D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Micah Sweet]

Not at all. The thread was started by someone who very proudly runs a "hard railroad."


Again, not at all. Railroading has been actively defended in this very thread by at least one person (IIRC two, but it's long enough now that tracking that down would be rather tedious.)


Why? It's literally been a key part of the thread this whole time! I've repeatedly used railroading as an example of reduced or eliminated agency. If it's allegedly on "my side" to always be hyperspecific about choices needing to be both distinct and meaningful, as @mamba claims, then why should it not be "on you" to specify that you aren't limiting things to GM prep and are instead using that simply as one input among many? Particularly when we've had other posters rather hostile to the very idea of "framing -> player action."

Also, "revealing places of interest" rather points to a pure GM-authorship direction. The place of interest is already created. The players are already going to go there. It sounds very much like all that they decide is, in effect, what route they happen to walk through the amusement park before they arrive at the place.

This is why you create many points of interest, so the PCs can decide where they want to go.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It certainly would make a difference in my game, provided we talk about before the character enters play so I can set up the required world elements needed to meet the player's goals. Then it's up to them whether or not to engage with those elements.

The problem here is, this "clear absolutely everything through me first" is the removal of agency. Above, I referenced how the standard conception (note this is not the same as "theory"--different theories share this same conception) of agency includes both that an action must be intentional and that anyone claiming to be an agent must initiate the action. If an action is truly, purely accidental, lacking any intention--frex, a sleepwalker--then very few would argue the actor had agency, even though they did in fact act. But that condition is not sufficient alone. You are recognizing the player's intent, which is one of the necessary things, but taking away their ability to initiate. They merely provide suggestions; you initiate the action. Hence, you are exerting agency. The player is--to use the above analogy--a passenger along for the ride.

In some contexts, being a passenger is a wonderful thing. In others, it is not. But it is not the same as actually driving the vehicle.

Yes - in this hypothetical, the sorts of things I plan are directly influenced by things like that. For example, if you're a criminal sorcerer trying to pay off a debt, then I know to include that element in my broader plot.

Notice, here, who is actually taking actions. The player playing the criminal sorcerer trying to pay off a debt is not acting. You are acting. You are including elements. You are determining what situations will arise, what values will be put to the test and exactly which conflicts will test them. You have agency. The criminal-sorcerer player does not.

but that is explicitly what I am asking: "Is the thing I have described to your tastes? or have I messed up?"

The point of the post was to ask the four mentioned people whether or not they liked that hypothetical or not.

Leaving the unfortunate phrasing aside, then: Insufficient data for meaningful answer, if I am to restrict myself to only that original statement and nothing else. Based on your follow-up statements, like the previous quote, I am forced to conclude that I as a player do not really have much agency. I can describe my character. I am completely dependent on you for any of that description to actually matter in any way, shape, or form. You drive the conflict for the character, I simply provide suggestions for what you could choose to do. I can show intention--obviously, since I chose Dogsbody Jongleur or whatever else as my BG/class combo--but I cannot initiate anything. Only you can do that.

You can't be helped if you don't trust the people you play with. Have fun doing whatever brings you joy.

It seems to me that the issue is not that he did not trust, as shown in the quote below. It is that he did, and that trust was not respected in kind. Or, in other words, his criticism is that talk is cheap. Which is both a perfectly valid criticism, and an extremely important one when someone is asking for you to give them extensive and significant authority. Trust is not something a person can just infinitely demand. They must show they are worthy of it. Trustworthy, you might say.

I don't know why you are implying that I don't trust the people that I play with. I'm saying that many past DMs in past games in which I have partaken have made similar promises that they have failed to deliever.

Pithily: "Talk is cheap.: With a side of, "Actions speak louder than words."

I suggested what I would do for a player that wanted their personal goals to be relevant in a game I run. Your response was essentially, "that sounds nice, but I've been hurt before". That to me is a question of trust.

Oooor it's a question of whether people actually deliver on the stuff they claim to? Which seems quite a bit more relevant when one side is claiming that something will happen.

Did you discuss that with the DM prior to introducing the character to play?

Do you not see how this means it is the DM in the driver's seat, and the player is restricted to "passenger who can make suggestions"?

Nothing occurs without full DM clearance and being (secretly) prepared, well in advance. It is impossible to actually point the fiction toward something yourself. Impossible to instigate a conflict, to put the things one values to the test, without first (a) getting approval from the DM and (b) having the DM prepare a situation for that conflict, that test, to occur within.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The problem here is, this "clear absolutely everything through me first" is the removal of agency. Above, I referenced how the standard conception (note this is not the same as "theory"--different theories share this same conception) of agency includes both that an action must be intentional and that anyone claiming to be an agent must initiate the action. If an action is truly, purely accidental, lacking any intention--frex, a sleepwalker--then very few would argue the actor had agency, even though they did in fact act. But that condition is not sufficient alone. You are recognizing the player's intent, which is one of the necessary things, but taking away their ability to initiate. They merely provide suggestions; you initiate the action. Hence, you are exerting agency. The player is--to use the above analogy--a passenger along for the ride.

