D&D General What is player agency to you?

[CreamCloud0]

No redefining is necessary. You’re stuck on comparing the agency of characters to that of people in the real world. But that’s not an apt comparison.

Players are capable of making up things in and about the game world. We’re talking about the agency of the player. This is why treating the player and the character separately is key.

Your refusal to do so is why you’re not getting what others are saying, as the quoted post shows.

i suspect it's because quite a few of us on oofta's side of the argument want character agency but not player agency, the capabilities of character agency are alot closer to those of real world agency than what player agency is, a character with agency can't say 'there's a blacksmith in town' and have it be true because we said it was so any more than we in real life could, but a player with agency can do that.

 

[Oofta]

No redefining is necessary. You’re stuck on comparing the agency of characters to that of people in the real world. But that’s not an apt comparison.

Players are capable of making up things in and about the game world. We’re talking about the agency of the player. This is why treating the player and the character separately is key.

Your refusal to do so is why you’re not getting what others are saying, as the quoted post shows.

A PC in D&D is merely the method players use to express their agency. They're no different in that sense from the pieces on a chess board. The only one that can possible have agency in a game is the player.

But go ahead and make and make an artificial subset of agency to "win" the argument.

 

[hawkeyefan]

i suspect it's because quite a few of us on oofta's side of the argument want character agency but not player agency, the capabilities of character agency are alot closer to those of real world agency than what player agency is, a character with agency can't say 'there's a blacksmith in town' and have it be true because we said it was so any more than we in real life could, but a player with agency can do that.

Yes! This is the point. There are limits to the agency you prefer.

That you don’t want agency beyond that of what the character would be capable of doesn’t mean it can’t be otherwise for other people and other games. They prefer and allow more agency.

Neither is good or bad or right or wrong, except in how a given game aligns with one’s preference.

 

[Campbell]

Statements like "following from the fiction" sound official and all, but to me it's incredibly nebulous. Someone needs to make a judgement call as to whether the declaration really does follow from the fiction. I do this with my D&D game as well, particularly with backstories. The reason I want editorial control over the backstory is because I want the backstory to follow the fiction of the established campaign world.

If you don't you can get something like...

The idea that active GM curation is needed to maintain consistency is just not true. Plenty of people play games with real time collaborative world building that are consistent, have meaning and are no closer to the sort of clown shoes example you posted than any game you have run. Acting like the sort of play style you prefer is the only way to not reach degrading state is doing you no favors in these discussions.

The video you posted seems to me to be the work of someone who doesn't trust the people they play with. Not that there are no reasons for active GM curation, but the idea that without the game will inevitably degrade does not bear out in my more than 15 years of running games using more collaborative approaches to world building.

 

[FrogReaver]

As a player of an RPG, the only agency you have is to author fiction. It’s everything you do as a player. “I go over there” and “I hit it with my axe” and every other action declaration you make is authoring fiction.

IMO, The purpose of the RPGs I play isn’t to author fiction. That’s a necessary means to an end, but not the point.

In D&D I don’t play the game for the purpose of authoring, even authoring my characters actions. That’s just a means to an ends for me to pretend to be a part of another world. As such agency for me doesn’t come from authoring fiction, it comes from being able to explore that pretend world.

When put that way, it’s hard not to see the line where agency ends for one group and continues for another.

Only if one:
1. Assumes other RPGs don’t have different areas where they provide agency that narrative games do not.
2. Assumes that agency isn’t binary.
3. Assumes that the only agency that exists is agency over the fiction

All of these assumptions are disputed.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, this is a comparison of two different things. What your character can do in the game world and what you can do in the real world. It doesn’t help with understanding the agency players have when playing RPGs.

Agency makes no comparison. You either have agency(options that can affect the environment) or you don't. That applies equally to the real world and the game world. The only difference is that one is imaginary and one is not.

 

[Oofta]

The idea that active GM curation is needed to maintain consistency is just not true. Plenty of people play games with real time collaborative world building that are consistent, have meaning and are no closer to the sort of clown shoes example you posted than any game you have run. Acting like the sort of play style you prefer is the only way to not reach degrading state is doing you no favors in these discussions.

I never said the GM needed to make the judgement call. I said someone. I don't know how those calls are made in all games, and I'm not speculating one way or another.

The video you posted seems to me to be the work of someone who doesn't trust the people they play with. Not that there are no reasons for active GM curation, but the idea that without the game will inevitably degrade does not bear out in my more than 15 years of running games using more collaborative approaches to world building.

It was a parody. You know ... ha, ha, funny?

 

[hawkeyefan]

A PC in D&D is merely the method players use to express their agency. They're no different in that sense from the pieces on a chess board. The only one that can possible have agency in a game is the player.

But go ahead and make and make an artificial subset of agency to "win" the argument.

What artificial subset of agency have I made? I’m talking about player agency. As in the agency of a player playing a game.

The agency of players need not be limited to what their characters can do. The DM’s not limited in such ways, so this shouldn’t be a controversial idea.

IMO, The purpose of the RPGs I play isn’t to author fiction. That’s a necessary means to an end, but not the point.

Yes, I didn’t say it was the purpose. I said it was the means. We declare actions that shape the shared imaginary space of the game world. That’s how we express our agency.

In D&D I don’t play the game for the purpose of authoring, even authoring my characters actions. That’s just a means to an ends for me to pretend to be a part of another world. As such agency for me doesn’t come from authoring fiction, it comes from being able to explore that pretend world.

How do you explore the pretend world?

You declare fictional actions for your character.

Only if one:
1. Assumes other RPGs don’t have different areas where they provide agency that narrative games do not.

In what ways does a game that limits action declaration to what the character can believable do/know allow for more agency than a game that allows that and then more?

2. Assumes that agency isn’t binary.

I don’t think it is given the context of RPGs. Because the limits of our agency are up to us to decide. We can change the rules and processes of play to allow for more or less agency.

We are not limited in that regard as a person in the real world may be limited in what agency they have in a given situation.

3. Assumes that the only agency that exists is agency over the fiction

We’re talking about playing a game that generates a shared imaginary space. That’s what the game is… that’s what we’re talking about in regard to agency. One’s ability to affect the state of the game.

All of these assumptions are disputed.

I don’t think the arguments disputing this hold up very well.

Agency makes no comparison.

You made the comparison.

You either have agency(options that can affect the environment) or you don't. That applies equally to the real world and the game world.

No it doesn’t.

The only difference is that one is imaginary and one is not.

That’s far from the only difference, though I think it is a key difference.

I’m not free to simply change the rules of the real world to give me more control over how much I can influence it.

But I can do that with an RPG.

 

[Oofta]

What artificial subset of agency have I made? I’m talking about player agency. As in the agency of a player playing a game.

The agency of players need not be limited to what their characters can do. The DM’s not limited in such ways, so this shouldn’t be a controversial idea.

Agency in a game is granted by the rules of the game. So I agree that player agency need not be limited to what a character can do in the game if that agency is allowed by the rules of the game. I never said otherwise. In some games agency is implemented via the character because that is how the agency is allowed.

I simply think "player agency" as something separate from the agency the person playing the game can express is a meaningless distinction. Feel free to disagree.

 

[CreamCloud0]

How do you explore the pretend world?

You declare fictional actions for your character.

yes, declaring actions for my character 'as my character' not 'as a storyteller', not declaring outcomes for my character, or declaring actions for NPCs, or declaring what's in a location, or declaring items or people or places exist or anything else my character isn't doing themselves.