D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Umbran]

Show us on the doll where the DM touched your character in a bad way.

Mod Note:
The reference here to child sexual abuse is WILDLY inappropriate.

You are showing poor judgement, and will not be taking part in this discussion further as a result.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Having been brought to this thread by someone being extremely inappropriate, I now also see a lot of head-butting. It reads like a thread that has devolved to a couple or a few "sides" that have dug in to assert their positions, and aren't really interested in listening or learning anything anymore.

That isn't uncommon in threads of this length. But be aware that the rising antagonism is, as usual, not acceptable. Cool it down, please. Maybe take a break. Or accept that it is okay to not counter everything that others say. Or something.

 

[Umbran]

GMs, purely by being GMs, are in a self-appointed position of power, authority over others.

Except for the self-appointed part, of course, which I am pretty sure we will find does not hold. There's that implicit or explicit social contract in there that you seem to skip.

Ultimately, a GM can offer to run a game, and people can accept, or not. That works the other way, too - a GM can choose to take burdens the players request... or not. There is choice. If anyone is getting their metaphorical arm twisted, that's a social dynamic issue beyond the game's purview.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Except for the self-appointed part, of course, which I am pretty sure we will find does not hold. There's that implicit or explicit social contract in there that you seem to skip.

Ultimately, a GM can offer to run a game, and people can accept, or not. That works the other way, too - a GM can choose to take burdens the players request... or not. There is choice. If anyone is getting their metaphorical arm twisted, that's a social dynamic issue beyond the game's purview.

If it isn't self-appointed, are you saying it is the players twisting the GM's arm to do it?

Because otherwise, they're willingly taking on that job. Nobody elects them. They choose to do it because they want to. How can that be anything other than self-appointment? It's not like strange women lying in ponds distribute swords to do it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Elsewhere I proposed a definition of RPG at the highest level as

So when you say

Then that is far too general, as should be obvious even from our ability to discern between the (pre)lusory goals of GM Story Hour and narrativist play. We might as well refer to agency in respect of games involving dice.

No, it is actually a QUITE SPECIFIC type activity! It doesn't include only one party establishing that fiction, and it is a question about which parts of the fiction are established by which people. This is in no way shape or form too general a question! In fact it is quite answerable, but there seems to be a long, drawn out, determined kind of a rhetorical defense in depth who's only real purpose seems to be to throw a huge cloud of smoke over the entire proceeding. Instead of trying to throw dirt in people's eyes, I challenge you ADDRESS @pemerton DIRECTLY and discuss this assertion of his simply, directly, and plainly!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Put together with #3159, I take it you contend that participating in establishing a shared fiction in the course of playing is not common to all RPGs. Thus my "definition of RPG at the highest level" is by your lights incorrect. Do I have that right?

The MEANS are not all common, that is quite plain to see!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, but his problem is that there is no degree of agency. Agency is binary, and as you note is the baseline for RPGs. That's why it's a waste of time to try and compare "levels" of agency in RPGs, rather than aspects of agency that you prefer an RPG to have.

You can repeat it a bajillion more times, and it will be no less false.

 

[Maxperson]

You can repeat it a bajillion more times, and it will be no less false.

Declaring it false doesn't make it so.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes.


Does Chess contain high or low agency to play the highest diamond to a trick?

This is a meaningless question, because there is no 'means' in Chess to 'play a trick' and no concept of cards. Do you have a point?

Okay, that's genuinely surprising. My goals indeed change between different games. That's the reason I play different games at different times. I can see that if your goals never change, you might come to think them as objective.

But attaining them is not 'different', it doesn't have different valence. only the means, the embodiment of how they exist within the construct of the game and its associated social construct. I can very well compare my agency in Chess and Pinochle.

The sort of arguments I am rebutting present subjective goals as objective facts about all RPG. It's beyond time to unwind that and see some advances in thinking.

Sorry, we'll simply have to entirely disagree.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, these last few pages have been interesting. I'll just quote Vincent Baker again and leave off responding for a bit, to allow myself time to digest all the disparate views and reflect upon them. Responses will likely come, but delayed. Thank you all for your patience and lively conversation.

About this time of year in 2021 Vincent wrote that

Sure, quoted from a guy who is part of a movement which constructed a generalized framework of analysis for RPGS! Now, maybe Vince doesn't utilize that, but he sure seems to understand it and operate in respect to the insights it gave. So, yes, RPGs are quite varied, but he seems perfectly willing to analyze them and use that analysis in game design!