D&D General What is player agency to you?

[mamba]

My opinion is that the authority and ability to dictate events in the game of the GM is not given by the mechanics of the game.

What distinguishes the mechanics of the game from the rules of the game?

If those are the same, then you are simply wrong. If they are different, then that may be true, but predominantly because the mechanics can be overruled by the DM rather than integrating with his authority) or are incomplete, leaving such decisions to the DM.

Different games encourage the GM to give the players different degrees of agency, and that encouragement can come through the way that mechanics work. Though it typically is mostly through the writers telling the GM that that's how they mean the game to be played.

sure

But I do believe that games that are considered to be strongly GM-guided can be run with very high degrees of player agency, and games known to be GM hands-off can be played very railroady. While staying true to the letter of the rules, even when it's completely against the spirit of the game.

the former is probably more true than the latter, but that is for people like @pemerton to answer, who are much more familiar with such rules / games.

From my understanding narrative games give a lot less freedom / authority to DMs to prevent that from happening, so if it does the DM is violating the rules, not just the spirit of the game.

In the first case he does neither, the rules do not tell the DM that he has to use the powers the rules grant him in a specific way, they just say that he has them.

 

[Aldarc]

What do people think about this article from University XP: "What is Player Agency?"

Is there anything controversial about what is being argued or said here?

 

[pemerton]

Is there anything controversial about what is being argued or said here?

Without being sure about this, the impression I received was that video/computer games are the main sort of game the author had in mind.

That mean that, to me, the account of RPGs seemed a bit narrow. There was reference to choosing your own adventure. But when I look at the reference in the article to players choosing their own goals, and think about how contemporary RPG design permits that to be integrated into games that go beyond choosing your own adventure, the article's examples seemed perhaps a bit narrow or not fully exploring what might be possible.

What do you think? Am I being unfair in my reading?

 

[pemerton]

What distinguishes the mechanics of the game from the rules of the game?

If those are the same, then you are simply wrong. If they are different, then that may be true, but predominantly because the mechanics can be overruled by the DM ;rather than integrating with his authority) or are incomplete, leaving such decisions to the DM.

Generally when I think of a mechanic I think of a way of either generating an input into the action resolution system (eg PC build, NPC/creature build) or of the processes deployed for resolving declared actions (rolling dice, consulting tables, etc).

In the context, say, of Burning Wheel I would say that rolling the dice to see if a test succeeds or fails is a mechanic. But the GM narrating what happens on a failed test is governed by rules but is not itself mechanically determined.

 

[Aldarc]

Without being sure about this, the impression I received was that video/computer games are the main sort of game the author had in mind.

Yes, and?

That mean that, to me, the account of RPGs seemed a bit narrow. There was reference to choosing your own adventure. But when I look at the reference in the article to players choosing their own goals, and think about how contemporary RPG design permits that to be integrated into games that go beyond choosing your own adventure, the article's examples seemed perhaps a bit narrow or not fully exploring what might be possible.

What do you think? Am I being unfair in my reading?

Let's focus on the bigger picture here first before we get into the specifics. How is agency being described in this article? Is agency being described primarily in terms of what the player can do or in terms of what the character can do?

 

[mamba]

In the context, say, of Burning Wheel I would say that rolling the dice to see if a test succeeds or fails is a mechanic. But the GM narrating what happens on a failed test is governed by rules but is not itself mechanically determined

I tend to agree, but then that is essentially begging the question.

The mechanics then are an incomplete implementation of the rules of the game, and by definition part of what is not decided by the DM (or player), so of course the DM’s authority is not granted by the mechanics, it is granted by the rest of the game (or not…)

 

[Aldarc]

I don't care if you believe me, although I'd appreciate if you didn't make up things like I'm somehow inconsistent. I may have a better understanding, or way of phrasing things, but I still and have never seen a need to break down agency into different categories because it just feels like a way of elevating preferred game mechanics.

We've already had this argument on the other thread. If you want to continue this line of thought take it over to that thread so I can ignore it there.

But I'm not breaking it down into different categories! I am applying a single category: what does the player do? I am not trying to elevate preferred game mechanics either, so I would personally appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of that.

I am talking about player agency in terms of what a player can do when playing the game as per your own definition! I am using YOUR definition that you said earlier.

However, spending fate points in Fate or Inspiration in D&D 5e lies outside of decisions that the character can do or make in the fiction, but these are things that the player can do when playing the game, but they would be excluded as player agency if you talked about player agency strictly in terms of the in-fiction agency of the character.

 

[Pedantic]

What do people think about this article from University XP: "What is Player Agency?"

Is there anything controversial about what is being argued or said here?

It's a quite repetitive and occasionally self-contradictory. The author was clearly quite earnest in their approach to the subject, but not a particularly engaging writer. Overall, I didn't find it particularly controversial. The one point it couldn't seem to settled on was calling out the ability the change your appearance as not particularly meaningful, and then praising aesthetic choice (particularly in roleplaying games) many times over.

I think this is the most relevant definition they offer and honestly I quite like it as a simple summary.

That power to shape their own experience provides players with the satisfaction of implementing their will inside the magic circle of the game. Through this will, they wield, influence, and implement what can be accomplished inside of the game.

The author undervalues ludic agency and has a slightly strange "event" based view of agency, more as if it's something that's activated in the moment of a decision and then disappears:

This is further built in idiomatic games like role-playing games where players are given many choices in how their experience is shaped. Some of it includes decisions for character creation, look, and alignment. However during the game, players make further choices and exercise their agency within the narrative of the game.

Conversely, abstract games or action games that are built heavily on the formal structure and mechanics of the design provide fewer opportunities for player agency. There are times for players to exercise their agency within the game, but it is often repetitive and provides little context for how a player might further affect or change the game state apart from strategic decisions.

I don't know that I agree with "agency" as a moment of experience like it suggests (also earlier in a section about "negative agency") so much as general property that a player experiences or doesn't. Perhaps more broadly, I don't a design would be well served by adding a specific instance or event of "increased agency" when the ability should be reflected in the underlying gameplay loop.

However, one of the most significant aspects of player agency for video games over table top games is that video games require players to adhere to the structure created by the game designers. Table top games on the other hand provide players with the ability to create or make their own rules as they see fit within the game. Players simply agree to change how a game is played and that becomes the new reality within the “magic circle” of game play.

This bit bothered me because it's a quite archaic view of tabletop games (presumably meaning board games here). Players of such games very rarely change rules, especially on the fly, and modern games are usually designed sufficiently tightly that you generally wouldn't want to. If anything, the more limited set of available actions and design tools makes a stronger case that you will end up having the game-experience the designer created.

 

[Pedantic]

However, spending fate points in Fate or Inspiration in D&D 5e lies outside of decisions that the character can do or make in the fiction, but these are things that the player can do when playing the game, but they would be excluded as player agency if you talked about player agency strictly in terms of the in-fiction agency of the character.

This is just shifting a debate about what the aims of the game should be into one about relative agency. Agency will look different in two different games constructed of different acceptable actions, and once those games have divergent goals and divergent magic circles, won't really be comparable. Without getting to a commonplace on the goals of play, this will never go anywhere. This is just that argument again, by orthogonal means.

 

[Raiztt]

However, spending fate points in Fate or Inspiration in D&D 5e lies outside of decisions that the character can do or make in the fiction, but these are things that the player can do when playing the game, but they would be excluded as player agency if you talked about player agency strictly in terms of the in-fiction agency of the character.

and this is why I don't allow inspiration