D&D General What is player agency to you?

[clearstream]

@clearstream, you seem to have attributed a post of mine to @Aldarc.

Oops, thanks for pointing that out. I've removed the attribution.

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.

Hmm, well I was working with the definition you introduced, and I used Roulette as a conveniently simple example. If desired, we can just picture a videogame version of Roulette! More seriously, I've no objection if you feel that definition of agency for videogames shouldn't be applied to other forms, such as TTRPG.

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.)

Agreed, and that's an interesting point about "barely alive". I have both said that ludic-agency isn't scalar, and suggested that it can be jeopardised.

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

I don't say that games are constituted by allocations of agency, I say they are constituted by suspensions of agency. Seeing as what's essential to a game is to suspend agency (to lack agency in just the right way) and that to increase agency is to change the game (which is what the case you cited relies upon, that the wheel becomes deformed so that the intended game is no longer played.)

A paradox that might be illustrative: according to your construct, the highest-agency game wouldn't be a game at all.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Some players move from rugby to American football to Australian Rules football. But I think few players move from rugby to cricket. Why is that? The explanation is found in a comparison of how the games are played, what sorts of skills and abilities they require, etc.

Cricket is more like baseball than it is like football. This is because of features like bowling/pitching and batting; the setting of a field; running after hitting the ball; etc.

Field hockey and soccer can be compared in many respects, and we can look at ways in which (say) soccer more closely resembles hockey or more closely resembles Australian Rules.

Etc.

Even when it come to scores, we can in fact compare particular games as being (for instance) high scoring or low scoring, and relate this to factors like team ability, weather (a wet ground can make for low scores), etc. We can also compare whether games are systematically high scoring and fast in play (say, basketball and Australian Rules) or involve less frequent scoring and "slower" play (eg rubgy). We can also compare the degree to which play might be fast yet scoring low, and consider why that is the case (eg soccer).

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.

I'm quite satisfied that agency can be compared in the ways I'm comparing it. That satisfaction arises from having had the various experiences I'm describing - experiences of agency - and comparing them.

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

Well, generally if someone isn't very familiar with a thing, that is a reason to be doubtful about their opinion of a thing. Isn't it?

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

Suppose that a particular RPGer had only ever played DL-style railroads, and did not even know that any other sort of RPGing was possible. Why would I regard that person's view as to what sort of player agency might be possible, in RPGing, as having much value?

Conjecture is not always worthless. But generally valuable conjecture follows from some degree of familiarity with whatever is being conjectured about. Someone who tells me that it is impossible to compare (say) the Prince Valiant scenario The Crimson Bull to (say) the AD&D module Dead Gods is making a ridiculous claim. I've read both scenarios. I can tell you, in some detail if you like, what it is that makes one a masterpiece that supports high player agency despite its intricate, and temporally unfolding, framing; and what makes the other, as written, an utter railroad. Not only is the comparison possible, but it's very illuminating, both of Jerry D Grayson's talent for scenario design and also about quite subtle possibilities in scenario design that are often ignored in discussions of what is and is not a railroad.

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.

But given that our hobby has a word for particularly low-agency play - railroad - and that there have been essays discussing the degree of player agency for almost as long as the hobby has existed (I think I already mentioned Lewis Pulsipher's White Dwarf articles from the late 1970s), comparisons of player agency across different approaches to play is manifestly not something that doesn't make sense.

 

[pemerton]

A paradox that might be illustrative: according to your construct, the highest-agency game wouldn't be a game at all.

That's not a paradox at all. It's like saying that the smallest possible person wouldn't be a person at all, because they'd only be an atom. Which is just silly.

The highest agency game is the thing which (i) is a member of the set of games, and (ii) is the member of that set with the highest degree of player agency. (There may not be a unique such game, of course.) There's no paradox.

(The smallest possible person is the thing which (a) is a member of the set of persons, and (b) is the smallest member of that set. Again, there may not be any such unique person. But no atom is a candidate to be the smallest possible person, not satisfying (a).)

Here's the real paradox: on your account the following sentence is meaningless - That module was a real railroad - as a player I had almost no agency at all!

 

[clearstream]

Here's the real paradox: on your account the following sentence is meaningless - That module was a real railroad - as a player I had almost no agency at all!

