D&D General What is player agency to you?

[CreamCloud0]

Character agency is a FICTION, just like the characters and the game world, etc. Fictional things are NOT REAL... I don't think I need to elaborate.

so if i deny your character the ability to do anything of meaningful effect then that doesn't actually matter because your character is fictional so they don't actually have any agency to prevent? good to know.

i'm not actually saying the 'character' themselves has agency when i use the term 'character agency' i'm talking about the range of reasonable actions available to the player as if they were the character that they are controling as a 'real person' in a 'real world' where all the magic and abilities of the gameworld actually existed.

I as a 'real person' in the 'real world' cannot declare things exist in the same way that my 'fake person' in the 'fake world' cannot either but we still have the ability to influence the world through our actions, the level of agency of me in my real world is the same as my fake person in their fake world, unlike the level of agency i as a player have over their fake world which is more than some people want when playing their game of DnD.

i KNOW and UNDERSTAND these are fake fictional people in a fake fictional world where we all play pretend creating fake fictional stories in a world that is not real and is fake and fictional and doesn't exist but the fake world is still REAL to the fake person and i as a player exercise my greater agency in accordance of the level of agency my character would have.

 

[Aldarc]

I would honestly love that! Otherwise, I really don't see a lot of value to this discussion.

I'm curious, Micah. You are a self-proclaimed OSR enthusiast, but a lot of the OSR's biggest voices, such as Ben Milton, tend to be big on skilled play, are less bothered by meta-gaming,* and often involve more pawn stance play. In many respect, despite sandboxes being a part of OSR, OSR play leans more into the gamist side of the play agenda than your stated simulationist preferences. In your experience, how do your play preferences regarding player agency in these OSR games overlap or even conflict? Because I can see some overlap but also some potential areas of conflict.

* skilled play even demands it!

 

[clearstream]

Honestly, it depends. Often we can simply lean on genre tropes and our mutual understanding of what will facilitate play here. Bad guys do bad things, definitionally, etc. Now, that might lead to shallow play, or require some downstream elucidation during play, but as a general point, low myth games at least don't generally hang themselves up much on elaborate plot elements to start with. The cousin needs help, this puts pressure on the PCs in various ways, which the GM will probably double down on over time, etc. Not to get down on the 'GM as Conductor' metaphor, it seems reasonably apt for the most part, but GM is also partly author as well and can use that in a pretty much purely creative way too, just not as unconstrainedly as in, say, trad 5e play.

So far I've found contemporary neo-trad, narrativist and el-dorado-esque games strongly opinionated on what the game is about in those terms. A fracturing of more generic themes into more specific settings and story ideas.

I think this is where the conductor analogy gets off track. The power dynamics are too different.

This is how I feel about the driver analogy.

This is silly.

Agreed, and that's rather the point.

Having had the experience of being a player in a game run by a GM with huge creative energy and a propensity for completely dominating the subject matter of play, I can tell you it is quite a lot less 'game' than you might think... Yes, he was a 'fan of the characters' in many ways, but his game would have produced much greater potency, IMHO, if he had also followed the OTHER principles of Dungeon World (at least some of them, it was 1e AD&D after all) as well. Overall he was a great GM, but I've also played under 100's of other GMs and not a single one of them was ever even in the same league. I mean that, he was, and is, an extraordinary individual in all ways, not ever to be encountered twice in one lifetime, so its hard to say anyone else should try to borrow his techniques. I never did, and I consider myself pretty good as a trad GM too. I am even better now that I've left that mostly behind.

It sometimes seems to be overlooked that swathes of RPGers have been influenced by developments in RPG design, and brought those into their contemporary play. When I speak with friends in other gaming groups, they're not just reiterating what was done 20 years ago. Approaches to RPG have moved forward, and that applies to every mode.

 

[clearstream]

Agreed. QBs have always had much more potential to shift the outcome of the game even when pay scale was much closer. A QB is almost always sort of a hybrid player/coach. They make adjustments to protections, often have options (RPOs) which fundamentally change the nature of the play, have a strong influence on play calling, often collaborate with their coaches on play design, etc. Their decision space is so much richer than any position on the field and has a much stronger impact on the outcome of the game.

How does the specific agency given QB by modern rules result in a better game? I'm not being critical here - American Football is alien to me - but I assume that the changes had a purpose? Was it a kind of power-hungry QB takeover, or did all participants see benefits?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm curious, Micah. You are a self-proclaimed OSR enthusiast, but a lot of the OSR's biggest voices, such as Ben Milton, tend to be big on skilled play, are less bothered by meta-gaming,* and often involve more pawn stance play. In many respect, despite sandboxes being a part of OSR, OSR play leans more into the gamist side of the play agenda than your stated simulationist preferences. In your experience, how do your play preferences regarding player agency in these OSR games overlap or even conflict? Because I can see some overlap but also some potential areas of conflict.

