Arilyn
Hero
I think the rules definition is for clarity. In the fictional world, it is the instinctive reaction of knowing you are a hairs breadth away from being clobbered. The spell description doesn't say anything about a tiny rewind of time.
D&D General What is player agency to you?
- Thread starter bloodtide
- Start date
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
In natural language, if you have been hit, you have been HIT, not missed, and not almost hit.
The whole point of knowing before you get hit is to use natural language to let the player know when he's likely to be hit, so he can make the decision in advance of it being too late and already having been hit.
Yes, but foresight lasts for 8 hours and isn't limited to something that just happened a fraction of a second ago. You're actually seeing multiple future events before they happen. So the question is, what's more powerful, a limited to a few seconds Dr Strange see the future ability or a limited to your person only rewind of time for a second?
I think this is a debate for the ages, much like "What is player agency to you?"
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Anything that has practical, immediate application to keeping you alive is going to get narrative weight disproportionate to what it is actually does in-universe.Yes, but foresight lasts for 8 hours and isn't limited to something that just happened a fraction of a second ago. You're actually seeing multiple future events before they happen. So the question is, what's more powerful, a limited to a few seconds Dr Strange see the future ability or a limited to your person only rewind of time for a second?
I think this is a debate for the ages, much like "What is player agency to you?"
Games and rules do not do anything on their own, they do not even create (or reduce) player agency (or character agency). The social contract is what creates these things. Players (including the GM) have explicit and implicit agreements about what rules system to use, the degree to which the rules can be bent or ignored, how much has to be out in the open, how the GM should go about structuring the game session (e.g. how much and when to improvise), what and when the players can influence the narrative of the game, etc. etc.
It's useful to talk about different schools of gaming and types of games because it gives us a framework to discuss how different people approach this social contract. But it is a mistake to consider the rules and the system as the primary driver - with groups picking one of these and then abiding by it and thus having an experience generally equivalent in nature to other groups using the same. I disagree strongly with this view. Compare two groups playing say PF2E and they could have wildly different social contracts and conventions. The same goes for other systems. Now groups tends to choose systems that align with their styles of gameplay - but this isn't always so. Some groups play what they know, what they own or what they have motivation to play - and then adapt the system to suit their tastes.
Many groups have clashes in what they want - and the disagreements can be expressed in terms of having different views on player (or character) agency. The term certainly has meaning. But I think it's important to distinguish between
A) A group has low player agency when it comes to the narrative because the players and GM prefer it that way. Or a group has high player agency because they've agreed the GM can prepare the scenario, but rules and rules and the scenario isn't modified ad hoc for narrative purposes.
vs
B) A player is unhappy because they feel the inability to have a game mechanic representing a certain action (say dodge) takes away player agency. Or a player feels the GM having the discretion to dictate the narrative flow and what challenges the group faces takes away player agency.
A player who is unhappy about the implicit/explicit social contract governing the game - either because they disagree with consensus or GM fiat - or because they feel the GM isn't abiding by it - isn't so much about player agency as gaming group conflict. I think almost anyone who has done any kind of gaming has experienced such conflicts.
It's fine to have academic discussion about how different systems (although I really don't like disregarding that groups can and do adapt systems to their own tastes - especially when it comes to acceptance of bending the rules and/or making up new rules on the spot) have different kinds of agency.
I think the discussion of how character agency and player agency can be considered to overlapping but different concept is great and useful. I think it's great to consider how rules (if followed to the letter, which I would posit far from everyone does) impact the discretion, power and agency among participants. Those are interesting things to consider, model and analyze. I don't think there is one single model which perfectly captures these concepts, so it's fine to have multiple theoretical frameworks for agency.
There might even be an interesting discussion to be had about how different systems impact the amount of conflict from lack of consensus on the social contract.
Finally there's a discussion around how different narratives can deprive players of agency even though the system and style is in place to have a high degree of agency. In real life there are plenty of people who feel they have no agency in their lives, their jobs, and/or their relationships. Events can conspire to take away agency - or give us the feeling of having no agency. That can happen in a game too. There's some insight and learning to be had around how to create just the right balance of there being uncertainty, stakes, mystery, narrative dynamics and meaningful players choices for a specific group - or even players in a group (as their appetites can differ). Because even with the same system and very similar contracts, how the actual game play unfolds can vary tremendously. Figuring out techniques to do well in this area is a great subject.
But the original post in this thread ended on this series of questions:
The wrong way to tackle such disagreements is to argue that what these player consider agency is not actually agency. From a certain theoretical point of view that could very well be the case. But you're not going to resolve any issues telling people they're using the wrong labels for their gripes.
If players are telling the GM they're unhappy because "you not doing this" or "you not allowing that" takes away their agency, the solution is to either reach a compromise or tell the players that "sorry, this is how we've agreed to play in this group - if you can't accept that, I don't think it's the right place for you to play". Agency isn't some magic word players can use to affect changes to the social contract - but nor is coming up with a great definition of agency some magic trick to putting those players in their place.