In some contexts, being a passenger is a wonderful thing. In others, it is not. But it is not the same as actually driving the vehicle.


Notice, here, who is actually taking actions. The player playing the criminal sorcerer trying to pay off a debt is not acting. You are acting. You are including elements. You are determining what situations will arise, what values will be put to the test and exactly which conflicts will test them. You have agency. The criminal-sorcerer player does not.


Leaving the unfortunate phrasing aside, then: Insufficient data for meaningful answer, if I am to restrict myself to only that original statement and nothing else. Based on your follow-up statements, like the previous quote, I am forced to conclude that I as a player do not really have much agency. I can describe my character. I am completely dependent on you for any of that description to actually matter in any way, shape, or form. You drive the conflict for the character, I simply provide suggestions for what you could choose to do. I can show intention--obviously, since I chose Dogsbody Jongleur or whatever else as my BG/class combo--but I cannot initiate anything. Only you can do that.


It seems to me that the issue is not that he did not trust, as shown in the quote below. It is that he did, and that trust was not respected in kind. Or, in other words, his criticism is that talk is cheap. Which is both a perfectly valid criticism, and an extremely important one when someone is asking for you to give them extensive and significant authority. Trust is not something a person can just infinitely demand. They must show they are worthy of it. Trustworthy, you might say.


Pithily: "Talk is cheap.: With a side of, "Actions speak louder than words."


Oooor it's a question of whether people actually deliver on the stuff they claim to? Which seems quite a bit more relevant when one side is claiming that something will happen.


Do you not see how this means it is the DM in the driver's seat, and the player is restricted to "passenger who can make suggestions"?

Nothing occurs without full DM clearance and being (secretly) prepared, well in advance. It is impossible to actually point the fiction toward something yourself. Impossible to instigate a conflict, to put the things one values to the test, without first (a) getting approval from the DM and (b) having the DM prepare a situation for that conflict, that test, to occur within.

Of course it means the DM is in the driver's seat. The player still requested it to be in the game, and gets to decide how, when, and if they engage with it. That's all the agency I need, on either side of the screen. I do not care to have any more.

 

[pemerton]

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).

I have a feeling that this part of your post may have been missed. So I thought I'd pull it out for purposes of reiteration.

For me it fits with the contrast I've drawn repeatedly in the thread, for over 100 pages I think, between different goals/orientations in RPGing.

Your games that lay claim to "story" as their core is my games where the aim is to generate a shared fiction. The contrast is with what I have called "puzzle-solving" play - I've got in mind classic dungeon-crawling D&D, and you've pointed out that there are elements of Torchbearer strongly oriented towards that sort of play also.

In puzzle solving play, the agency of players is about solving the puzzle. The GM has to hold things constant in order for the solving to be possible. (There's no simple paradigm here. Is an evolving state that evolves in accordance with a solvable rule sufficiently constant? That will depend on very particular details of a particular group's experience and expectations.)

In "create a fiction"/"lay claim to story as their core" play, the agency of the players is about establishing the fiction: what its about, what its trajectory is, etc. This is what you call an inescapable sting of protagonism. Whoever is doing this is exercising the most important agency in this sort of play.

 

[Maxperson]

In "create a fiction"/"lay claim to story as their core" play, the agency of the players is about establishing the fiction: what its about, what its trajectory is, etc. This is what you call an inescapable sting of protagonism. Whoever is doing this is exercising the most important agency in this sort of play.

I just want to stress the bolded part. It's the most important agency in that sort of play. It probably feels greater to you than the agency in my game, but objectively it's no greater or lesser than the players in my game have. The DM and players just have different priorities for what they want out of their agency is all.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

In this case the problem is you won't be playing a game at all if you simply get anything you want without restriction. Remember Suite's definition of what a game IS? Playing make-believe clearly gives you more agency, but its meaningless in the context of game play. I mean, that's YOUR POSITION to start with!

So, we can see that the actual design of the Defend move in Dungeon World (indeed most player moves) are not intended to simply maximize the player's success. They are meant to present a game with a balance of difficulty, maximum practicable agency, as well as meet other agenda-relevant goals. I'm not saying one of your other alternatives wouldn't be acceptable, maybe even better, but I would state that in terms of agency HAVING a choice that is meaningful is a lot more significant than having the maximally effective choice. Its not a linear thing, so the increase in agency attributable to your maximal Defense move is only a tiny bit greater than that of the ACTUAL DW defense move, but the penalty in other aspects of play doesn't seem to make it worthwhile, IMHO.

 

[Pedantic]

In this case the problem is you won't be playing a game at all if you simply get anything you want without restriction. Remember Suite's definition of what a game IS? Playing make-believe clearly gives you more agency, but its meaningless in the context of game play. I mean, that's YOUR POSITION to start with!

I am really confused by this post, as you seem to be entirely agreeing with an argument you seem to be trying to address, except for the bolded above? Unless I completely misunderstand @clearstream the point is precisely that playing make believe does not provide more agency, or more specifically, doesn't provide a valid comparison for agency.

