D&D General What is player agency to you?

[hawkeyefan]

1. Agency of discovering plot hooks

A hook. To reel the players in.

2. Agency of Solving mysteries in a traditional fashion

A mystery is (traditionally) established ahead of time by the DM. Clues are created to be discovered so the players can solve the mystery.

3. Agency of exploring ruins or a strange dark forest that the GM has created

Why are the characters exploring the ruins/forest? Why did the GM create this place? What purpose does it serve? How does exploration work as a game? How do the players engage with that part of the game? How does the GM?

We need to know all this kind of stuff to really understand the situation. At its most basic, it sounds like the GM created a location for the players to have the characters explore, which doesn’t scream player agency.

4. Agency of free role play without the need to be guided by dice rolls, which can be disruptive.

One of the biggest areas of agency in D&D also involves the most dice rolling. I don’t think dice rolling disrupts agency.

5. Agency of having stretches without the constant pressure and busyness of PbtA games

The agency to not have agency?

@Oofta posted earlier that all the time he spends DMing means that when he plays, he doesn’t want the burden of high creativity to be on him. He doesn’t want to have to drive the game like he does when he DMs. The post sums up agency nicely. Driving the game or being along for the ride.

There’s nothing wrong with driving. There’s nothing wrong with being a passenger. We may prefer to do one or the other. That preference may vary depending on many factors. I don’t think anyone would disagree with this, generally speaking.

Much of this thread, to me, seems like people who enjoy being passengers trying to say that being a passenger is the same as driving.

I challenge anyone to tell me why these things shouldn't be described as Player Agency.

Because they’re not. They’re just preferences. They’re things about D&D that people might enjoy.

Why are you taking the positives that D&D offers (per the thoughtful post by @Arilyn ) and trying to make them all examples of agency? Not everything positive is an example of agency.

I played in a game of Delta Green last night. I loved it. There was a cool mystery the Handler set up, with a lot of historical elements. He had lots of pictures and even some songs that he shared at appropriate times which really suited the era. It was a very fun game. It was low on player agency. We were following bread crumbs left by the Handler to reveal the scenario he’d created. That’s what the game amounted to. And it was great.

You can like D&D for all the things @Arilyn listed. Many of them are the reasons I like D&D, too. And there are certainly more. But that doesn’t make those things examples of player agency.

 

[FrogReaver]

the post I quoted did not, it just said more options = more agency. We had enough discussions here about whether something is meaningful or not, whether not knowing the outcome of a decision reduces agency, etc., so no, there is plenty of talk about other things.

Also, choosing lottery numbers is not meaningless, that is how you win the lottery… yet one more discussion we had here already

I'd say the decision to play the lottery or not is meaningful, but the specific numbers you choose is meaningless as you are no more likely to win no matter which numbers you choose - and actually I take that back. The specific numbers you choose are meaningful because other people aren't random number generators and so if you pick numbers less likely to be picked by others then it's less likely you have to share if you win. There is agency there!

 

[mamba]

I'd say the decision to play the lottery or not is meaningful, but the specific numbers you choose is meaningless as you are no more likely to win no matter which numbers you choose - and actually I take that back. The specific numbers you choose are meaningful

the reason why they are meaningful is a different one. They are meaningful because they decide whether you win.

If you can open one of two doors, behind one is a dragon and behind the other is a mountain of treasure, that decision is meaningful even if you have nothing to go on.

The lottery is just way more doors to choose from, with less risk of dragons

 

[FrogReaver]

the reason why they are meaningful is a different one. They are meaningful because they decide whether you win.

If you can open one of two doors, behind one is a dragon and behind the other is a mountain of treasure, that decision is meaningful even if you have nothing to go on.

The lottery is just way more doors to choose from, with less risk of dragons

I won't argue that you can call those things meaningful in some way. What I will argue is that's not what is traditionally meant by 'meaningful' when people use the phrase 'meaningful choice'. You are redefining that term's meaning.

I'm going to focus on the doors because I have a different reason for calling lottery numbers a meaningful choice - and so arguing it's a meaningful choice but not for the reason you say will just get confusing. The 2 doors example doesn't run into that problem.

If you must choose 1 of 2 doors and something really good is behind 1 and something really bad behind the other then which door you choose is a life altering decision. It's significant. But there's no pros and cons to weigh. It's a completely blind choice And that's what makes it a 'meaningless choice' as traditionally defined.

