D&D General What is player agency to you?

[hawkeyefan]

That's what I said. It does not change what is actually true. Agency = agency. You have it or you don't. Your perception just makes it seem like more or less agency, depending on which aspects of agency you value more and which you value less.

I really don't get this agency is binary thing. You're saying that there's no difference in agency between a very linear adventure path and an open world style sandbox.

And while I think there are potentially more similarities than many folks would claim, I don't expect you and I would share an opinion on that.

How is the DM choosing options that he doesn't even know exist?

Sure. The door gets rid of some options, but that's not the same as choosing what options are available. There are thousands upon thousands of possibilities, depending on party make-up, items, environment, creativity, etc. Perhaps even millions. There's no way the DM can be choosing them. Eliminating a few like simply being able to walk through an opening? Sure.

Yep. Influence =/= chooses what options are available, though.

The DM is the one who decides what's in the world. What will be faced. Obviously, what they choose... a dragon, a locked door, a pair of guards, a capricious pixie, whatever... will determine the potential paths to success.

So what. That still doesn't mean that they are acting like a bad DM in their games. You're looking at a 3 and calling it a 10. No. Only a 10 is a 10.

I'm not trying to say anyone is bad at DMing. I'm showing it was a difference of degree (a 3 instead of a 10) not of kind (both restrict player agency).

It's EXACTLY about the extreme examples, because it's the extremes that are bad. If you aren't at an extreme, you're within the bounds of normal.

I'm not going to say anyone's game is bad. All the participants of any game may be totally happy with what's going on. In that sense, it's not bad. I'm trying to remain objective.

That's not agency. Agency is binary. You have it or you do not.

Greater influence or lesser influence doesn't alter your agency(the ability to make choices that affect the world). There's nothing in agency about degree. Degree is simply an aspect you can value more or less and if you value it more, having a greater degree of influence will make agency FEEL greater to you than in a game where you have less of it.

What's the distinction you're making between "influence over the game world" and "the ability to make choices that affect the (game) world"?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think we were in disagreement on this...

Well when I mentioned options earlier, you assumed I was talking about types of beer available in the tavern.

 

[clearstream]

I really don't get this agency is binary thing. You're saying that there's no difference in agency between a very linear adventure path and an open world style sandbox.

Given games exist on account of suspensions of agency in just the right way to constitute the game, agency isn't scalar. It either exists or doesn't exist in respect of the game intents.

The error being - repeatedly - made is smuggling in a list of intents and then arguing that one will have more agency the more that list is satisfied. That isn't a case of having more agency, it is a case of not having suspended agency in just the right way to constitute the game you intended to play.

It's meaningless to talk about more or less agency, unless you first list the intents you want to have agency to enact. You can then judge how well the available ludic-agencies fit your list. What one cannot do is say that some other list of intents equates with less agency, because, as I have said, games are constituted by suspensions of agency. It's fundamental to what a game is to have given up vast amounts of agency in the first place!

 

[SteveC]

It is hard to keep up with this thread, so I'm really responding to posts from a few pages back. Several people were asking about different styles of play and who in this thread we'd like to actually play with. For me, I have very different expectations for different kinds of games. If I'm playing Blades in the Dark or Monster of the Week, I'm thinking of very different games than D&D. That's not to say that I don't think a D&D game can't take some ideas from those other games and be better, just that I wouldn't come in expecting that.

With that said: I'd play a game with just about anyone talking in this thread. That's largely because if you care enough to stick around and discuss this for all these pages, you must care about running a game. And that means your game is probably going to be great on that point alone. I like agency in games. It's important to me, but I've also said "if the railroad goes through Awesome Town, get me a ticket!" So yeah, I'd be happy to play at any of your tables.

 

[mamba]

Well when I mentioned options earlier, you assumed I was talking about types of beer available in the tavern.

I did not assume, I gave an example for when more options are not better / offering more agency than fewer other options.

You said more options = more agency, I said that depends on several things, at face value I have to disagree

 

[hawkeyefan]

Given games exist on account of suspensions of agency in just the right way to constitute the game, agency isn't scalar. It either exists or doesn't exist in respect of the game intents.

The error being - repeatedly - made is smuggling in a list of intents and then arguing that one will have more agency the more that list is satisfied. That isn't a case of having more agency, it is a case of not having suspended agency in just the right way to constitute the game you intended to play.

It's meaningless to talk about more or less agency, unless you first list the intents you want to have agency to enact. You can then judge how well the available ludic-agencies fit your list. What one cannot do is say that some other list of intents equates with less agency, because, as I have said, games are constituted by suspensions of agency. It's fundamental to what a game is to have given up vast amounts of agency in the first place!

I've been talking about 5e specifically!

 

[bloodtide]

That last bit is important: in Gygaxian dungeon crawling, exploring the map isn't just finding out what's there - it's also beating a maze, and - when you get out the loot - beating its occupants. As Lewis Pulsipher wrote over 40 years ago, this sort of play is not compatible with a high degree of GM improvisation or extrapolation.

So how can this be true when the 1E DMG literally has Random Dungeon Creation Tables.

As the players move their characters, the DM rolls dice to get random results and then must create and improv it all together.

In my view, agency in a RPG is about capacity to influence the outcomes of play. In my preferred RPGing, the main outcome is establishing a shared fiction. In Gygaxian dungeon crawling, the main outcome is beating the dungeon, which combines puzzle-solving and wargaming.

This is not true, but guess I can see why you think this.

What I will say, as I have said many times previously, that I think part of the genius of the dungeon conceit is that it is an artificially austere environment, with very clear conventions around how its architecture and interior design are relevant to play. Wilderness and urban exploration, with frequently non-austere environments that are not governed by clear conventions, is in my view far harder for a GM to hold constant so as to be gameable in the way that a dungeon is.

I guess a basic dungeon was just some squares with lines connecting them and everything was just stone. Though that sure does not describe most dungeons. Really a big point is made about weird, strange and unique encounter areas.

And it sure was typical for a dungeon to have a portal or two that took the game play to a wilderness area.

And it's not "harder" to run wilderness adventures in any way.

 

[soviet]

It is hard to keep up with this thread, so I'm really responding to posts from a few pages back. Several people were asking about different styles of play and who in this thread we'd like to actually play with. For me, I have very different expectations for different kinds of games. If I'm playing Blades in the Dark or Monster of the Week, I'm thinking of very different games than D&D. That's not to say that I don't think a D&D game can't take some ideas from those other games and be better, just that I wouldn't come in expecting that.

With that said: I'd play a game with just about anyone talking in this thread. That's largely because if you care enough to stick around and discuss this for all these pages, you must care about running a game. And that means your game is probably going to be great on that point alone. I like agency in games. It's important to me, but I've also said "if the railroad goes through Awesome Town, get me a ticket!" So yeah, I'd be happy to play at any of your tables.

Actually it means all our games are rubbish because valuable prep time is being wittered away on stupid arguments!

 

[Oofta]

Actually it means all our games are rubbish because valuable prep time is being wittered away on stupid arguments!

Hey now! Some of us can multi-task! Now excuse me I have to go play Baldur's Gate 3 instead of prepping for my game this weekend.

 

[Mort]

Hey now! Some of us can multi-task! Now excuse me I have to go play Baldur's Gate 3 instead of prepping for my game this weekend.

You're not wasting time, your getting ideas for future sessions! Umm yeah.