D&D General What is player agency to you?

[AbdulAlhazred]

@pemerton makes a distinction. I was just pointing out that I do not distinguish between character and player agency; to me they are effectively the same. The constructs we use to express that agency varies depending on the structures of the game and, in D&D anyway, group decisions about the campaign.

How that agency is expressed is a different issue, I simply don't believe that D&D is inherently a low (player) agency game.

I'll let you hash out what things are and aren't the same with @Manbearcat , good luck! But I have a question. If D&D doesn't cater to low player agency play then why are all the examples we see pretty much from this one game? I mean maybe we could conjecture about various factors, but I'm a big fan of good old Occam and his razor.

 

[Oofta]

I'll let you hash out what things are and aren't the same with @Manbearcat , good luck! But I have a question. If D&D doesn't cater to low player agency play then why are all the examples we see pretty much from this one game? I mean maybe we could conjecture about various factors, but I'm a big fan of good old Occam and his razor.

Which game? Because if "it" is D&D, that's not surprising. This is a D&D forum. If it's PbtA games, that's not surprising either, it's a big blanket that covers a lot of games that take a very different approach to gaming. It doesn't really change anything.

 

[Aldarc]

I am wholly uninterested in any peeing contest argument about "whose tabletop roleplaying game has the most agency?" I am, however, interested in a definition of player agency that includes the different, legitimate forms of player agency that exists across all manner of tabletop roleplaying games. This is to say, that when I play any given roleplaying game as a player, what forms of agency do I have and can exercise when playing the game?

I understand that some people prefer player agency to exist strictly in the bounds of playing the player character without any authority over the fiction or anything akin to what is being discussed in some narrative style games. That's fine. I honestly don't know how many accursed times I am required to validate those preferences. I have no inkling or desire to delegitimize those play preferences.

Instead, my only desire has been to have an accurate definition of player agency that legimatizes those aforementioned preferences as well as the play preferences for people who play other tabletop roleplaying games, including more narrative-style roleplaying games, which may have player agency that exists outside the bounds of those particular play preferences.

I think that any definition of player agency needs to take the totality of the hobby into account and not just their own idiomatic play preferences for what player agency entails.

I think that it is a healthy attitude to say that our idiomatic play preferences for player agency may not include other forms of player agency found in other equally valid tabletop roleplaying games but that these other forms of player agency in other tabletop roleplaying games are nevertheless forms of player agency.

 

[Oofta]

Emphasis mine. To the best of my knowledge, no one has said or argued that only narrative games can have high player agency. That is most definitely an egregious strawman, Micah.


But we are talking about player agency. This is to say the agency that I as the player when playing this game. You restrict your sense of what is agency to be virtually identical with what you call "character agency." However, that is not the full range of agency that a player has when playing a given tabletop roleplaying game. This poo poo definition of yours excludes other tabletop roleplaying games! It excludes the player agency that exists in other tabletop games outside of your own preferences. That's the issue, Oofta. That's what reeks of OneTrueWayism. That's what's insulting, Oofta.


You are disagreeing with a strawman while refusing or doging the point that's at issue in what I am arguing, Oofta. Please stop it.


If you understood, then you wouldn't miscontrue. But as you are constantly misconstruting people's arguments, it leads me to believe that either you don't understand or you do but choose to misconstrue them. Take your pick.


You claim to run a high agency game, and that your games are higher agency than other games of D&D that someone may run, such as in an adventure path. On what non-circular basis are you making your comparative argument?

What point are you trying to make? That in order to have high player agency you have to implement a certain style of game? That I'm not allowed to disagree with you? That I don't believe any specific aspect of a game automatically makes it higher agency when it comes to TTRPG's?

I can sit here and say that in order to increase agency the game has to support altering of reality by casting spells. Therefore games that don't have magic and spells are lower agency. I don't really believe casting spells automatically grants higher agency any more than I believe a game that's character focused or where players add to the narrative are higher agency. I also don't see a reason to distinguish between character and player agency - the only person that exists is the player so all agency is the same.