* skilled play even demands it!

The OSR style I prefer emphasizes simulationist play. To be honest, I don't read much game theory outside of this forum. The area I do frequent is associated with ACKS, an OSR game based on B/X originally and heavily biased toward simulation as a playstyle.

My preference is to err on the side of simulation unless this becomes impractical at the table, at which point gamism is acceptable. Now, I expect many people would consider simulationist mechanics I favor no practical for their preferences, and that's fine. My own players don't really go for ACKS, so I accept that I'll have to go outside my immediate social circle if I actually want to play. My fondness for Level Up stems from feelings that it is a good compromise between my desires for reasonable simulation of a fantasy setting and my player's desires to play a game that closely resembles the familiar 5e. Even then, I have house rules of my own that modify Level Up to more closely align to my preferences, subject to player buy-in.

In short, I believe gamism and simulationism can work together in many cases, and where they can't I compromise as needed so we can play.

 

[clearstream]

Not only that, but you would be surprised by how many people understand that player agency is ultimately about the agency of the human player at the table rather than the imagined agency of the character. As far as you know, it's only a handful of people. As far as I know, however, it's far more people than the limited you seem to be conveniently imagining for the purposes of belittling my argument, as this distinction is important for huge swaths of the hobby outside of your idiomatic play preferences.

Some friends in different gaming groups strive for immersion in character. For them, I think it's character agency not player agency they're often focused on. They want to say just what they could do were they their character.

 

[Golroc]

so if i deny your character the ability to do anything of meaningful effect then that doesn't actually matter because your character is fictional so they don't actually have any agency to prevent? good to know.

i'm not actually saying the 'character' themselves has agency when i use the term 'character agency' i'm talking about the range of reasonable actions available to the player as if they were the character that they are controling as a 'real person' in a 'real world' where all the magic and abilities of the gameworld actually existed.

I as a 'real person' in the 'real world' cannot declare things exist in the same way that my 'fake person' in the 'fake world' cannot either but we still have the ability to influence the world through our actions, the level of agency of me in my real world is the same as my fake person in their fake world, unlike the level of agency i as a player have over their fake world which is more than some people want when playing their game of DnD.

i KNOW and UNDERSTAND these are fake fictional people in a fake fictional world where we all play pretend creating fake fictional stories in a world that is not real and is fake and fictional and doesn't exist but the fake world is still REAL to the fake person and i as a player exercise my greater agency in accordance of the level of agency my character would have.

I don't think you can fully separate 'player agency' and 'character agency'. Perfect character agency implies the GM should be able to accommodate any possible action and act as a simulation engine of sorts. This cannot be done without accepting the possibility that character agency can impact the overall story arcs and narratives. Which impact player agency for everyone else - if there is a shared understanding about certain aspects of the story and/or the control the GM has over it. It can also lead to a "rubberband timeline" effect where the GM bends (game) reality to return the story from an errant trajectory. In this way character agency can paradoxically lead to less player agency.

In other words, sometimes your player agency is not the thing being restricted to reflect the subset of agency available to the character - but the player agency reduces the character agency so as to avoid taking actions that would not be in line with what the accepted style of game allows for.

An example: You character might have the agency to not get on the boat with everyone else when it sails for the Island of Adventure, but it would ruin the experience for everyone else if the GM had to either split the session or find some way to railroad you back to the Island of Adventure. So even if getting on that boat might be a stretch for your character, you work with the GM or on your own, to find a way to make events unfold so they make sense from an overall perspective. In this way you are exercising player agency to make sure the character agency doesn't negatively impact the game.

If you try to always simulate your character, that's a pretty hardcore stance to take in regard to player agency. At the end of the day RPGs are about a shared experience among a group of people. There should be a shared understanding of the responsibilities, possible consequences and freedoms available when it comes to various aspects of narrative and character action.

