D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Maxperson]

haven’t you cast shield before, and the hit just initiates the shield ending as it has been ‘used up’?

Not in 5e. In 5e you are hit, you cast shield, you are missed. Being hit initiates the chain.

"Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell."

Shield lasts for 1 round and is effective on all attacks that come after the attack that triggered the casting.

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay. Specific circumstances would be a subset, then--the intersection on the Venn diagram. The two circles are otherwise separate.

So long as A⊄B, A < A∪B. If there are forms of character agency that aren't player agency, and vice-versa, then any game which excludes one of the two will necessary offer less (or "fewer types," if you prefer) than one that includes both.


Yes, it would, considering I see these as pretty completely distinct things. Just because the two can coincide does not mean they are identical. I assume, then, that you can explicate further how the two (which others have seen as pretty clearly distinct) are actually the same?


That's...okay. If that's how you see it, I don't think it's even possible for us to discuss it. Because that has re-defined player agency to such an extent that we would now need some new term for the thing that has, up to now, been called "player agency."

From my perspective, up to this point, we've been talking about rhombuses and rectangles. Some things--squares--happen to coincidentally be both things. Your assertion reads, to me, like someone saying "so we should just call all of these figures rhombuses, because squares exist." Assuming I grant that in the first place, I would then need to say, "Okay. What about all the quadrilateral figures with four right angles but non-equal adjacent sides? We still need a name for that."

Unless, of course, you can show that there is no such thing as a "rectangle" at all--that absolutely all character agency is always and identically a form of player agency. That sounds to my ear like a pretty tall order, but I'm willing to listen!


Only just got to this point, so kind of funny that we came to the same point.

My question is: Why do we need "player agency*" when we could just call that "player agency" (no asterisk) and use a different term for the thing you're bringing up, this idea that there's an agency superset that contains both character agency and player agency. Perhaps call it "game agency"?

It seems more useful to invent a new wider category word, rather than asking everyone else to stop using the narrow category word and instead invent something else.

IMO. It’s up to us to choose the terms and definitions. I’ll tell you why I think character agency is better defined as a subset of player agency than as something different. Talking character agency as completely separate from player agency elides this fact.

1. At the end of the day the player is the only thing that actually exists and is actually capable of having agency in the first place.

2. People on both sides of the discussion recognize this. It’s not all one sided.

3. The notion of character agency not being part of player agency has been heavily criticized by your side in the past.

As such, I’d suggest my definition is more intuitive, more descriptive, less contentious and not heavily biased toward one side.

The question isn’t just can we define things differently, it’s why would choose one definition over the other?

 

[Aldarc]

I don't distinguish between player and character agency, there is only agency granted to the person playing the game by the rules and constraints of the game. Different games have different options, that does not mean they have more or less agency.

If I'm playing the card game War, I have no agency. It's just a random gamble. If I'm playing Go, I only have 1 thing I can do but the strategy of the game gives me quite a bit of agency. Chess has more moves than Go, but a computer was able to beat human players long before they could defeat the best Go human players. If agency is the ability to make decisions that matter, that's quite the conundrum. More types of moves in Chess doesn't seem to mean more agency, Go seems to be more complex than chess. At least for a computer. Which game gives the player more agency?

We can't quantify what a unit of agency is and I don't believe it matters how that agency is expressed. Some people want the player to have more direct control over the game results, I prefer D&D's approach where most of the agency is expressed through my character. That's all it really comes down to and I don't see anything useful coming out of further discussion.

(1) Oofta, I cannot emphasize enough how much I agree with your basic definition of player agency: i.e., it's what the player can do when playing the game.

Where you say that you do not distinguish between player agency and character agency, I go one step further by saying that there is only player agency. Character agency to me is non-existent because the human player in real life is the only person who is actually playing the game. The human person may be doing things primarily in terms of roleplaying the character in the fiction, but they are nevertheless the actual doers rather than the character. I understand that in D&D, the player's primary means of affecting change and doing things in the game is through their character in the fiction.

But my point is that it's not just that even in D&D. So we are dealing with a "yes, and..." situation. I gave the example of a player deciding to spend Inspiration in 5e. Regardless of how you, I, @Raiztt, or @Micah Sweet may feel about Inspiration as a mechanic, spending Inspiration is something that the player rather than the character decides to do. So I believe if we are talking about player agency, we need to be aware that it's not just at the level of what the character decides to do in the game. There are other tools that the player may have to affect change. This is NOT an argument to the effect that some games have more agency than another. In case you miss that, I repeat myself again. I am NOT making an argument that some games have more agency than others. I am simply stating that player agency is not just about what the character does by interacting with the game fiction because a player in D&D can do more than that so their agency is more than that.