Similarly if there were 1 penny behind one door and 2 pennies behind the other, then that's also not a meaningful choice as it's not life altering, it's not significant, and even if the choice wasn't completely blind - maybe I know door 1 has a 70% chance of the 2 pennys - that alone isn't for it to be a meaningful choice either.

Under the traditional definition, both criteria need met.

 

[clearstream]

You assert games are constituted by suspension of agency. What’s preventing some games from suspending less agency than others? I think your talk on games having different intents is spot on and probably part of the answer. I’m just not sure the notion of ‘suspension of agency’ on its own is explanatory (or really any different than claiming games grant agency).

To illustrate that, think about this PbtA move

Defend
When you stand in defense of a person, item, or location under attack, roll+Con.
✴On a 10+, hold 3.
✴On a 7–9, hold 1.
As long as you stand in defense, when you or the thing you defend is attacked you may spend hold, 1 for 1, to choose an option:
•  Redirect an attack from the thing you defend to yourself
•  Halve the attack’s effect or damage
•  Open up the attacker to an ally giving that ally +1 forward against the attacker
•  Deal damage to the attacker equal to your level

I quite like the definition that "agency in a RPG is about capacity to influence the outcomes of play." Although I suspect that captures only one (important) facet. Running with it, how might I increase agency for Defend? A first step could be pick, don't roll. The capacity of a player to influence those outcomes depends on the dice being constrained, so let's just turn them to the numbers we want.

High-agency Defend
When you stand in defense of a person, item, or location under attack, hold 3.
As long as you stand in defense, when you or the thing you defend is attacked you may spend hold, 1 for 1, to choose an option:
•  Redirect an attack from the thing you defend to yourself
•  Halve the attack’s effect or damage
•  Open up the attacker to an ally giving that ally +1 forward against the attacker
•  Deal damage to the attacker equal to your level

In high-agency, I just pick the best outcome (10+), but why limit myself to 3? Why not an even higher agency defend, that'd be better... right?

Higher-agency Defend
When you stand in defense of a person, item, or location under attack, as long as you stand in defense, when you or the thing you defend is attacked you may choose any of the following options, as many times as you like:
•  Redirect an attack from the thing you defend to yourself
•  Halve the attack’s effect or damage
•  Open up the attacker to an ally giving that ally +1 forward against the attacker
•  Deal damage to the attacker equal to your level

But there is still crucial lack of agency here: who's deciding that a person, item or location is under attack? Can't I just make my outcome an erasure of the attack itself!?

Even-higher-agency Defend
When you stand in defense of a person, item, or location under attack, say that it's not under attack and can't be attacked, and erase the attacker(s) from your narrative.

And so on. If you're attentive enough, you can see that Defend involves a long list of suspensions of agency to work as it does in DW. In constructing a game, it's not about suspending more or less agency: the distinct play is crafted through suspension of agencies in exactly the right way. My working hypothesis is that when folk speak about having more agency, they have an internal list of outcomes and ways to achieve outcomes that they care about (prelusory goals), and are making the perfectly reasonable complaint that the game (lusory means) doesn't suspend agencies in exactly the right way to match their list. It's therefore accurate to describe it as having (ad arguendo) low-ludic-agency, because the whole point of ludic-agency is to craft the game you want to play. Where they are inaccurate is in attempts to transfer that judgement to other lists that wouldn't benefit from adding the agencies they want! Because changing agencies, changes the game.

That should be utterly clear, but it bears repeating: changing agencies results in changing the game. You're not playing the same game with more agency, you're playing a different game.

 

[clearstream]

The above was already explained by the American philosopher Bernard Suits fifty years ago, in saying that

"To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs [prelusory goal], using only means permitted by rules [lusory means], where the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favour of less efficient means [constitutive rules], and where the rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity [lusory attitude]."

Which he summarised as

"the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles"

Suits' wrote in the spirit of a "Situationist", folk who were convinced that in the coming technological reign of leisure, play would replace work. In any event, agency is corrosive to games: it's suspension of agency that matters. In one sense, the "ideal" game would suspend all agency except that strictly needed to play it. You can observe that almost all TTRPGs are "unideal" in the ability for folk to play them different ways. To me that makes them ideal in a different sense, notwithstanding that it also leads to more arguments over how the game should be played!