My games are higher agency because the decisions the players make can have a far greater impact on the overall campaign, often in ways I had not anticipated. The OP is a strict railroad DM, most published modules are linear in nature which lowers agency.

 

[Aldarc]

What point are you trying to make?

That your definition of player agency excludes other forms of player agency that I may have as a player in other tabletop roleplaying games.

That in order to have high player agency you have to implement a certain style of game?

No!

That I'm not allowed to disagree with you?

No!

That I don't believe any specific aspect of a game automatically makes it higher agency when it comes to TTRPG's?

No!

I also don't see a reason to distinguish between character and player agency - the only person that exists is the player so all agency is the same.

I do see an incredibly obvious reason: my agency that I have as a player playing in a given tabletop roleplaying may not be strictly limited to what my character does. That's why. It may not make a difference to you, but that distinction does matter to me. You said it yourself:

Agency in the game is limited what we can do as players in the game.

You're curious what my point is. Here it is. I don't know how to make it clearer.

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.

Player agency is about what we do as players in the game. What I can do as a player playing in games like Fate, Cortex Prime, Stonetop, Torchbearer, or maybe even Daggerheart is not necessarily limited to what I can do as a player playing at your D&D 5e table. The bounds of my agency as a player playing these games exist outside of the scope of the agency I may have playing in your high agency D&D games or Bloodtide's. I think that any definition of player agency for tabletop roleplaying games must be inclusive, rather than exclusive, of all these different modes of player agency. The problem with your definition of player agency that conflates player agency with character agency is that defining player agency strictly in terms of character agency excludes these other modes of player agency that I may have as a player playing these other games. For that reason, I don't think that your definition is a good or functional one.

My games are higher agency because the decisions the players make can have a far greater impact on the overall campaign, often in ways I had not anticipated. The OP is a strict railroad DM, most published modules are linear in nature which lowers agency.

So your definition of higher player agency intentionally includes your games? That's convenient, if not likely circular.

But I do find it interesting that while you dislike any potential implication that your D&D games have lower player agency than other games, you clearly don't have a problem claiming that someone else's D&D games have lower player agency. So why do you have such an issue with the idea that your D&D games may have lower agency than another game, which may have things players can do to play the game outside of your own preferences? It strikes me as a bit curious, if not hypocritical.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That your definition of player agency excludes other forms of player agency that I may have as a player in other tabletop roleplaying games.


No!


No!


No!


I do see an incredibly obvious reason: my agency that I have as a player playing in a given tabletop roleplaying may not be strictly limited to what my character does. That's why. It may not make a difference to you, but that distinction does matter to me. You said it yourself:

You're curious what my point is. Here it is. I don't know how to make it clearer.

Player agency is about what we do as players in the game. What I can do as a player playing in games like Fate, Cortex Prime, Stonetop, Torchbearer, or maybe even Daggerheart is not necessarily limited to what I can do as a player playing at your D&D 5e table. The bounds of my agency as a player playing these games exist outside of the scope of the agency I may have playing in your high agency D&D games or Bloodtide's. I think that any definition of player agency for tabletop roleplaying games must be inclusive, rather than exclusive, of all these different modes of player agency. The problem with your definition of player agency that conflates player agency with character agency is that defining player agency strictly in terms of character agency excludes these other modes of player agency that I may have as a player playing these other games. For that reason, I don't think that your definition is a good or functional one.


So your definition of higher player agency intentionally includes your games? That's convenient, if not likely circular.

But I do find it interesting that while you dislike any potential implication that your D&D games have lower player agency than other games, you clearly don't have a problem claiming that someone else's D&D games have lower player agency. So why do you have such an issue with the idea that your D&D games may have lower agency than another game, which may have things players can do to play the game outside of your own preferences? It strikes me as a bit curious, if not hypocritical.

It's because of the implicit assumption that more agency is always preferable to less, no matter the game. Erroneous, but I see its fingerprints all over this discussion.

 

[Oofta]

That your definition of player agency excludes other forms of player agency that I may have as a player in other tabletop roleplaying games.


No!


No!


No!


