D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Campbell]

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?

Some of it comes down to changes in the rules, but a fair amount of it comes down to innovations in scheme, a response to increasingly more capable athletes and offensive philosophies. Traditionally you had set plays that would be called by either the head coach or offensive coordinator. The credo of the NFL used to be Do your job. Just do the work you are assigned to do.

Then you had the Indianapolis Colts hurry up offense ran by Payton Manning that used a lot of audibles at the line of scrimmage (in order to respond to what the QB saw in defensive formations). In order to deal with more responsive competition a lot of what use to be in the hands of coaches basically being put in the hands of QBs (on offense) and Middle Linebackers (on defense) because they could make more responsive decisions than the coaching staff.

You also saw a movement towards more timing and rhythm-based offenses because if you throw the ball to where someone is you are likely to be picked off. This necessitates more precise route running from receivers and tight ends (because the QB is throwing in a tight window and needs to throw it where only you can get it). This means a receiver needs to stay on script and be exactly where he's supposed to be.

More recently we have seen an explosion of QBs who can throw off platform (outside of the pocket or space they have traditionally operated out of) and who can run the ball pretty effectively (while still being effective in the pocket). That has only increased the decision space for the position with Run Pass Options (plays designed so the QB can either pass the ball or run the ball themselves) becoming more and more common.

Most recently there were changes to rules around hitting/tackling receivers particularly in the middle of the field that has made short passes to slot receivers more effective in short yardage situations (where you would normally rely on running backs).

TLDR It was due to innovation and rules changes mostly. It was also more of a transfer in agency from coaches to QBs/MLBs with those positions basically becoming an on the field member of the coaching staff.

 

[Maxperson]

It's extremely relevant to me!

Suppose that I, as a player, feel that I have insufficient agency (eg I'm being railroaded). Then what is necessary is techniques to increase agency - or finding a game which has already adopted and operationalised those techniques.

Or suppose that I, as a player, am considering which RPG to play or which RPG group to join. I want to make sure that it will have sufficient agency for me to enjoy it.

These are the sorts of practical ways in which comparisons of degree of agency across games, and across systems, becomes relevant.

Agency is all or nothing. Either you have it, or you are being railroaded and don't. What you are looking for is a game that stresses the aspects of agency that you enjoy, not one with more agency since there's no such thing.

 

[Maxperson]

There are a lot of reasons people may not like a game, overall agency is just one. If you don't feel like you have enough agency it could be an issue with the campaign, the GM, any number of things.

If he doesn't feel like he has enough agency, it's because the game isn't focusing on the aspects of agency that he enjoys.

 

[Mort]

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.

To be fair, it's generally a DEX save OR a to hit roll, not both.

If the player knew that there was a to hit roll made and the DM said it hit, Unless he has some kind of reaction, if it hit - then it hit. Perhaps the player was worried the to hit roll was fudged? and reacted to that.

 

[Maxperson]

To be fair, it's generally a DEX save OR a to hit roll, not both.

Yeah. I missed that there was a to hit roll involved. That said, if the object was just dropping from above, the hit roll was the wrong aspect to use. It should have been a dex save. If the object was shot from the caster, then a hit roll is appropriate.

If the player knew that there was a to hit roll made and the DM said it hit, Unless he has some kind of reaction, if it hit - then it hit. Perhaps the player was worried the to hit roll was fudged? and reacted to that.

Maybe. Trust is key to an enjoyable experience and I know that I wouldn't trust an adversarial railroading DM. Of course, I wouldn't remain in such a game, either.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Since D&D doesn't use the term the label attached to the thread I assume it's just talking about agency in general.

The problem is that multiple people seem to totally ignored the agency granted to the players via their character.

No one’s ignoring it. You are ignoring anything beyond it.

It's fine to discuss agency types, but only if we include character agency as another dimension and type of agency.

There’s no such thing as character agency.

Some people don't and have been quite dismissive of agency in D&D. They just talk about how great BitD or DW is so amazing because people have actual agency, aka "player" agency.