By my lights, one can correctly argue that one's prelusory goals (in particular one's list of outcomes, and the ways they ought be able to be influenced) are brightest and best. If they are brightest and best, then surely all players ought to adopt them equally. Thus, any game failing to supply ludic-agency matching said brightest-and-best-list is... well, not brightest and best. Dark and dour, I suppose. An ugly duckling.

It's in that light (or gloom) that I interpret some posts to this thread. The question raised is - why shouldn't I enjoy the brightest-and-best rather than whatever ugly ducklings I'm presently surrounding myself with? To assess that for myself, it is obfuscating to try to in some sense count or scale agency, because, for example, I will want folk to have zero agency to achieve outcomes that are invidious! And, as the Defend example hopefully showed, I can benefit from a lower-agency mechanic that sustains interest in the outcomes. Presenting arguments for brightest-and-best in terms of more or less agency just begs the question. Restoring "unnecessary" suspensions of agency in itself doesn't improve a game: still yet to be explained is what is distinctly better about the commended outcomes and ways they ought to be able to be influenced?

It's worth reiterating that last: game outcomes are very often - usually, in fact - made excellent through reductions in agency to influence them. If you like, agency is the marble that game designers carve their games from: we want David, not a featureless rectangular prism.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Much of this thread, to me, seems like people who enjoy being passengers trying to say that being a passenger is the same as driving.

To extend the metaphor, we preferred passengers don’t think being a passenger is the same as driving, but both passengers and drivers can pick the destination, which is what we (or i at least) consider agency, drivers might have more control over the destination but passengers still get their say about where the vehicle is headed, passengers can say ‘hey driver we want to turn right here’ and if the driver says ‘no this is my car I’m choosing the destination’ that’s railroading

 

[clearstream]

To extend the metaphor, we preferred passengers don’t think being a passenger is the same as driving, but both passengers and drivers can pick the destination, which is what we (or i at least) consider agency, drivers might have more control over the destination but passengers still get their say about where the vehicle is headed, passengers can say ‘hey driver we want to turn right here’ and if the driver says ‘no this is my car I’m choosing the destination’ that’s railroading

Nice development of the analogy. To go one further, getting into a taxi, I tell the driver what our destination is. What I expect from them is to do a good job of safely conveying me to where I want to go. And I don't expect either of us to insist on driving off the marked road and across open pedestrian malls to get their quicker!

 

[mamba]

I won't argue that you can call those things meaningful in some way. What I will argue is that's not what is traditionally meant by 'meaningful' when people use the phrase 'meaningful choice'. You are redefining that term's meaning.

I don’t think so, I think people tend to use it wrong

It's a completely blind choice And that's what makes it a 'meaningless choice' as traditionally defined

that is what makes it an uninformed choice. I agree with you that people frequently say ‘meaningless’, but those people use the wrong term, not me

 

[Oofta]

A hook. To reel the players in.



A mystery is (traditionally) established ahead of time by the DM. Clues are created to be discovered so the players can solve the mystery.



Why are the characters exploring the ruins/forest? Why did the GM create this place? What purpose does it serve? How does exploration work as a game? How do the players engage with that part of the game? How does the GM?

We need to know all this kind of stuff to really understand the situation. At its most basic, it sounds like the GM created a location for the players to have the characters explore, which doesn’t scream player agency.



One of the biggest areas of agency in D&D also involves the most dice rolling. I don’t think dice rolling disrupts agency.



The agency to not have agency?

@Oofta posted earlier that all the time he spends DMing means that when he plays, he doesn’t want the burden of high creativity to be on him. He doesn’t want to have to drive the game like he does when he DMs. The post sums up agency nicely. Driving the game or being along for the ride.

That's not at all what I said and not what I meant. I can be quite creative as a player, but there's a big difference from focusing on an individual and inhabiting the thought space of one person versus creating a world.

I am not along for the ride. There is no ride without the PCs, I'm the one driving and as a group we're pushing the narrative of the game forward by what we say and what we do. It's the difference between playing Sim City and planning out the roads and buildings and playing a driving game zipping around exploring the city. Just because I'm not laying out the streets doesn't mean I'm not an active participant in making the game come to life.

Being a DM is different than being a player it is not less creative. At least not for me.