So this long winded post is really just me saying let's please differentiate between
A) Discussing agency as a concept and various ways in which (variations of) this concept can affect gameplay and be a defining factor in how groups have fun playing RPGs.
B) Discussing how groups that are experiencing conflicts that center on different interpretations of what is player agency should resolve those conflicts. (because it should be obvious - "winning" on defining the term is a terrible method for conflict resolution).
It's useful to talk about different schools of gaming and types of games because it gives us a framework to discuss how different people approach this social contract. But it is a mistake to consider the rules and the system as the primary driver - with groups picking one of these and then abiding by it and thus having an experience generally equivalent in nature to other groups using the same. I disagree strongly with this view. Compare two groups playing say PF2E and they could have wildly different social contracts and conventions. The same goes for other systems. Now groups tends to choose systems that align with their styles of gameplay - but this isn't always so. Some groups play what they know, what they own or what they have motivation to play - and then adapt the system to suit their tastes.
Many groups have clashes in what they want - and the disagreements can be expressed in terms of having different views on player (or character) agency. The term certainly has meaning. But I think it's important to distinguish between
A) A group has low player agency when it comes to the narrative because the players and GM prefer it that way. Or a group has high player agency because they've agreed the GM can prepare the scenario, but rules and rules and the scenario isn't modified ad hoc for narrative purposes.
vs
B) A player is unhappy because they feel the inability to have a game mechanic representing a certain action (say dodge) takes away player agency. Or a player feels the GM having the discretion to dictate the narrative flow and what challenges the group faces takes away player agency.
A player who is unhappy about the implicit/explicit social contract governing the game - either because they disagree with consensus or GM fiat - or because they feel the GM isn't abiding by it - isn't so much about player agency as gaming group conflict. I think almost anyone who has done any kind of gaming has experienced such conflicts.
It's fine to have academic discussion about how different systems (although I really don't like disregarding that groups can and do adapt systems to their own tastes - especially when it comes to acceptance of bending the rules and/or making up new rules on the spot) have different kinds of agency.
I think the discussion of how character agency and player agency can be considered to overlapping but different concept is great and useful. I think it's great to consider how rules (if followed to the letter, which I would posit far from everyone does) impact the discretion, power and agency among participants. Those are interesting things to consider, model and analyze. I don't think there is one single model which perfectly captures these concepts, so it's fine to have multiple theoretical frameworks for agency.
There might even be an interesting discussion to be had about how different systems impact the amount of conflict from lack of consensus on the social contract.
Finally there's a discussion around how different narratives can deprive players of agency even though the system and style is in place to have a high degree of agency. In real life there are plenty of people who feel they have no agency in their lives, their jobs, and/or their relationships. Events can conspire to take away agency - or give us the feeling of having no agency. That can happen in a game too. There's some insight and learning to be had around how to create just the right balance of there being uncertainty, stakes, mystery, narrative dynamics and meaningful players choices for a specific group - or even players in a group (as their appetites can differ). Because even with the same system and very similar contracts, how the actual game play unfolds can vary tremendously. Figuring out techniques to do well in this area is a great subject.
But the original post in this thread ended on this series of questions:
The last two questions have no answer other than "what we agreed we'd do". It depends on the group and their social contract. And reading the post it's all about a GM who is having less than enjoyable interactions with certain players in a group.
The wrong way to tackle such disagreements is to argue that what these player consider agency is not actually agency. From a certain theoretical point of view that could very well be the case. But you're not going to resolve any issues telling people they're using the wrong labels for their gripes.
If players are telling the GM they're unhappy because "you not doing this" or "you not allowing that" takes away their agency, the solution is to either reach a compromise or tell the players that "sorry, this is how we've agreed to play in this group - if you can't accept that, I don't think it's the right place for you to play". Agency isn't some magic word players can use to affect changes to the social contract - but nor is coming up with a great definition of agency some magic trick to putting those players in their place.
So this long winded post is really just me saying let's please differentiate between
A) Discussing agency as a concept and various ways in which (variations of) this concept can affect gameplay and be a defining factor in how groups have fun playing RPGs.
B) Discussing how groups that are experiencing conflicts that center on different interpretations of what is player agency should resolve those conflicts. (because it should be obvious - "winning" on defining the term is a terrible method for conflict resolution).
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
I appreciate it as a powerful spell tool.
I actually dislike it on the net though...specifically because it is too strong a tool. It crowds out other options and is simply too good to pass up if you can get it.
Michael Chiklis was great, and the writing set up some very effective moral conflicts and escalation of consequences that offer a good model of narr play.
The former. That would be a threshold condition for saying anything sensible about agency in game play, wouldn't it?
I'm not sure what the point is here - the mechanics are one component of the game's rules. The outcomes of mechanical processes play an important role in determining who can say what, when, about what happens next in the shared fiction.
Similar Threads
