D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Manbearcat]

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

Which he summarised as

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.

Alright, so a collection of thoughts. First bullet point will be some thoughts on the above, second will be some thoughts on @pemerton 's position on agency and where (a) there is some daylight between us on Torchbearer (and a little bit on why) yet (b) why there is little to no daylight between us on the importance of "protagonism as agency" when it comes to this particular conversation.

* With respect to agency, I don't agree that reduction/suspension of agency is the correct framing for what distinguishes one game from another. It is the structure of agency (which is derived from the goal/premise of the structured form of play) that matters. Yes, one part of that is a carefully curated reduction of agency, but that is only one component. Any particular structure targets expansion and contraction of agency until it lands on the decision-tree dynamics that are relevant to the particular form of play. The decision-tree dynamics of the creative intelligence/lateral thinking game "how many different configurations of objects x, y, z can you array with the constraining goal of n" is different than Texas Hold 'Em is different than American Football is different than Brazilian Jiujitsu sparring which is different than Bouldering competitions (the last two of which have myriad intra-discipline differences pending tourney/sparring rulesets).

* @pemerton and I have some differences on how high agency Torchbearer is and my guess is the daylight is due to the following considerations and where we land on them:

(i) Do the Gamist and Narrativist priorities of Torchbearer reach and sustain equilibrium and a feedback loop that informs each? Or do the dynamics (conceptual and the system architecture that interacts with those things) of either priority capture play such that equilibrium and intended feedback loop are upturned? I land on equilibrium and feedback loop can be maintained.

(ii) In a game such as Torchbearer where player protagonism (via system premise and PCs built upon and orbiting around motivations and relations) is central to play, is its forebear Burning Wheel (whose participant orientation and play process is interested exclusively with motivations and relations, unburdened by Gamist priorities and attendant feedback loops) a relatively higher agency game? Further, if your answer to (i) above is "Torchbearer's equilibrium and feedback loop will inevitably be overwhelmed (therefore, undermined to one degree or another) by Story Now imperatives," then the answer to (ii) would seem to be "yes, Burning Wheel is a higher agency game than Torchbearer."

So this is interesting conversation for pemerton and I to have (we've had it a little bit around the margins here and there I think), but I don't bring it up to have that discussion. I bring it up for this reason:

In games that lay claim to "story" as their core, there is an inescapable siting of protagonism (the motivations that propel play and give rise to story and compel its shape) as the apex expression of agency. "What the hell is the point of all of this (?)" is the most foundational question that play addresses and the answer to that is either PC-centered or setting-centered (including NPCs).

Remove the "burden" of story as a/the defining priority for play (and therefore the quandary of protagonism; eg Strahd's motivations clearly are what propel play, give rise to story, and compel its shape in a Ravenloft campaign), like in a hexcrawl or dungeoncrawl where the dominating feature of play is skillfully navigating successive, challenge-based decision-trees, and the conversation changes as the structure of agency applied to the particular form of play changes. However, a game that retains that "burden" of story retains the persistent inflection point for agency that is the inherent question of "which participant(s) sites the play-propelling protagonism."

That isn't me giving an autobiographical answer about "more" or "less" agency. But it is definitely an attempt to distill some signal from this ongoing, thread-spanning conversation.

 

[Raiztt]

@Manbearcat @pemerton @soviet @hawkeyefan

Let's say the four of you are sitting down to a game of D&D/PF2e/some-d20-system, (as it's the only system I run willingly). I pull out the map of the world, give you a brief world history/geography lesson. Nothing too granular, just really enough to give a conceptual idea of the gameworld. I tell you that we will begin the game in Townshire, and I ask you all to tell me what it is you're doing there and why you're there doing it.

What are your thoughts about this so far? Have we already gone off the rails as far as you're concerned?

​

 

[hawkeyefan]

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'm not saying that you can't be creative as a player. But the burden of the bulk of creativity is on the DM. You said this:

Thanks for the explanation. Part of the reason I don't want to play narrative games is because I DM so much. I like just sitting back and enjoying only being responsible for my PC and how they react, I'm grateful that someone else is putting effort into creating the world and making it come to life when I get to play. It just engages different reward centers for me.

In that quote, you acknowledge that it's less work to play than to DM. This is because there is more burden on the DM to come up with the content of play. As a player, you only have to worry about your character and how they react to things.... you don't have to be as proactive in order to take part in the game.