(2) I am wholly uninterested in the urinating contest some people are having about what games have the most agency.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

yes

Okay! That's a very interesting development, given we have people very specifically saying they're happy that "trad" games do not do that. Would you care to elaborate? I'm genuinely interested in where you see player agency (as I am using the term, not as

failed the IF already... no idea here, but I guess they are relatively similar. I believe I would rule in favor of trad chars here. In narrative games there is more 'I wager X to accomplish Y', in trad it is more 'I attempt Y'. The latter is more agency / less restrictive to me. Not sure if you want to lump that on the player side instead.

There's no "wagering" in Dungeon World--at all. Most "narrative" games don't do that. There is more interest in/concern for asking what things people care about, but no "wagering" anything to accomplish something. Dungeon World doesn't have meta-currencies at all, in fact. So this is a bit confusing, because you seem to be talking about something that is...actually not that common in "narrative" games, but your point only works if it is common to the point of universal in "narrative" games.

Did you mean to say, " you seriously do not see a difference?"

No, I don't think they did. I think they were expressing severe confusion that there could even be an asserted difference between the two, by making a statement and then ending it with a question mark.

I seriously do not see a difference worth speaking about when it comes to using your character's Inspiration or the character using their Shield spell? Why it is touted as some sort of mechanic outside the game as opposed to another resource like a HD or spell expended for Smite.

No I mean, me. There is no difference from my perspective.

So, let us consider a simplistic analogy.

You have a person who is playing Hobbesball. Unlike Calvinball, Hobbesball has a lot of rules. There are specific maneuvers and behaviors you can perform while playing Hobbesball. Things not on that list are not allowed by the rules.

Now, imagine that instead of being your body, you are actually a homunculus inside that body. You, the homunculus, can initiate specific moves through that body, in order to play Hobbesball. As far as a person external to that body could see, this is identical to the situation where there is no difference between body and homunculus; for example, you the homunculus have no idea whether the other players are simply normal-sized people playing, or bodies with homunculi like yourself.

But then, some third party sends you, the homunculus, a message. They reveal that you, the homunculus, actually have a magical power--you can cause the ball to stop moving when it should keep going as it flies through the air, or cause it to fly through the air longer than it should. This ability is not something that an ordinary, not-a-body-with-a-homunculus player could use. Consequently, you, the homunculus, have a form of control that no non-homunculus, regular-bodied player can have.

Casting shield is something which can be parsed purely in terms of what the character thinks and wants. You, the IRL person, are a homunculus inside that fictional body, but if there were no homunculus, if this fictional person actually existed in the world they fictionally inhabit, they could still cast shield.

They could not decide that, for this attack, they are Inspired and thus much more likely to succeed. That's not even remotely parse-able as a choice the character could make. And yet, it clearly is a choice the player can make.

 

[Oofta]

Shield is more problematic for me. It unwinds time. You have been hit, then you cast Shield, then you are suddenly and retroactively not hit. I much prefer the "After the die is rolled, but before you know the result" or "Shield has a duration and you cast it in advance of being attacked" models.

I see it more as a "Holy cannoli I'm about to get hit!" moment. You realize you're going to get hit. A bit artificial, but it's a game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

IMO. It’s up to us to choose the terms and definitions. I’ll tell you why I think character agency is better defined as a subset of player agency than as something different. Talking character agency as completely separate from player agency elides this fact.

1. At the end of the day the player is the only thing that actually exists and is actually capable of having agency in the first place.

2. People on both sides of the discussion recognize this. It’s not all one sided.

With you there.

3. The notion of character agency not being part of player agency has been heavily criticized by your side in the past.

You lost me. I haven't seen anyone do that, and I personally wouldn't. I definitely consider them related, but distinct.

As such, I’d suggest my definition is more intuitive, more descriptive, less contentious and not heavily biased toward one side.

The question isn’t just can we define things differently, it’s why would choose one definition over the other?

Because I think it is more effective communication this way.

