D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Maxperson]

Okay. And then what would be just above that?

That's it. If the DM isn't forcing your decisions/path, then you have agency. More or less is purely subjective and based on which qualities of agency you prefer.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Neatly, if sharply, put! I'm reminded of an observation by Vincent Baker

TTRPGs are no more fundamentally alike than video games, sports, or any other arbitrary game category. Take three ttrpgs and in principle they might be as different from one another as triathlon is from baseball is from hacky sack. Or as different from one another as Mario Kart is from The Wolf Among Us is from Minesweeper.

I want to return to an example I was discussing with @EzekielRaiden which is Roulette. Suppose that I define agency roughly as @pemerton and some others do and I want greater agency in playing Roulette? That would entail I either find a way to cheat, or I must change the game of Roulette into a different game.

That is because games owe their existence to conscious surrenders of general agency that accept the "unnecessary obstacles" that will constitute the play. This is why I have drawn a distinction between general agency and what I labelled above "ludic-agency". The two are not identical: the former is in fact destructive of the latter.

The child has judged that "RPGing is a bit like a story game we play". Whichever RPG they are thinking of is of course not the story game and exists only on account of the differentiated surrenders of general agency that bestow meaningful ludic-agency upon its players.

 

[clearstream]

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?

If driving is synonomous with playing, I don't think of the GM as controlling the wheel at all. That's for players. GM is part of the lusory means: green lights and stop signs. They can't perturb agency because they're part of the reason the given ludic-agency exists at all. This is particularly important if you want to use the "neo" part of that label.

 

[pemerton]

Suppose that I define agency roughly as @pemerton and some others do and I want greater agency in playing Roulette? That would entail I either find a way to cheat, or I must change the game of Roulette into a different game.

I gave the example of learning to "read" the balance of the wheel: The Gambler Who Beat Roulette

That is because games owe their existence to conscious surrenders of general agency that accept the "unnecessary obstacles" that will constitute the play. This is why I have drawn a distinction between general agency and what I labelled above "ludic-agency". The two are not identical: the former is in fact destructive of the latter.

The child has judged that "RPGing is a bit like a story game we play". Whichever RPG they are thinking of is of course not the story game and exists only on account of the differentiated surrenders of general agency that bestow meaningful ludic-agency upon its players.

The fact that, under a treatment of identity conditions of games along the lines you favour, the two games are necessarily different, doesn't mean they can't be compared.

Cats, dogs and rabbits are all necessarily different from one another. We can still compare them in terms of diet, fierceness, amenability to domestication, etc. We can also note that all are mammals, all are vertebrates, all are found natively in Eurasia, etc.

And I Googled "agency in video games" and got this: Agency

That each game is necessarily different from each other game (on your account of identity conditions for games), and that each sort of video game is necessarily different from each other sort (as per the quote from Vincent Baker), doesn't mean that comparisons aren't possible, that no generalisations hold, etc.

EDIT: On one popular theory of personal identity (Kripke's), each person is necessarily different from each other person. No one thinks this means people can't be compared.

 

[FrogReaver]

I gave the example of learning to "read" the balance of the wheel: The Gambler Who Beat Roulette

The fact that, under a treatment of identity conditions of games along the lines you favour, the two games are necessarily different, doesn't mean they can't be compared.

Cats, dogs and rabbits are all necessarily different from one another. We can still compare them in terms of diet, fierceness, amenability to domestication, etc. We can also note that all are mammals, all are vertebrates, all are found natively in Eurasia, etc.

And I Googled "agency in video games" and got this: Agency

That each game is necessarily different from each other game (on your account of identity conditions for games), and that each sort of video game is necessarily different from each other sort (as per the quote from Vincent Baker), doesn't mean that comparisons aren't possible, that no generalisations hold, etc.

EDIT: On one popular theory of personal identity (Kripke's), each person is necessarily different from each other person. No one thinks this means people can't be compared.

NBA teams score more points than NFL teams. Should we conclude that NBA teams are better at offense than NFL teams because they score more points than them?

It’s not that no comparisons can be made between games, it’s that we must be careful around the comparisons which are made because most of them are no better than the one I just made about the NBA and NFL.

 

[clearstream]

And I Googled "agency in video games" and got this: Agency

I'd like to dig into that definition to expose some contradictions

Agency is the degree to which a player is able to cause significant change in a game world.

What is the game world of Roulette? Roughly, it's made up of a mechanism for choosing a random integer 0-36, and cells with properties including triggering integers and multipliers on their contents to pay out when triggered. Additionally, there are tokens that can be placed into cells (as their contents) with values to be multiplied. Players as agents in this game world are afforded a basic move, which is to take tokens from a stash and put them into cells. The cell rules for pay outs recognise token ownership according to the stash they came from. Finally, there is a controlling scheduler that knows to run the randomising mechanism at periodic intervals, with an alert to players and closing of cells to further contents. (That's a brief overview written in just a few minutes: I could no doubt tighten it up if necessary.)

What is a "significant" player-controlled change in this rather sparse game world? It's to move tokens from a stash into a cell. That's it.

Low agency games involve either no interactivity, nudging or busywork. High agency games allow the player to significantly change the world or the state of objects within the world with every action

Again, this illustrates the distinction between general-agency and ludic-agency. I can certainly say that according to my general sense of agency I feel more with say Blackjack than Roulettte. That's down to cultural lenses, psychological predispositions, nurture, norms, etc. I might barely notice the vast amount of agency I've given up in order to even play Blackjack. It speaks to the player-duality, spoken of by Sicart (in the context of videogames), where they remain a member of their culture - separated from game - even while making themselves subject to game.