In this case the problem is you won't be playing a game at all if you simply get anything you want without restriction. Remember Suite's definition of what a game IS? Playing make-believe clearly gives you more agency, but its meaningless in the context of game play. I mean, that's YOUR POSITION to start with!

So, we can see that the actual design of the Defend move in Dungeon World (indeed most player moves) are not intended to simply maximize the player's success. They are meant to present a game with a balance of difficulty, maximum practicable agency, as well as meet other agenda-relevant goals. I'm not saying one of your other alternatives wouldn't be acceptable, maybe even better, but I would state that in terms of agency HAVING a choice that is meaningful is a lot more significant than having the maximally effective choice.

Setting aside the question of knowability (is it a game if a computer can solve it but most humans can't?), if there's a "maximally effective choice" within the context of a game, there is not a meaning choice at all*, and thus no real agency. You seem to be suggesting the player should be simultaneously playing two games; one that is serviced by "practicable agency" as you proposed, but also a game that is measuring difficulty and success along some other axis?

Its not a linear thing, so the increase in agency attributable to your maximal Defense move is only a tiny bit greater than that of the ACTUAL DW defense move, but the penalty in other aspects of play doesn't seem to make it worthwhile, IMHO.

Fundamentally, this seems to be in agreement with the point that was being made. Agency can't be evaluated outside the context of a known set of goals of a given game. By proposing changes that "increased the agency" of a player under the incorrect set of goals for the game in question, actual agency measured in accordance with the actual goals of the game was decreased, the "penalty in other aspects" as you put it.

*Choosing to play badly is usually, as @clearstream would put it, outside the lusory means. In contexts players believe it is appropriate, it usually means they're not playing the game they claim to be playing and are either playing a different game, or have stopped playing a game altogether.

 

[clearstream]

In this case the problem is you won't be playing a game at all if you simply get anything you want without restriction. Remember Suite's definition of what a game IS? Playing make-believe clearly gives you more agency, but its meaningless in the context of game play. I mean, that's YOUR POSITION to start with!

So, we can see that the actual design of the Defend move in Dungeon World (indeed most player moves) are not intended to simply maximize the player's success. They are meant to present a game with a balance of difficulty, maximum practicable agency, as well as meet other agenda-relevant goals. I'm not saying one of your other alternatives wouldn't be acceptable, maybe even better, but I would state that in terms of agency HAVING a choice that is meaningful is a lot more significant than having the maximally effective choice. Its not a linear thing, so the increase in agency attributable to your maximal Defense move is only a tiny bit greater than that of the ACTUAL DW defense move, but the penalty in other aspects of play doesn't seem to make it worthwhile, IMHO.

@Pedantic already covered it, but recollect up thread I wrote that general agency is destructive to ludic agency. Your post lays out quite well some of the reasons why. I'm not saying DW Defend is made better by "increasing" agency that way, I'm pointing out that doing so is corrosive to more meaningful play. Thereby showing that successful game design isn't about "maximising" agency - an empty construct - it's about structuring it to best serve the prelusory goals.

In another thread, I described rule zero in terms of a privileged exception to a general suspension of agency all players commit to on entering the magic circle. Just to emphasize the point you've already made, picture a case where to the contrary all players have and exercise rule zero privileges. Only to the extent that they went along with one another (suspensions of agency) would structured play emerge. Suppose harmonious play formed by common consent: as Huizinga put it in "Homo Ludens", it would be shattered the moment there is a spoilsport, who in effect reasserts their rule zero agency.

The player who trespasses against the rules or ignores them is a "spoil-sport". The spoil-sport is not the same as the false player, the cheat; for the latter pretends to be playing the game and, on the face of it, still acknowledges the magic circle. It is curious to note how much more lenient society is to the cheat than to the spoil-sport. This is because the spoil-sport shatters the play-world itself. By withdrawing from the game he reveals the relativity and fragility of the play-world in which he had temporarily shut himself with others.

 

[clearstream]

In "create a fiction"/"lay claim to story as their core" play, the agency of the players is about establishing the fiction: what its about, what its trajectory is, etc. This is what you call an inescapable sting of protagonism. Whoever is doing this is exercising the most important agency in this sort of play.

I can really get behind this comment. I noted your example - in the form of a question - up thread.

What is going to happen if I tell you that my PC is in Townshire because my mentor told me that's where I can find the herbs that will let us brew the potion that will revive my cousin from the magical sleep the local warlock tyrant has placed him into?

To me, that implied a similar observation. Where I think there is more to be said is in the details of why the various suspensions of agency / agency structures rightly still limit "establishing the fiction." You've outlined some reasons in other threads, such as making us say things we wouldn't otherwise choose to say, and yet are I think in some way to our benefit to say.

 

[clearstream]

Do you not see how this means it is the DM in the driver's seat, and the player is restricted to "passenger who can make suggestions"?

An alternative analogy would be that of a conductor. GM has the job of bringing the disparate authorings of all players into a harmonious whole. GM need not decide destination at all, but still need to find common ground between how the one player wishes to resolve it, and how others might. Additionally, the players sat down to "say things they would not otherwise want to say" and GM - conductor - must bring those strains through, too.