D&D General What is player agency to you?

[clearstream]

Conductors usually select the music the orchestra will play. This is one of the primary jobs a conductor has when they aren't standing at the podium, baton in hand. Conductors are also called music directors for a reason. They select which pieces will be played, and assign roles for who will play what things. (This is, in part, also selecting the pecking order--if there isn't an actual assistant conductor, it is traditional that the first-chair violin is the prime substitute.)

The music selected by the conductor is the game text. Not the playing.

They study music carefully, analyzing its ins and outs, to find places where they can bring it to life, make it stand out. That's why they make more gestures than just timekeeping. They're also giving instructions to the performers. They are calling for changes in dynamics (quiet/loud), articulation (hard/soft), and sometimes even intonation, directing when and how soloists should participate, and communicating other components of style and approach.

Yes, they must understand the game text, and help others understand it.

Conductors tell their players what to play, and instruct them on how to play it. That is literally their job. I have no further interest in debating with you about something that is actual documented fact.

A GM tells their players what to play, so long as we understand that "what" to be RuneQuest or Apocalypse World, etc, and how they instruct them on how those rules are best employed. Admittedly, the analogy I introduced could - I hope nobody's astonishment - become a bit stretched.

A conductor isn't exactly like a GM... nevertheless, I find the analogy helps me clarify GM's role much better than that of a driver. It helps emphasise the collaborative project to create something wonderful, of satisfaction to all participants.

EDITED

 

[Aldarc]

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, 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.

Yes, but I think that it's important to recognize that your valid desire to have your agency as a player align exclusively to the imagined head space of in-fiction action declarations of the player character is not the be-all and end-all of what player agency entails across all TTRPGs.

There are tabletop games that have player agency outside of the scope that you prefer. Some of these other games or play styles have been discussed. And it's not just about other games either, because various editions of D&D and some D&D-adjacent games do provide tools for player agency outside of those boundaries as well: e.g., Inspiration, Hero Points, Background Features, etc. Even the emphasis on skilled play by the player in OSR lies outsides of these bounds as well.

This is why, IMHO, it is important NOT to use player agency and character agency as synonymous, interchangeable terms. Recognizing the existence of games and play styles with player agency outside of your own preferences is critical and in no way does it invalidate your own play preferences or imply that they are BadWrongFun.

Morever, to be clear, I do not necessarily have a one-size-fits-all personal preference for player agency. It varies between my play goals, the game that I am playing, the playstyle of the group I am playing with, and sometimes even the character that I am playing. Not only that but the greater tendencies of my preferences probably don't align with what is hypothetically the greatest amount of player agency in TTRPGs.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The music selected by the conductor is the game text. Not the playing.

Then the analogy grows worse, because I hope you can see how someone would instead interpret this as "conductors tell musicians what and how to play, and likewise GMs tell players what and how to play."

I would never have thought of the music--the act of play--as merely the game text. Never in a million years.

Yes, they must understand the game text, and help others understand it.

See above.

A GM tells their players what to play, so long as we understand that "what" to be RuneQuest or Apocalypse World, etc, and how the rules are best employed. Admittedly, the analogy I introduced could - I hope nobody's astonishment - become a bit stretched at this point. A conductor isn't exactly like a GM... reasonable analogies don't require precision (otherwise they wouldn't be analogies!)

EDITED

Okay. But the analogy was so bad from the outset, it sounded like it agreed with my point, not disagreeing with it.

I'm totally fine with simply ignoring it. Sometimes, an effort fails. But it seems to me quite clear that we can agree that this particular analogy had sufficient flaws that it should be thoroughly abandoned. It's one thing for (for example) a food analogy to go awry, this seems rather more severe than that.

 

[clearstream]

I'm totally fine with simply ignoring it. Sometimes, an effort fails. But it seems to me quite clear that we can agree that this particular analogy had sufficient flaws that it should be thoroughly abandoned. It's one thing for (for example) a food analogy to go awry, this seems rather more severe than that.

Let's then agree to drop the driver analogy. Whatever resources you might feel the analogy of a conductor lacks, I feel doubly so for that of driver. It has more than sufficient flaws to be thoroughly abandoned.

Sotto voce - Comparing a game text to the music seems quite apt, to me: both contain instruction for further creative development.

