some serious house rules.

I think another good question is - if the player declared agenda items are the premise of the game then aren’t they serving the same function as other game rules restricting players - like in d&d you don’t make a lvl 1 farmer and then become a level 20 farmer, or in @clearstream’s example, a game precluding you from becoming criminal cops isn’t less agency than a game that allows this. It’s just different premises.

So where is the line between game premises and player agency?

 

[Oofta]

You misunderstand me or are avoiding the point. It's hard to say.

I'm saying that any definition of player agency that does not include the full range of player agency in all TTRPGs is a poo poo definition. If that is your definition of player agency, then yes I am saying that you have and are using a poo poo definition of player agency that reeks of OneTrueWayism regardless of whether you recognize that stench for what it is or not. It reminds me of all the people in this forum past and present who told me that some of the tabletop roleplaying games that I enjoyed weren't "true roleplaying games," except here I am being told that my player agency in these games that is outside of your definition isn't actually player agency. Those sorts of arguments can burn in Hades. I have no patience for those sort of people then, and I have even less patience for those sort of people now.


You honsetly don't see how saying the full range of player agency that exists in other games doesn't constitute as agency would be insulting, putting down, or limiting any particular game? So if I provide a definition of player agency that excluded your games and gaming preferences, you would not be insulted by that?

For the record: I am NOT doing that with the definition that I have been advocating. My broader definition of player agency is intentionally about establishing a definition that creates a bigger tent that accurately includes the range of player agency in as many tabletop roleplaying games as possible.


Unlike others? Unlike others? What about you and what you are doing here above? Don't finger point at others with "whataboutism" because we are talking about what you are saying and arguing here with your definition. Your definition of player agency does not take into account how player agency operates in other table roleplaying games. You may not care for those other games, but that doesn't mean that the only legitimate definition of player agency exists within the more restricted frame of reference of your personal play preferences.

And for the record, @pemerton has rebuked your characterization of this argument numerous times, as he has also discussed how D&D can also be played with higher agency, such as in his 4e D&D games. He is not saying that only narrativist games can have player agency. So stop repeating this strawman.

I think people in real life can have a great deal of agency, even if, like in D&D we can only affect the world around us by our words and deed. If you take that as an insult I can't help it. It's certainly not meant to be.

I disagree with the very concept of "Lack of agency comes from not implementing this specific style of play."