D&D General What is player agency to you?

[soviet]

My agency to act within the real world and my agency to have my PC act within the game world are identical. I can make decisions that have impact on the environment, real or imaginary.

This is simply mistaken. For one thing, in the real world, the outcome of your actions is not subject to a direct veto by a third party.

 

[Maxperson]

This is simply mistaken. For one thing, in the real world, the outcome of your actions is not subject to a direct veto by a third party.

Not in all cases anyway, much like D&D. My actions are very frequently subject to a veto in the real world, though. Also much like D&D.

 

[pemerton]

Why is the amount of agency I enjoy while filling in my tax return, or topping up my rail travel code, or waiting in line at the supermarket, possibly relevant to the amount of agency I should enjoy in playing a RPG?

RPGing is a creative outlet, a voluntary leisure activity. It should grant me greater agency than those work-a-day chores!

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Not in all cases anyway, much like D&D. My actions are very frequently subject to a veto in the real world, though. Also much like D&D.

I don't know what your day-to-day is like, but, unless we're talking about the laws of physics, aren't the vetoes that we experience in the real world soft vetos? Like, there are reasons it'd be inadvisable for me to go punch my neighbor in the nose, but there're no actual direct veto powers exercised on me. A cop might tell me I can't (though the likelihood of the police being in the area before I punch my neighbor in the nose are approaching nil), but I very much can. I'm only really constrained by the limits of my imagination and my willingness to accept the consequences of my nonsense.

 

[Maxperson]

Why is the amount of agency I enjoy while filling in my tax return, or topping up my rail travel code, or waiting in line at the supermarket, possibly relevant to the amount of agency I should enjoy in playing a RPG?

It isn't relevant to your enjoyment levels, but it is the same amount since agency is agency and you are engaging in options that affect your environment in both cases.

You prefer the aspects of agency focused on in an RPG more than the tax return is all. It's more fun for you.

RPGing is a creative outlet, a voluntary leisure activity. It should grant me greater agency than those work-a-day chores!

No. It should not grant you greater agency. Rather it should grant you more enjoyment via agency, which is different.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't know what your day-to-day is like, but, unless we're talking about the laws of physics, aren't the vetoes that we experience in the real world soft vetos? Like, there are reasons it'd be inadvisable for me to go punch my neighbor in the nose, but there're no actual direct veto powers exercised on me. A cop might tell me I can't (though the likelihood of the police being in the area before I punch my neighbor in the nose are approaching nil), but I very much can. I'm only really constrained by the limits of my imagination and my willingness to accept the consequences of my nonsense.

The DM's vetoes are also soft, unless he's abusing his authority which rarely happens. If I tell the DM that I'm going to punch my PC's neighbor in the face, it's not going to be vetoed other than softly via the risk of jail by guards, much like the risk to me of my neighbor involving the police.

Though if you get down to it, my neighbor could shoot me in the face before I can punch him, vetoing my attempt in a very hard manner.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

The DM's vetoes are also soft, unless he's abusing his authority which rarely happens. If I tell the DM that I'm going to punch my PC's neighbor in the face, it's not going to be vetoed other than softly via the risk of jail by guards, much like the risk to me of my neighbor involving the police.

Broadly, I agree (my gaming experience has been largely free of abusive DMs, fortunately). But a DM can make hard vetoes, which could be either (1) no-that's-against-the-rules-and-it-doesn't-happen or (2) that-doesn't-happen-because-of-fictional-reason, neither of which would necessarily be abusive and both of which might functionally void the attempted action. And my experience is that RL doesn't generally have hard vetoes of these sorts (outside of things like gravity), though admittedly I do not routinely test these things.

Though if you get down to it, my neighbor could shoot me in the face before I can punch him, vetoing my attempt in a very hard manner.

True, but I'd file this under consequences-of-my-b.s. rather than an outright veto. My neighbor has the same agency as me.

 

[FrogReaver]

It’s not in dispute for me!

When I say it isn’t binary and you say it is, that’s not conducive either, by your logic.

I think it’s obvious that it’s not binary, that there are degrees of agency available to players, depending on the rules and practices.

It’s a discussion forum. I’m discussing. I’m no more obligated to accept your argument than you are mine. If we disagree, so be it.

Sorry, but just declaring you are right repeatedly isn't discussing. As I alluded to in my post we can disagree while actually discussing or we can disagree and just agree to disagree. Looks like it's going to be the later. And that's perfectly fine. A bit disappointing, but perfectly fine.

 

[Maxperson]

Broadly, I agree (my gaming experience has been largely free of abusive DMs, fortunately). But a DM can make hard vetoes, which could be either (1) no-that's-against-the-rules-and-it-doesn't-happen or (2) that-doesn't-happen-because-of-fictional-reason, neither of which would necessarily be abusive and both of which might functionally void the attempted action. And my experience is that RL doesn't generally have hard vetoes of these sorts (outside of things like gravity), though admittedly I do not routinely test these things.

Right, but those hard vetoes you describe are the same here in the real world. Try jumping to the moon or even flapping your hands and flying. If something is impossible and the DM says, "No, that's not possible." it's the same hard veto as trying something impossible here in the real world. Absent abuse by the DM, vetoes are the same(or at least very, very similar) in the game and in the real world.

True, but I'd file this under consequences-of-my-b.s. rather than an outright veto. My neighbor has the same agency as me.

That's one way to look at it!

I see it as a negation of what I was attempting, whether that negation is a consequence or not. A negation is a veto in my eyes.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I see it as a negation of what I was attempting, whether that negation is a consequence or not. A negation is a veto in my eyes.

Right on. I think this is where we're differing — I'm disinclined to see negation in the same light as a veto. But I think they can functionally end up in the same place (I've played in games where they've felt the same, for sure!).