D&D General What is player agency to you?

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Yes....

Now consider the fact that it is the GM who has exclusive control of the steering wheel in (neo-?)trad play.

Do you not see, then, why someone would respond poorly to the suggestion that said GM could proverbially drive through crowds and stores, speed through red lights and stop signs, and in general flout any and all rules whenever they like, under the excuse that it will make for a better drive for the passengers?

 

[pemerton]

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.

That seems an unintuitive and not particularly helpful suggestion.

Agency pertains to the ability to choose, and have those choices take effect. It is closely connected to action. In the private law, and agent is a party who is empowered to act on behalf of another (the principal).

It doesn't have any particular connection to the keeping of promises or agreements.

 

[Maxperson]

Now consider the fact that it is the GM who has exclusive control of the steering wheel in (neo-?)trad play.

He doesn't and never has short of a true railroad. Traditional play just has more signposts warning you that a train is crossing or you need to stop here.

Do you not see, then, why someone would respond poorly to the suggestion that said GM could proverbially drive through crowds and stores, speed through red lights and stop signs, and in general flout any and all rules whenever they like, under the excuse that it will make for a better drive for the passengers?

Short of the very rare bad DM, I've never seen this happen.

 

[pemerton]

Imagine the following game: a group of people sit in a circle, and one of them tells a story. At certain points in the story, the story-teller pauses mid-sentence, at the point where a noun is required (eg ". . . and then she meet a . . . ") and points to one of the other people, who is obliged to provide a noun, which the story-teller incorporates as they go on with the story.

This sort of game happens in primary school classrooms.

Suppose that a child, familiar with this game, then discovers RPGing. According to some posters in this thread - eg @Oofta, @clearstream I think, maybe @FrogReaver - if that child thinks that RPGing is a bit like the story game we play, but it gives me much more choice and control over what happens, the child is making an incoherent, empty or invalid judgement.

Whereas to me it seems that that child is making a perfectly reasonable, coherent and rational comparison of the two sorts of game.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I would argue that it IS the story of the journey from Tatooine to the Death Star to the Rebel Base. It's just perspective. A more traditional game is going to look at it as the journey from Tatooine to the Death Star to the Rebel Base with added elements of understanding your place in the world, doing what you must, etc. The narrativist perspective is going to look at as understanding your place, doing what you must, etc., with the added elements of the journey from Tatooine to the Death Start, etc.

Much like the amount of agency you get out of a style or play is going to depend on your perspective and what you want out of the game, the kind of story it is will also vary depending on your perspective, even if we're all viewing the same story.

 

[soviet]

Imagine the following game: a group of people sit in a circle, and one of them tells a story. At certain points in the story, the story-teller pauses mid-sentence, at the point where a noun is required (eg ". . . and then she meet a . . . ") and points to one of the other people, who is obliged to provide a noun, which the story-teller incorporates as they go on with the story.

This sort of game happens in primary school classrooms.

Suppose that a child, familiar with this game, then discovers RPGing. According to some posters in this thread - eg @Oofta, @clearstream I think, maybe @FrogReaver - if that child thinks that RPGing is a bit like the story game we play, but it gives me much more choice and control over what happens, the child is making an incoherent, empty or invalid judgement.

Whereas to me it seems that that child is making a perfectly reasonable, coherent and rational comparison of the two sorts of game.

'No, you did not meet Prince Charming, no noble would grant an audience under those circumstances! Next!'

 

[Pedantic]

Imagine the following game: a group of people sit in a circle, and one of them tells a story. At certain points in the story, the story-teller pauses mid-sentence, at the point where a noun is required (eg ". . . and then she meet a . . . ") and points to one of the other people, who is obliged to provide a noun, which the story-teller incorporates as they go on with the story.

This sort of game happens in primary school classrooms.

Suppose that a child, familiar with this game, then discovers RPGing. According to some posters in this thread - eg @Oofta, @clearstream I think, maybe @FrogReaver - if that child thinks that RPGing is a bit like the story game we play, but it gives me much more choice and control over what happens, the child is making an incoherent, empty or invalid judgement.

Whereas to me it seems that that child is making a perfectly reasonable, coherent and rational comparison of the two sorts of game.

I have said this in many more words, but fundamentally you're getting disagreement because people do not believe those are comparable activities.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

He doesn't and never has short of a true railroad. Traditional play just has more signposts warning you that a train is crossing or you need to stop here.

Short of the very rare bad DM, I've never seen this happen.

You yourself have explicitly claimed the right to do exactly that, and that if players are upset they can simply choose not to play. You repeatedly insisted on the phrase "absolute power," and repeatedly rejected any possible restrictions or limitations.

 

[Maxperson]

You yourself have explicitly claimed the right to do exactly that, and that if players are upset they can simply choose not to play.

I've said that the rules give the DM the ability to do that, and that it is an abuse of authority to run a game that way. I didn't say that I do that or that it is something commonly done. It's very rare for a DM to abuse authority like that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have said this in many more words, but fundamentally you're getting disagreement because people do not believe those are comparable activities.

Which is hilarious, because one of the longest running tongue in cheek ways to refer to D&D (and TTRPGs collectively) is "pretend elfgames" or "Let's Pretend."

To deny that they are comparable is simply that, being in denial.

I've said that the rules give the DM the ability to do that, and that it is an abuse of authority to run a game that way. I didn't say that I do that or that it is something commonly done. It's very rare for a DM to abuse authority like that.

I disagree, and the many, many DM horror stories out there (and the almost as common absolutely horrible DM advice out there) would suggest it is not nearly as uncommon as you believe.