Also, what on earth--"heavily biased toward one side"? Where do you get that from? If anything, I see exactly the reverse. By declaring that character agency is really just a subset of player agency, and thus nothing could possibly be said, you're cutting off the entire possibility of further discussion or contrast.

I assume you are familiar with "stance theory"? Character agency would be expressed in things like actor stance. Player agency would be expressed in director stance. Pawn can go either way (since it isn't really much about the character qua character), and author I would say leans toward player agency but in narrow circumstances would express as character agency instead.

Do you consider these stances to be equally irrelevant, then, with pawn and actor merely being subsets of author and/or director stance?

 

[AnotherGuy]

Your point about smite is well-taken, but a PC has no ability through their actions to always force the sort of things inspiration, as well as many background features, allow them to force. Additionally, inspiration can and usually is used in a way that has nothing to do with why the PC was granted inspiration in the first place, which certainly snaps my reality suspenders. It is a metagame mechanic, plain and simple, designed only to push the narrative as the player wishes it pushed. That fine, of course, if you like that sort of thing, but that is what it is.

That is well argued.
I suppose personally I view too many mechanics within D&D being metagame-y (including hp) that I do not classify inspiration differently in the way that you do, although now I can understand why you do.

 

[Oofta]

(1) Oofta, I cannot emphasize enough how much I agree with your basic definition of player agency: i.e., it's what the player can do when playing the game.

Where you say that you do not distinguish between player agency and character agency, I go one step further by saying that there is only player agency. Character agency to me is non-existent because the human player in real life is the only person who is actually playing the game. The human person may be doing things primarily in terms of roleplaying the character in the fiction, but they are nevertheless the actual doers rather than the character. I understand that in D&D, the player's primary means of affecting change and doing things in the game is through their character in the fiction.

But my point is that it's not just that even in D&D. So we are dealing with a "yes, and..." situation. I gave the example of a player deciding to spend Inspiration in 5e. Regardless of how you, I, @Raiztt, or @Micah Sweet may feel about Inspiration as a mechanic, spending Inspiration is something that the player rather than the character decides to do. So I believe if we are talking about player agency, we need to be aware that it's not just at the level of what the character decides to do in the game. There are other tools that the player may have to affect change. This is NOT an argument to the effect that some games have more agency than another. In case you miss that, I repeat myself again. I am NOT making an argument that some games have more agency than others. I am simply stating that player agency is not just about what the character does by interacting with the game fiction because a player in D&D can do more than that so their agency is more than that.

(2) I am wholly uninterested in the urinating contest some people are having about what games have the most agency.

I feel like we're talking past each other. I agree that people have agency beyond just what their character does, or at least they can. People decide all sorts of things about their characters, class, race, several other options. In my games we discuss what kind of game people want to play even before a session 0 and they always choose what direction to go from a list of options I provide or they can suggest something else. All I ask is that I have a general idea where they're headed so I can do some prep work. Some players will also chat with me about background or other issues they'd like opportunities to explore more. That's not as common though, because of the team oriented nature of the game.

There are some D&D campaigns where much of that type of agency doesn't exist, most of it goes away when we as players use our agency to decide to play a module. I guess I just don't see much new there.

 

[Maxperson]

I see it more as a "Holy cannoli I'm about to get hit!" moment. You realize you're going to get hit. A bit artificial, but it's a game.

It doesn't say that, though. By RAW it can only be cast AFTER you are hit. For it to be an "about to get hit" moment, it has to be before you learn the result of the attack. Perhaps you can be told the number and can guestimate whether you might be hit or not. But it has to be before you learn that you are hit or it's too late and you are rewinding time.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

yes

Okay! That's a very interesting development, given we have people very specifically saying they're happy that "trad" games do not do that. Would you care to elaborate? I'm genuinely interested in where you see player agency here (as I am using the term, anyway.)

failed the IF already... no idea here, but I guess they are relatively similar. I believe I would rule in favor of trad chars here. In narrative games there is more 'I wager X to accomplish Y', in trad it is more 'I attempt Y'. The latter is more agency / less restrictive to me. Not sure if you want to lump that on the player side instead.

There's no "wagering" in Dungeon World--at all. Most "narrative" games don't do that. There is more interest in/concern for asking what things people care about, but no "wagering" anything to accomplish something. Dungeon World doesn't have meta-currencies at all, in fact. So this is a bit confusing, because you seem to be talking about something that is...actually not that common in "narrative" games, but which has to be common in such games for the statement to have meaning.