I do see an incredibly obvious reason: my agency that I have as a player playing in a given tabletop roleplaying may not be strictly limited to what my character does. That's why. It may not make a difference to you, but that distinction does matter to me. You said it yourself:

You're curious what my point is. Here it is. I don't know how to make it clearer.

Player agency is about what we do as players in the game. What I can do as a player playing in games like Fate, Cortex Prime, Stonetop, Torchbearer, or maybe even Daggerheart is not necessarily limited to what I can do as a player playing at your D&D 5e table. The bounds of my agency as a player playing these games exist outside of the scope of the agency I may have playing in your high agency D&D games or Bloodtide's. I think that any definition of player agency for tabletop roleplaying games must be inclusive, rather than exclusive, of all these different modes of player agency. The problem with your definition of player agency that conflates player agency with character agency is that defining player agency strictly in terms of character agency excludes these other modes of player agency that I may have as a player playing these other games. For that reason, I don't think that your definition is a good or functional one.


So your definition of higher player agency intentionally includes your games? That's convenient, if not likely circular.

But I do find it interesting that while you dislike any potential implication that your D&D games have lower player agency than other games, you clearly don't have a problem claiming that someone else's D&D games have lower player agency. So why do you have such an issue with the idea that your D&D games may have lower agency than another game, which may have things players can do to play the game outside of your own preferences? It strikes me as a bit curious, if not hypocritical.

Agency is not limited to games and can't be measured by game rules. Some people have little agency because of their situation they realistically have few choices that will make significant differences. Some people have far more opportunities, more options, a better understanding of what is possible and what the risks are.

My definition of agency has little to do with games, although it can be applied to games. In games? Do you have options to achieve whatever goals you, or the game, have established? The card game of war has no real agency, it's just chance. Many other games give the player more agency and it's just a matter of how that agency is implemented.

We aren't going to agree. You say you want to have a conversation and then just put down ideas you don't agree with. Have a good one.

 

[soviet]

It's because of the implicit assumption that more agency is always preferable to less, no matter the game. Erroneous, but I see its fingerprints all over this discussion.

Falsely so. Multiple posters have stated at length that more agency is not an uber objective and may be balanced with other priorities

 

[Aldarc]

It's because of the implicit assumption that more agency is always preferable to less, no matter the game. Erroneous, but I see its fingerprints all over this discussion.

I am personally under no such assumption, and I have even mentioned in a post directed at you that my partner prefers playing more linear adventure games and modules. I have gone out of my way to make it clear that this style of play is valid and not BadWrongFun in any way shape or form.

I also know that @hawkeyefan has even talked about how when they play other games that they may enjoy, such as Delta Green or Call of Cthulhu, that they can expect that it will have less agency than they may have in a D&D sandbox game. A few others have made similar remarks.

Agency is not limited to games and can't be measured by game rules. Some people have little agency because of their situation they realistically have few choices that will make significant differences. Some people have far more opportunities, more options, a better understanding of what is possible and what the risks are.

My definition of agency has little to do with games, although it can be applied to games. In games? Do you have options to achieve whatever goals you, or the game, have established? The card game of war has no real agency, it's just chance. Many other games give the player more agency and it's just a matter of how that agency is implemented.

We aren't going to agree. Have a good one.

My goal is not to measure agency by rules, Oofta. I'm trying to argue a definition of player agency that includes all tabletop roleplaying games and not just the modes of player agency that you may prefer.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am personally under no such assumption, and I have even mentioned in a post directed at you that my partner prefers playing more linear adventure games and modules. I have gone out of my way to make it clear that this style of play is valid and not BadWrongFun in any way shape or form.

I also know that @hawkeyefan has even talked about how when they play other games that they may enjoy, such as Delta Green or Call of Cthulhu, that they can expect that it will have less agency than they may have in a D&D sandbox game. A few others have made similar remarks.


My goal is not to measure agency by rules, Oofta. I'm trying to argue a definition of player agency that includes all tabletop roleplaying games and not just the modes of player agency that you may prefer.

Then why object to your completely legitimate definition of agency, if no one believes more of it is always better?