D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Oofta]

How many of the scenarios and game systems I compared have you read, or played? How many are you familiar with?

What's your actual reasoned basis for thinking that there is some error or "invalidity" in the comparison that I posted?

I don't base my definition of agency on games. Therefore the number of games I'm familiar with is not relevant.

We disagree on how to define agency.

 

[clearstream]

That's because no serious card player argues that five hundred has as much agency as bridge; or no serious traditional game player argues that backgammon has as much agency as chess or go.

Leaving aside the ability to measure or intuit the spin of the wheel, I assume that few casino-goers argue that roulette has as much agency as blackjack.

It's not clear why one wouldn't just use the label "chance" in these examples. Casino-goers would actually say that roulette has more chance than blackjack. Action or intervention producing a particular effect is descriptive of all the cases, given the differing lusory means. When I play 500, I decide what I will call and play. When I play Roulette, it's down to me what numbers I bet on.

Unless the thesis is that agency equates with reduction in chance, in which case to fear that a GM reduced agency would be to suppose a GM's decisions were random. As we don't typically think of human choices as random (and to do so would hard-conflate agency with chance) any mechanic that invokes a dice roll reduces agency more than a GM call does. That is if agency is equivalent to chance.

In my Chess example, I was speculating as to the insertion of chance in the case where our prelusory goals and lusory means did not presuppose it. Thus my Chess-like-agency was reduced by imposing that element of chance on me.

Classic D&D has many techniques - including the implicit obligation on the GM to stick to their notes - to try and render the GM a non-agentic mechanism. Lewis Pulsipher was a great advocate of this in his White Dwarf articles in the late 70s.

It seems obvious to me that a GM who departs from those techniques, and who makes decisions about outcomes based on what "makes sense", is an extremely agentic decision-maker, quite different from the classic model. That many RPGers deny this difference seems to me deeply bound up with play traditions that go back to at least the mid-80s.

The above noted, the sort of intuitions that are often connected with neo-trad and narrativist preferences are in an interesting conflict with those that are often connected with FKR. Advocates of the latter sometimes refer to "tactical Infinity", which is the freedom of players to try anything, because the game master has the job of producing a ruling on the fly for anything they try. One blogger wrote that

One of my frustrations with D&D 4E was that the tactical combat options were so powerful, they discouraged the kind of reckless, try-anything creativity that comes from desperation. Like, do I try to think of some clever way to dispatch this monster – which may well fail – or just hit it with my sword a couple more times, which will almost certainly work?

Some players feel more empowered when the outcomes of what they attempt are up to them ("say yes") or mechanically determined ("or roll the dice")... even if rolling the dice introduces chance that is absent when GM decides. Others players feel more empowered when they can make any play they can think of, because someone has been appointed to make rulings.

Reflecting on that, and on my Chess and other examples, perhaps one can define agency like this: the extent to which the agreements I made entering the magic circle are binding on all participants.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

On reflection, what I meant was that it is not necessary for players to be able to directly author fiction, not that they can engage in Narrativist play without ANY way to influence the course of play except through declaring actions for their characters. My bad, as it is pretty obvious that we would interpret it differently.

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.

It's possible perhaps without house rules but it is not the usual way games are played.

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?

I agree that premise may not curtail agency, or at least it does so in desired ways. Nobody is apparently interested in RPIng agricultural work (well, Farmville was a thing) so the fact that D&D practically disallows it pretty much fine with everyone. Yes, it can be a bit less clear cut too, BitD has no option to play as a unit of Imperial Army, which might interest some people. But it DOES allow almost limitless possibilities within it's premise, and the players effectively control which come into play. The GM just facilitates, describes and depicts the problems you face.

 

[Pedantic]

Reflecting on that, and on my Chess and other examples, perhaps one can define agency like this: the extent to which the agreements I made entering the magic circle are binding on all participants.

I like this direction, but I'm not sure what you're describing is agency, precisely. Definitely variance in how the rules apply could lead to a reduction in agency for some participants, but I think you could have variable agency games wherein all participants are identically bound. Going back to card games, War has almost no agency, Go Fish has more and Rummy or Bridge have yet more, though all participants (give or take some leeway for first mover advantage/malus) are identically constrained by the rules.

I think you really still need to measure agency in relationship to the goal of play and impact of available game actions.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The players drive the fiction in my more traditional game as well, but I keep getting told that no they aren't and/or it isn't narrativism.

I think @pemerton's prior post which input human motivations as a primary aspect to narrativism is important not to leave out. My game doesn't focus on those human motivational aspects, but they are very much present.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's not clear why one wouldn't just use the label "chance" in these examples. Casino-goers would actually say that roulette has more chance than blackjack. Action or intervention producing a particular effect is descriptive of all the cases, given the differing lusory means. When I play 500, I decide what I will call and play. When I play Roulette, it's down to me what numbers I bet on.