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.

Yeah, it's in imperfect metaphor. Of course players are contributing. It's just the way they do so is different.

We can shift the burden of driving the game... of being the creative force that is proactively determining the events of play... to the players somewhat. This typically results in more player agency. It's the players prompting the DM, who then reacts. This dynamic, though present in all games, is more present in games with higher agency.

I think that D&D 5e allows for a bit of a range here, and that's what I've been talking about throughout the thread. I believe other games offer more... actually, require more is likely the better way to say it... but I've honestly been trying to stick to 5e only in this thread. As much as possible, at least.

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

I think you mean being a player is not less creative? I think there's a difference between the level of one's creativity, whether player or DM, and the amount of effort that needs to go into making a game work. I'm talking about the latter. You would seem to agree given your description above about being "grateful that someone else is putting effort into creating the world and making it come to life when I get to play".

 

[clearstream]

* With respect to agency, I don't agree that reduction/suspension of agency is the correct framing for what distinguishes one game from another. It is the structure of agency (which is derived from the goal/premise of the structured form of play) that matters. Yes, one part of that is a carefully curated reduction of agency, but that is only one component. Any particular structure targets expansion and contraction of agency until it lands on the decision-tree dynamics that are relevant to the particular form of play. The decision-tree dynamics of the creative intelligence/lateral thinking game "how many different configurations of objects x, y, z can you array with the constraining goal of n" is different than Texas Hold 'Em is different than American Football is different than Brazilian Jiujitsu sparring which is different than Bouldering competitions (the last two of which have myriad intra-discipline differences pending tourney/sparring rulesets).

100% agree. That's why I keep characterising it as "in exactly the right way", which I hope withstands being pulled into others' scalar framings. The structure of agency (emphasis both!), is an ideal articulation.

Maximal agency is then optimal match between intended gameplay and agencies supplied. Whether those be more or less is moot: it's fit that counts.

* @pemerton and I have some differences on how high agency Torchbearer is and my guess is the daylight is due to the following considerations and where we land on them:

(i) Do the Gamist and Narrativist priorities of Torchbearer reach and sustain equilibrium and a feedback loop that informs each? Or do the dynamics (conceptual and the system architecture that interacts with those things) of either priority capture play such that equilibrium and intended feedback loop are upturned? I land on equilibrium and feedback loop can be maintained.

(ii) In a game such as Torchbearer where player protagonism (via system premise and PCs built upon and orbiting around motivations and relations) is central to play, is its forebear Burning Wheel (whose participant orientation and play process is interested exclusively with motivations and relations, unburdened by Gamist priorities and attendant feedback loops) a relatively higher agency game? Further, if your answer to (i) above is "Torchbearer's equilibrium and feedback loop will inevitably be overwhelmed (therefore, undermined to one degree or another) by Story Now imperatives," then the answer to (ii) would seem to be "yes, Burning Wheel is a higher agency game than Torchbearer."

So this is interesting conversation for pemerton and I to have (we've had it a little bit around the margins here and there I think), but I don't bring it up to have that discussion. I bring it up for this reason:

In games that lay claim to "story" as their core, there is an inescapable siting of protagonism (the motivations that propel play and give rise to story and compel its shape) as the apex expression of agency. "What the hell is the point of all of this (?)" is the most foundational question that play addresses and the answer to that is either PC-centered or setting-centered (including NPCs).

Remove the "burden" of story as a/the defining priority for play (and therefore the quandary of protagonism; eg Strahd's motivations clearly are what propel play, give rise to story, and compel its shape in a Ravenloft campaign), like in a hexcrawl or dungeoncrawl where the dominating feature of play is skillfully navigating successive, challenge-based decision-trees, and the conversation changes as the structure of agency applied to the particular form of play changes. However, a game that retains that "burden" of story retains the persistent inflection point for agency that is the inherent question of "which participant(s) sites the play-propelling protagonism."

That isn't me giving an autobiographical answer about "more" or "less" agency. But it is definitely an attempt to distill some signal from this ongoing, thread-spanning conversation.

That's... complex. What I think is something like that Torchbearer plays significantly upon the player duality, where we impose gamist concerns as premises upon our characters. So the loop is not overwhelmed, in fact it is a wry appreciation of the artifice of "the point" that heightens enjoyment.