I’ve been talking primarily about 5e D&D. I’ve specifically mentioned different 5e games I’ve participated in that had different levels of agency.

As to whether one game or another has "more", I think that's not a relevant question. The relevant question is do people feel they have enough agency, enough ability to control the direction of the game to suit their goals.

If someone feels they don’t have enough of something, what might they typically hope for?

Too many choices and you get the paradox of choice where people are never satisfied when there are too many options. Too often and it would just be stressful for a lot of people.

Has anyone advocating for high agency games indicated this is a concern?

Agency is all or nothing. Either you have it, or you are being railroaded and don't.

But what if you don’t know you’re being railroaded and you feel like you have agency? That's all that matters, right?

To be fair, it's generally a DEX save OR a to hit roll, not both.

If the player knew that there was a to hit roll made and the DM said it hit, Unless he has some kind of reaction, if it hit - then it hit. Perhaps the player was worried the to hit roll was fudged? and reacted to that.

My guess is that the combination of several things is what’s causing the feeling of loss of agency. The adversarial relationship with his players that @bloodtide not only has but seems to enjoy, possibly hidden rolls, likely undeclared to hit bonuses, a homebrew spell (of thousands, apparently, thousands!!) that may or may not be accurately designed, and perhaps low-blood sugar since the player is not allowed to snack except at designated times!

Seems like a perfect storm!

 

[Maxperson]

But what if you don’t know you’re being railroaded and you feel like you have agency? That's all that matters, right?

No. That's even worse. Running a lie regarding agency is about as low as a DM can go.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No. That's even worse. Running a lie regarding agency is about as low as a DM can go.

But you said all that matters is the amount of agency one feels they have. You’ve even gone all caps on it a few times like FEEL.

Why is that different now? Is it about more than a player FEELS or no?

 

[Maxperson]

But you said all that matters is the amount of agency one feels they have. You’ve even gone all caps on it a few times like FEEL.

Er, no. I've said that the amount of agency one feels, greater or lesser is subjective. If you feel like narrative control gives you greater agency, you will feel like you have more. You still only have the agency you have. All or none. Railroading, including illusionism, equals none.

Why is that different now? Is it about more than a player FEELS or no?

I've never said it was only about what a player feels or that feels were all that matters. I have consistently said.

1) Objectively you either have agency or you don't. It's binary.
2) Only a railroad deprives you of agency.
3) What aspects of the game you prefer can cause you to feel like you have more or less agency.

Nothing is different now. The above is what I've been saying this entire time.

My saying that illusionism(hidden railroad) is horrible is because it deprives a person of agency through a lie, which is worse than overt railroading, is consistent with what I've been arguing this entire thread.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

You cannot deny a CHARACTER agency, or anything else actually.

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.

But it is a weird way to parse things up. Players play games and they take 'actions' within those games. The only logical way to define agency here is "what, within what the game in question allows, can a player do?" There's a corollary which is whether or not it is potentially an 'effective' option, that is one where the player has some amount of information and the move in question bears some relationship to the goals of the game.

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 honestly don't know what pretend agency of pretend people has to do with anything, really. In fact @pemerton explicitly made the point, which I cannot but endorse, that 'pretend agency' is a minimal possible requirement for any RPG to exist at all, as otherwise the players would literally be a completely passive audience, and I wouldn't consider them to be 'players' in an 'RPG' at all in that case! So, basically all this talk about 'character agency' has no bearing on anything!

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.

And so does EVERY SINGLE OTHER PLAYER in every RPG ever. We all know this, and we all get to say what our character does, as that is the very most minimal level of participation in an RPG that I know of (I guess writing an adventure for someone else to use might be a lesser form, if you wish I grant that). I don't find it super interesting to talk about these sorts of basic givens as they can't really tell us much about how each of us plays. It's like discussing the fact that runners go around the bases in baseball, sure they do! But what actually means something? How they do it! And in the case of RPGs, that means talking about what players do.