D&D General What is player agency to you?

[clearstream]

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.

Just to check, do you mean that without the rules changing, teams found new ways to play the game? Thus, the agencies availed of were always present. What evolved was understanding of how to use them. That is distinct from the case where say, the QB was given new powers.

Or have I mistaken your meaning? (If "evolution of the ruleset" means that the rules changed, then indeed a different game is now played.)

 

[clearstream]

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’m 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.

Those elements seem more like discussion over competitive and skillful use of agency, then any change to the structure of that agency. However, I know next to nothing about American Football, so perhaps at some point the rules have changed so that the contemporary game is not the same game that was played in the past, and the QB role has changed in that light?

 

[FrogReaver]

Those elements seem more like discussion over competitive and skillful use of agency, than any change to the structure of that agency. However, I know next to nothing about American Football, so perhaps at some point the rules have changed so that the contemporary game is not the same game that was played in the past, and the QB role has changed in that light?

I can see that as well. Rules changes have generally benefited the quarterback or receivers.

 

[mamba]

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.

I guess you are not married

 

[dave2008]

Just to check, do you mean that without the rules changing, teams found new ways to play the game? Thus, the agencies availed of were always present. What evolved was understanding of how to use them. That is distinct from the case where say, the QB was given new powers.

Or have I mistaken your meaning? (If "evolution of the ruleset" means that the rules changed, then indeed a different game is now played.)

I can't be sure what manbearcat was refering too; however, in american football the rules have definitely changed to favor QBs and passing as opposed to running (which had no rules changes).

 

[mamba]

So...is there agency lost here?

depends on the spell… if it is like Magic Missile, no. If it is more levitating the anvil over the player’s head and then letting gravity do the rest, then yes. That is no different from a character dropping the anvil from a balcony onto a lower floor

 

[mamba]

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.'

you are not the only player at the table, the broader plot is / could be integrating your plot and theirs…

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

We are done.

I responded with that because I don’t know what it is you’re asking of me. You said you wanted to establish some common ground. Okay… what common ground do you have in mind.

You seem mad that I won’t agree with you for the sake of discussion. Then you say you want to find some common ground. Okay, fine… what do you have in mind?

If you take that as somehow rude, all I can say is that’s not how it was meant. I’m genuinely unsure what you’re asking me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Focus on the meaningful differences between the games! How do they play differently? What mechanics are involved. What will I experience differently? "More agency" just begs the question. What does your putatively "more agency" feel like? What does it lead to? All of those questions have answers and have been answered in various ways and to not one of those ways is the best answer "more agency lets me experience more agency". We don't play games for the sake of agency: to think so is a major misconception.

I’ve done this again and again in this thread. I’ve talked about things I do as GM of 5e to promote agency. I’ve talked about things I’ve experienced as a player that have limited it. I’ve talked about how I prefer more agency, but I don’t require it… I find some games to be perfectly enjoyable with less.

I’ve touched on other games as well, though minimally because so many of these discussions result in cries of “we’re in the D&D forum” or “you’re talking about games no one plays” or “it’s apples and oranges” and so on. I’ve been very deliberate about that.

Perhaps you didn’t read my earlier posts. That’s fine, I don’t expect every participant to have read the entirety of a 150+ page thread. But I’ve absolutely done what you’re calling for in your post.

What I’d love to see if more people who are posting here actually put examples of play… like real examples of play, not hypotheticals… and share them as you suggest. To show how things actually work in their games.

A few people have. Most have not. Almost as if they don’t want their play to be analyzed.

So go back over the thread and see who’s not shared examples of play, and then ask them to provide what you just requested of me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I can't be sure what manbearcat was refering too; however, in american football the rules have definitely changed to favor QBs and passing as opposed to running (which had no rules changes).

It’s just the obvious point that the QB has more ability to influence the outcome of the game than the RB. Where once they were closer in that ability, due to changing rules and a shift in focus, the QB is now clearly more important.

We can demonstrate it even more clearly by comparing the QB to a special teams player. Saying that the QB and special teams player have the same influence on play is obviously silly analysis. They both have agency, they both can impact the game in potentially meaningful ways… but one clearly has more ability to do so than the other.