When comparing across games though, it's as you described incoherent, empty and invalid because games are constituted of suspensions of agency. Pursuing your analogy, we don't say that cats are more alive than mice, just because cats are made up of more living cells.

 

[pemerton]

NBA teams score more points than NFL teams. Should we conclude that NBA teams are better at offense than NFL teams because they score more points than them?

It’s not that no comparisons can be made between games, it’s that we must be careful around the comparisons which are made because most of them are no better than the one I just made about the NBA and NFL.

So upthread I asked another poster if they were familiar with the games they were saying can't be compared. And that seemed to irritate you.

Now you're telling me that comparisons need to be done with care. Which seems to require, at least, familiarity. (Though frankly the most cursory familiarity with team ball sports will let someone know that comparisons of numerical scores across games are, in themselves, meaningless.)

Anyway, do you think I'm not being careful in comparing (say) the D&D module Dead Gods and Prince Valiant? Or HeroWars and Prince Valiant? Or Burning Wheel and Torchbearer?

Perhaps I'm missing something, but to me we don't seem to be doing anything very complicated here. Who sets the goals of play? Who establishes the "stuff" that play is concerned with? How is it decided what happens when a player declares that their PC does (or tries to do) something? To me it doesn't seem hard to answer these questions for particular instances of play, nor for particular approaches to play.

 

[pemerton]

@clearstream, you seem to have attributed a post of mine to @Aldarc. You also seem to be trying to apply a definition of agency for video games to roulette - which is odd - and then complaining that it doesn't quite fit - which is unsurprising.

Also, the reason we can't say that cats are more alive than mice is because, in this context, to be alive is not a scalar property - either you are or you are not. (And X is barely alive doesn't refer to a low degree of "alifeness" but rather to the vulnerability of X's status of being alive.)

On the other hand, agency in the context it is being discussed in this thread, at least by me, clearly is a scalar property. I can enjoy more or less of it, as a participant in a game. Your attempt to argue that I can't compare agency across games because each is constituted by some particular allocation of agency is contradictory - we can look at each of those allocations, and consider the various degrees of agency inherent in each, just as (for instance) the Whitehall study (Whitehall Study - Wikipedia) investigated and compared the degrees of agency enjoyed by civil servants in various roles, even though each role was constituted by a particular allocation of agency.

 

[FrogReaver]

So upthread I asked another poster if they were familiar with the games they were saying can't be compared. And that seemed to irritate you.

Because you use ‘familiarity with a game’ to invalidate others opinions.

For the record, I think games can be compared in some ways - for me it's never been about no comparison ever - it's about noting that there are certain comparisons that just don't make sense - much like you agreed that comparing numerical scores in different sports is meaningless.

Now you're telling me that comparisons need to be done with care. Which seems to require, at least, familiarity.

And here again you set up 'familiarity' as a thing to invalidate comparisons you don't agree with.

IMO. You should be speaking on merits of the comparison or the opinion and not using a blanket rejection based on the posters familiarity with anything.

 

[FrogReaver]

(Though frankly the most cursory familiarity with team ball sports will let someone know that comparisons of numerical scores across games are, in themselves, meaningless.)

I'm glad you can agree some comparisons across games are meaningless. That's a great starting point. So maybe start by asking 'why is it meaningless to compare numerical scores across sports'? I think the answer is that numerical scores are not independent of the games being compared. What other attributes aren't independent of the games being compared? IMO - Most! What are some examples of independent attributes - the facts that both games have positions, that a numerical score is kept, that there are referees that often have to make judgement calls around whether something is a foul, etc.

Anyway, do you think I'm not being careful in comparing (say) the D&D module Dead Gods and Prince Valiant? Or HeroWars and Prince Valiant? Or Burning Wheel and Torchbearer?

One of the first steps to a good comparison is being able to identify the attributes that are meaningful to compare. I'm not sure you've carefully addressed that step. It seems to me more like you are assuming agency can be meaningfully compared across RPGs and then you compare agency across RPGs and start drawing conclusions from that comparison. But if that premise is flawed then the conclusion doesn't follow.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but to me we don't seem to be doing anything very complicated here. Who sets the goals of play? Who establishes the "stuff" that play is concerned with? How is it decided what happens when a player declares that their PC does (or tries to do) something? To me it doesn't seem hard to answer these questions for particular instances of play, nor for particular approaches to play.

I have no problem with those questions on their own. Though they are quite a bit more complex and nuanced than they first appear. I'd suggest their relationship to agency then is even more complex and nuanced and that the oversimplication of these questions often leads us astray.

I don't have time to delve into them all right now. But i'll start with the first as an example, 'Who sets the goals of play?' Traditionally that has been the group by agreeing to play a particular module, or a particular adventure, or a particular campaign, etc. Except, oftentimes adventures or campaigns give players freedom to set goals during play as well. Except oftentimes, players goals change from moment to moment in play and even diverge from one another - 'i'm bored let's force some action', 'i want my pc to live', 'i want to do something entertaining to the group', 'i want to take the game really seriously right now', etc. Or if talking more long term goals, they can quickly change as well as players either realize the goal is extremely difficult or extremely easy, or something new gets introduced in play that they make a goal around, etc.