 

[Oofta]

See, this is how I know we would not be playing the same way. In actual narrativist play, my PC IS THE PROTAGONIST, and thus there's no 'my broader plot.' What you are describing is some sort of side quest, or color applied to some hook or something along those lines so that what you want to do mentions my PC. Yes, its probably closer to narrativist than pure classic DC play. It might verge into neo-trad more or less strongly depending on the degree to which the players get to vet these elements, etc. It could veer more into narrativist play, but that will either require a different plotting mechanism, or some real mechanical heft to the push narr play which 5e totally lacks.

That implies that PCs in D&D (or whatever traditional play game you choose) are not the protagonists of the story. But the reason we have protagonists is because they're fighting against or for something. So saying that they're the protagonist doesn't' really explain anything. Not saying you're wrong, it's just that it seems to be true that the player is the protagonist in most RPGs.

Again, there's nothing wrong with what you state. It just doesn't really clarify anything like you seem to think it does.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, but I think that it's important to recognize that your valid desire to have your agency as a player align exclusively to the imagined head space of in-fiction action declarations of the player character is not the be-all and end-all of what player agency entails across all TTRPGs.

There are tabletop games that have player agency outside of the scope that you prefer. Some of these other games or play styles have been discussed. And it's not just about other games either, because various editions of D&D and some D&D-adjacent games do provide tools for player agency outside of those boundaries as well: e.g., Inspiration, Hero Points, Background Features, etc. Even the emphasis on skilled play by the player in OSR lies outsides of these bounds as well.

This is why, IMHO, it is important NOT to use player agency and character agency as synonymous, interchangeable terms. Recognizing the existence of games and play styles with player agency outside of your own preferences is critical and in no way does it invalidate your own play preferences or imply that they are BadWrongFun.

Morever, to be clear, I do not necessarily have a one-size-fits-all personal preference for player agency. It varies between my play goals, the game that I am playing, the playstyle of the group I am playing with, and sometimes even the character that I am playing. Not only that but the greater tendencies of my preferences probably don't align with what is hypothetically the greatest amount of player agency in TTRPGs.

But if you subtract the non-existent character agency then the person playing a D&D game has very little agency. Which is false in any game I've ever played.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure. What do you got?

You tell me to ask you anything then you do this…

We are done.

 

[FrogReaver]

Let's then agree to drop the driver analogy. Whatever resources you might feel the analogy of a conductor lacks, I feel doubly so for that of driver. It has more than sufficient flaws to be thoroughly abandoned.

Sotto voce - Comparing a game text to the music seems quite apt, to me: both contain instruction for further creative development.

Always best to keep in mind, analogies aren’t good for resolving disagreements. They are good to help someone learn that doesn’t understand.

 

[Manbearcat]

The idea that agency in games is an on-off binary for participant roles and doesn’t evolve is unsupported by the evidence.

How about the RB position and QB position in American Football.

When once they were at relative parity, the evolution of the ruleset, analytics (including production and injuries/availability), and the play paradigm has soundly titled the scales of agency to the QB position and relegated the 25 + carry, Super Bowl Bellcow RB to a relic of the past.

RB money and contracts are absolutely vanishing while QB money and contracts are everything in the modern NFL.

The relative agency of participant roles is dependent upon the structure of rulesets and can (even radically) change over time with the evolution of a play paradigm.

 

[FrogReaver]

The idea that agency in games is an on-off binary for participant roles and doesn’t evolve is unsupported by the evidence.

How about the RB position and QB position in American Football.

When once they were at relative parity, the evolution of the ruleset, analytics (including production and injuries/availability), and the play paradigm has soundly titled the scales of agency to the QB position and relegated the 25 + carry, Super Bowl Bellcow RB to a relic of the past.

RB money and contracts are absolutely vanishing while QB money and contracts are everything in the modern NFL.

The relative agency of participant roles is dependent upon the structure of rulesets and can (even radically) change over time with the evolution of a play paradigm.

I fully agree that a good quarterbacks ‘value above replacement’ is much higher than a running backs. Because of this a good quarterback will have more impact on winning games than a good running back .

I don’t think that impact on winning games is analogous with agency. If it was then agency would most be determined by the opposing teams defense as they can always scheme to shut down a single player and can be quite successful at doing so. Alternatively consider the offensive line, if they don’t block then no one else on the team has any agency. Do the offensive line players have the most agency in football / impact one winning games? I don’t think so!

So what’s better? Each player is designated a certain role in the game plan and in each play. The players ability to make the right choices and decisions during the game to fulfill their role in the play/‘game plan’ is player agency.