Yes. It's a natural but mistaken attribution of an external concept. The dissonance arises because the player assumed they would have some ludic-agencies that they did not have, due to the intended play of the chosen mode (railroad).

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Really? So having only one option means no agency, but having two options is the same as having five?

This makes no sense.

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.

Perhaps the merits of the comparison are more obvious to those who have familiarity with all items being compared?

 

[clearstream]

On reading my comments, it could seem that I don't think game designers can do a better or worse job of suspensions of agency. Rather, I think in terms of how well the designers have wielded those suspensions for the exact purpose of creating the distinct play they intend. So Alan Calhamer - designer of the boardgame Diplomacy - made some initial errors when he thought that players should be allowed to ignore the written rules if they can get away with it. He later relented of that position and realised that the game succeeded best when the exact agency he'd intended was in fact adhered to.

The designers of Advanced Squad Leader wrestled for a long time with a community notorious for finding any loophole. The principle they and the community eventually settled on was COWTRA - concentrate on what the rules allow. This was evidence of the vast suspension of agency required to play a game, let alone a tightly ruled, competitive game like ASL. Some players had argued that where an agency wasn't explicitly suspended, then it was allowed. The principle of COWTRA established that almost all general agency is suspended when playing ASL except for what the rules allow.

Does Diplomacy offer more agency than ASL? It's imponderable. They're different games. But does each game do an equally solid job of designing in the correct suspensions of agency (once COWTRA was accepted by the community)? Absolutely. A game with poor agency is one that does not design in the ludic-agency to achieve the intended goals of play, or fails to exclude general agency that is destructive to those goals (in the context of videogames, these are called exploits.)

 

[FrogReaver]

Perhaps the merits of the comparison are more obvious to those who have familiarity with all items being compared?

IMO. Then maybe just articulate those merits or lack thereof instead of articulating that an opinion is wrong because of a lack of familiarity?

 

[mamba]

Really? So having only one option means no agency, but having two options is the same as having five?

This makes no sense.

Does filling out a lottery ticket in which the numbers range from 1 to 40 provide less agency than filling out one where the numbers range from 1 to 60?

The number of options does not automatically increase agency. Why are there two or five options, what are these options, who decides what options there are. That to me is far more relevant to agency than whether there are two or five

If my two options are, do you want to attack the enemy now or search for allies first, that is more agency than choosing between five kinds of beer in a tavern.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Sports is actually a great analogy.

A professional playing soccer(narrative style) has great agency to affect the outcome of the game. A professional playing basketball(traditional style) also has great agency playing the game. Comparing those agencies is meaningless, because how they affect the game(their agency) and what values are important to them with that agency vary considerably.

Stick that professional soccer player in a professional basketball game and he's extremely likely to be unhappy, because he doesn't have the agency he is used to and will do poorly. Stick the professional basketball player in a soccer game and he will similarly be unhappy with the agency he's getting and will do poorly.

Both of those players will experience reduced agency in the other game and increased agency in their own game. The concepts of more agency and less agency are subjective and based on what aspects of agency you are valuing and what aspects you do not value. You either have agency or you do not.

 

[Oofta]

Really? So having only one option means no agency, but having two options is the same as having five?

This makes no sense.



Perhaps the merits of the comparison are more obvious to those who have familiarity with all items being compared?

If number of options is the measure of agency then doesn't D&D sandbox campaign win out over most PbtA games? After all in D&D you have numerous subclasses by class X skill proficiency or expertise X spells X feats X RP influence X actions X equipment. After careful calculation, that a gazillion different combinations! In DW you only have less than a dozen classes and equipment is generalized, where's the detailed difference of a rapier versus a halberd? Don't even get me started on the lack of feats.

Which is the problem I have with comparisons. There are many factors that you could consider adding to or subtracting from agency. But we will never agree on what weight to put on those things. Some people will say that if there is a referee, that it's a negative bazillion points, while others will say that having a referee has minimal impact.

I can say that team X is more successful than team Y for a given sport just like I can say that a sandbox game likely has more agency than most published modules. I can even come up with concepts like strong defense or offense that carry over from one sport to the other for many sports. But particulars? How do you compare bowling to volleyball? They're just different, neither better nor worse.

Throw in that anyone who doesn't have an interest in playing dozens of different games simply can't conceive of how other games work so just tell them that everything they say is invalid.