I would contend that true player agency is not possible if there isn't a shared understanding about "narrative power" in a group. Someone will feel robbed of agency if expectations clash. Some players simply don't consider character agency relevant at all, some would consider it the only relevant consideration. If any such differences haven't been reconciled ahead of time, it won't end well regardless of semantics and the (correct) definitions of various types of agency.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think you can fully separate 'player agency' and 'character agency'. Perfect character agency implies the GM should be able to accommodate any possible action and act as a simulation engine of sorts. This cannot be done without accepting the possibility that character agency can impact the overall story arcs and narratives. Which impact player agency for everyone else - if there is a shared understanding about certain aspects of the story and/or the control the GM has over it. It can also lead to a "rubberband timeline" effect where the GM bends (game) reality to return the story from an errant trajectory. In this way character agency can paradoxically lead to less player agency.

In other words, sometimes your player agency is not the thing being restricted to reflect the subset of agency available to the character - but the player agency reduces the character agency so as to avoid taking actions that would not be in line with what the accepted style of game allows for.

An example: You character might have the agency to not get on the boat with everyone else when it sails for the Island of Adventure, but it would ruin the experience for everyone else if the GM had to either split the session or find some way to railroad you back to the Island of Adventure. So even if getting on that boat might be a stretch for your character, you work with the GM or on your own, to find a way to make events unfold so they make sense from an overall perspective. In this way you are exercising player agency to make sure the character agency doesn't negatively impact the game.

If you try to always simulate your character, that's a pretty hardcore stance to take in regard to player agency. At the end of the day RPGs are about a shared experience among a group of people. There should be a shared understanding of the responsibilities, possible consequences and freedoms available when it comes to various aspects of narrative and character action.

I would contend that true player agency is not possible if there isn't a shared understanding about "narrative power" in a group. Someone will feel robbed of agency if expectations clash. Some players simply don't consider character agency relevant at all, some would consider it the only relevant consideration. If any such differences haven't been reconciled ahead of time, it won't end well regardless of semantics and the (correct) definitions of various types of agency.

Yup. You always have to allow for compromises for the social contract if you want to play, regardless of individual preferences.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's a homebrew spell.... Anvil of Doom.

There was an attack roll....the player is just ignoring it.

If there was a roll, then I don’t see the problem. Was the roll visible, or behind a screen?

My guess, based on your previous posts and your follow up to this one, is that you have a rep for not really caring about player agency, and so some players are on guard for anything that may seem like it.

But if you’re using a spell no one knows about, and possibly rolling behind a screen without sharing the bonus to hit and so on, then I could see some concern. Don’t know if it really boils down to agency, but I can see why players might not like it.

As far as I know, only a handful of people would distinguish between agency of the person playing the game and player agency.

Who would distinguish between the person playing the game and player agency? The person playing the game IS the player. They’re the same thing.

Do you mean the “character in the game” and player agency?

Player and character aren’t interchangeable words.

so if i deny your character the ability to do anything of meaningful effect then that doesn't actually matter because your character is fictional so they don't actually have any agency to prevent? good to know.

i'm not actually saying the 'character' themselves has agency when i use the term 'character agency' i'm talking about the range of reasonable actions available to the player as if they were the character that they are controling as a 'real person' in a 'real world' where all the magic and abilities of the gameworld actually existed.

I as a 'real person' in the 'real world' cannot declare things exist in the same way that my 'fake person' in the 'fake world' cannot either but we still have the ability to influence the world through our actions, the level of agency of me in my real world is the same as my fake person in their fake world, unlike the level of agency i as a player have over their fake world which is more than some people want when playing their game of DnD.

i KNOW and UNDERSTAND these are fake fictional people in a fake fictional world where we all play pretend creating fake fictional stories in a world that is not real and is fake and fictional and doesn't exist but the fake world is still REAL to the fake person and i as a player exercise my greater agency in accordance of the level of agency my character would have.

Then why do you have a problem with the idea that players in a game where they have more influence beyond just what their character can say and do have more agency?

You’re literally saying you prefer less agency.

How does the specific agency given QB by modern rules result in a better game? I'm not being critical here - American Football is alien to me - but I assume that the changes had a purpose? Was it a kind of power-hungry QB takeover, or did all participants see benefits?

I don’t think the point was that it is objectively good. That’s probably going to vary. The point was that rules changes and shifting views of officials have resulted in a greater influence for the QB position and lesser influence for the RB position.

 

[Maxperson]

My Take: Basically the player wants to cheat and hide behind "Player Agency". It's been a topic in my summer games over the last couple weeks and he is just trying to take advantage of it.

The player thinks they "should" be able to dodge falling objects....though that rule is not in 5E.

That rule is in 5e. It's called a dex save. Unless the DM thinks that PCs are too stupid to try and get out of the way of a falling object that they see coming, there's no good reason I can see that the DM wouldn't invoke the appropriate rule and allow a save.