Because chance is only relevant to the examples due to removing the GM-control angle. In absence of a controlling figure like a GM, dice or other random-number generators are the most common choice for producing fictional states without simply authoring the whole thing yourself. Many truly single-player games work this way. Something like Dogs in the Vineyard can also achieve something kinda-sorta like this via players wagering against one another for what they want to have happen, and I'm sure there are other systems besides.

Also, I don't think Pemerton was even remotely trying to imply that roulette is higher agency than blackjack. Almost certainly the reverse. There is no way to meaningfully predict roulette without actively cheating (e.g. controlling the board.) You can count cards in blackjack (though Nevada casinos will ask you to stop playing if they think you are doing so, and it is actually illegal to use a device to help you count cards.)

Unless the thesis is that agency equates with reduction in chance, in which case to fear that a GM reduced agency would be to suppose a GM's decisions were random. As we don't typically think of human choices as random (and to do so would hard-conflate agency with chance) any mechanic that invokes a dice roll reduces agency more than a GM call does. That is if agency is equivalent to chance.

No. It equates an increase of agency with a decrease in influence. You cannot influence anything in roulette, and cannot realistically do so in blackjack. (I mean, you could try by intentionally busting to drain the deck of cards! But that's a losing strategy.) To continue using games that mix chance and skill (quite appropriate, given D&D's mechanics), poker would be yet higher on the agency spectrum, because of the ability to bluff and the betting mechanics. Conversely, we get the phrase "a crapshoot" because the player has little influence over the actual results in craps, it's all on the dice.

Lacking information is one of the ways to lose influence, and chance is a prominent way of not having information, but far from the only way. Another way is illusionism, where facts that were true yesterday are no longer true today. A third is having unreliable sources of information, e.g. a GM secretly determining the result of a Perception check and then saying, "You see nothing out of the ordinary." Is that a "nothing out of the ordinary" because there is nothing to see, or because there IS something to see but you missed it? That's a lack of information, and can affect influence. (And, to be clear since I know I will get jumped on for this if I'm not extremely explicit every single time: Players not being omnicient is absolutely fine; it is when they are not given even the opportunity to learn that things become a problem.)

But an absence of information is not the only cause of an absence of influence. Lacking tools, or having tools that are mostly useless, also results in an absence of influence. This is what a lot of people bring up in conversations about "mundane vs magic" or, to use the D&D version of that conflict, "Fighter vs Wizard." And why it's so frustrating to be told "well the Fighter can just get creative!" ANYONE can do that! Anyone can apply creativity to their surroundings! Wizards can be creative AND warp reality.

Some players feel more empowered when the outcomes of what they attempt are up to them ("say yes") or mechanically determined ("or roll the dice")... even if rolling the dice introduces chance that is absent when GM decides. Others players feel more empowered when they can make any play they can think of, because someone has been appointed to make rulings.

Of course, I myself am skeptical of the "tactical infinity" so often discussed, as I find far, far too many GMs are rather more interested in tactical subfinity: "only those things I, the GM, think are possible, regardless of how poorly that reflects either actual IRL possibility, fun gameplay, or engaging narrative." The possibilities are actually more limited than they would be for an appropriately-talented IRL person attempting to do things. The problem of iterative probability is a good demonstration of this. (GMs failing to understand that asking for 5 checks in a row, even if you have an 80% chance to succeed each time, is actually a two thirds chance to fail.) The problem of perverse incentives is another. (GMs saying how annoying they find murderhobos and how much they wish players would just be heroic, only to actually run a world where mercy is "rewarded" with enemy reinforcements and "allies" are consistently just itching to betray the PCs.)

Reflecting on that, and on my Chess and other examples, perhaps one can define agency like this: the extent to which the agreements I made entering the magic circle are binding on all participants.

I don't think that really equates to agency--more like the foundation thereof. That is, it would be a bit like saying that modern science is statistics, and nothing more. It would be absolutely correct if you meant that only in the sense that the science of statistical analysis is the beating heart of modern scientific study. It would be absolutely wrong if you meant it in the sense that science is nothing more than statistical analysis, since experimental design, data collection, theoretical modeling, and post-analysis interpretation are all critical parts of science that are not part of statistical analysis.

I do expect that the agreements made before entering the magic circle are binding. If they aren't, then the magic circle is pointless and the exercise is simply one of dancing to someone else's tune. We may as well not even bother with the pretense.

 

[Maxperson]

How do you drive a car if you are not allowed to touch the steering wheel at all?

You can't drive a car without obeying the rules. You don't get to just drive through crowds and stores. You can't speed through red lights and stop signs. There are rules that surround you as you drive your way around.

 

[Maxperson]

According to some, player agency is simultaneously high in D&D and also something to be fought at all costs in D&D.

Who?

 

[Maxperson]

Okay. What do you think it is?

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

A true railroad.

 

[pemerton]

We disagree on how to define agency.

On this particular occasion, you are asserting that certain comparisons that I routinely make, and that I find useful in my reasoning about and reflection on RPGs, are "invalid".

That's not a disagreement over a definition. It looks like a disagreement over the nature of my cognitive processes!