Our characters are encouraged to be gamist, in their outlook on life. Hence they gain a fate point when they offer

a grim assessment of their fate while staring down certain death... dry comments that punctuate moments of improbable survival or that add a wry grin to moments of terror and bloodshed. Not a pun or caper, but a sharp crack in the face of the grim reaper.

and of course it is always as player (as well as character) that we speak: embracing the sacrament of death, because

It is only by overcoming difficult challenges and passing through the fire of conflict that the players’ characters can become heroes. It’s a very tough job—the characters are the lowest, most desperate of sorts. Turning them into heroes is no mean feat.

Or so I see it. What I love about Torchbearer is that the human problems - the premises - are somehow gamist problems. That's its magic. It means that no sacrifice is made between gamism and narrativism. Of course that could all be BS, and just how I personally feel. What hooks me in.

 

[Raiztt]

People really do be quite different in their core outlooks/philosophies and interests when it comes to TTRPGs.

 

[soviet]

@Manbearcat @pemerton @soviet @hawkeyefan

Let's say the four of you are sitting down to a game of D&D/PF2e/some-d20-system, (as it's the only system I run willingly). I pull out the map of the world, give you a brief world history/geography lesson. Nothing too granular, just really enough to give a conceptual idea of the gameworld. I tell you that we will begin the game in Townshire, and I ask you all to tell me what it is you're doing there and why you're there doing it.

What are your thoughts about this so far? Have we already gone off the rails as far as you're concerned?

​

I think 'oh look I am being led down the path of another contrived example'.

You appear to be trying to paint us as unreasonable people who scream about railroading on the thinnest of pretexts.

Unless you have kidnapped us, presumably there's been some sort of discussion in advance of what we're playing. What was that agreement?

 

[Raiztt]

I think 'oh look I am being led down the path of another contrived example'.

You appear to be trying to paint us as unreasonable people who scream about railroading on the thinnest of pretexts.

Unless you have kidnapped us, presumably there's been some sort of discussion in advance of what we're playing. What was that agreement?

This isn't a contrived example - this is how my most recent game started - I'm genuinly curious so you can chill your attitude lmao. But no, there's been no discussion other than "We're going to play D&D".

 

[mamba]

I think 'oh look I am being led down the path of another contrived example'.

you could also simply answer the question instead of going on a rant…

You appear to be trying to paint us as unreasonable people who scream about railroading on the thinnest of pretexts.

you do a lot of the painting yourself

Unless you have kidnapped us, presumably there's been some sort of discussion in advance of what we're playing. What was that agreement?

so that is a ‘yes’ then. It is already off the rails right there, unless you first agreed to limit your agency by playing D&D in the first place

 

[hawkeyefan]

@Manbearcat @pemerton @soviet @hawkeyefan

Let's say the four of you are sitting down to a game of D&D/PF2e/some-d20-system, (as it's the only system I run willingly). I pull out the map of the world, give you a brief world history/geography lesson. Nothing too granular, just really enough to give a conceptual idea of the gameworld. I tell you that we will begin the game in Townshire, and I ask you all to tell me what it is you're doing there and why you're there doing it.

What are your thoughts about this so far? Have we already gone off the rails as far as you're concerned?

​

Off the rails in what way? I'm assuming this is known to be a game of D&D 5e, right? If so, then I don't think there's anything I have a problem with regarding the above. But I'd probably want to know more. If we had played together for a long time, I'd likely have a very good idea of what to expect. But since this would be our first game, I'd likely have some questions.

But this is very similar to how the game I'm currently playing in started. We had a region and a general description of it, and then we made characters.

Seems pretty standard approach for D&D.

 

[Raiztt]

Off the rails in what way? I'm assuming this is known to be a game of D&D 5e, right? If so, then I don't think there's anything I have a problem with regarding the above. But I'd probably want to know more. If we had played together for a long time, I'd likely have a very good idea of what to expect. But since this would be our first game, I'd likely have some questions.

But this is very similar to how the game I'm currently playing in started. We had a region and a general description of it, and then we made characters.

Seems pretty standard approach for D&D.

So this is sufficiently 'narrative' for you? This doesn't limit your player agency in an unacceptable way?