D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Campbell]

When I say a game, a playstyle, or even a particular set of fiction has less snarfgobble than its counterpart it's not intended to be a slight because not everyone wants as much or even the types of snarfgobble I want. There's also cost - the techniques, system parameters and particular sorts of fiction needed to get more snarfgobble also mean there is less pembardle. A choice has to be made between snarfgobble and pembardle. So, we make choices based on what we value.

I think we should have the maturity to realize that different setups provide different tradeoffs. We can disagree on the tradeoffs, but if the idea that another playstyle or game brings something to the table that your preferred one doesn't like bothers you conceptually and yet have no issue with claiming the opposite, we're going to have a problem - that problem being you just do not respect other forms of play.

 

[FrogReaver]

When I say a game, a playstyle, or even a particular set of fiction has less snarfgobble than its counterpart it's not intended to be a slight because not everyone wants as much or even the types of snarfgobble I want. There's also cost - the techniques, system parameters and particular sorts of fiction needed to get more snarfgobble also mean there is less pembardle. A choice has to be made between snarfgobble and pembardle. So, we make choices based on what we value.

I think we should have the maturity to realize that different setups provide different tradeoffs. We can disagree on the tradeoffs, but if the idea that another playstyle or game brings something to the table that your preferred one doesn't like bothers you conceptually and yet have no issue with claiming the opposite, we're going to have a problem - that problem being you just do not respect other forms of play.

100% agree with this.

 

[soviet]

When I say a game, a playstyle, or even a particular set of fiction has less realism than its counterpart it's not intended to be a slight because not everyone wants as much or even the types of realism I want. There's also cost - the techniques, system parameters and particular sorts of fiction needed to get more realism also mean there is less high fantasy. A choice has to be made between realism and high fantasy. So, we make choices based on what we value.

I think we should have the maturity to realize that different setups provide different tradeoffs. We can disagree on the tradeoffs, but if the idea that another playstyle or game brings something to the table that your preferred one doesn't like bothers you conceptually and yet have no issue with claiming the opposite, we're going to have a problem - that problem being you just do not respect other forms of play.

Great post.

I have very presumptuously replaced your terms (bolded) to show another common example of this dynamic. If I say that Star Wars d6 is less realistic than Harnmaster, I'm not sure that's really a slight against either game.

 

[Campbell]

I don't personally have a problem with claims like '4e has less verisimilitude' or 'Story Now games result in eventual inconsistency'. I just they are bad takes and I'll say why I think they're not very good takes. I would much rather have honest, direct full-throated disagreement then word games. At least than I can engage. If someone disagrees with me I would rather they just say so instead of trying to minimize differences,

 

[Cadence]

When I say a game, a playstyle, or even a particular set of fiction has less snarfgobble than its counterpart it's not intended to be a slight because not everyone wants as much or even the types of snarfgobble I want. There's also cost - the techniques, system parameters and particular sorts of fiction needed to get more snarfgobble also mean there is less pembardle. A choice has to be made between snarfgobble and pembardle. So, we make choices based on what we value.

I think we should have the maturity to realize that different setups provide different tradeoffs. We can disagree on the tradeoffs, but if the idea that another playstyle or game brings something to the table that your preferred one doesn't like bothers you conceptually and yet have no issue with claiming the opposite, we're going to have a problem - that problem being you just do not respect other forms of play.

I think a hurdle is that in a lot of discussions involving comparing games, the various terms are often jargon arising from someone trying to make their favored game sound better and the other game worse that has aquired a connotation, or something with an obvious positive/negative connotation in general usage, or something even more blatantly picked as an insult. (See, for example the discussion at https://www.enworld.org/threads/jargon-revisited-why-jargon-is-often-bad-for-discussing-rpgs.699397/ for a bit more ).

When a thread comes up about a term that should be neutral, it feels like tons of people are already primed to find an insult because of all of the other threads. Which isn't helped when some of those who are known to favor one type of game vociferously (is that a majority of ENWorld regulars) are in the thread and others in it just use the opportunity for snark. Let alone when someone is intentionally trying to use the term to vindicate their chosen game and put down the others.

:-(

 

[Umbran]

You really cannot tell if one person is kinder than another?

I can make my own personal assessment. That is not objective.

Like, my wife is a veterinarian. Sometimes, she has to help animals pass on. She uses the most humane drugs available, and works to minimize the distress of both her patients and her clients. I would, personally, say that in ending animal suffering, she's engaged in an act of kindness. In sum total, my wife is likely the kindest person I know. And most veterinarians are in the same category.

But, there are folks who feel that ending any life before it passes of its own accord is an act of cruelty - that life is so precious that no matter the pain or distress involved, it is unacceptable to end it. I think they are wrong, but there is no source separate from human feelings or belief systems I can turn to to demonstrate that as a fact.

So, no, I cannot claim there is any objective assessment of kindness. We, as a culture, cannot agree on what constitutes a kind act. And even if we did, some other culture might disagree. For it to be objective, it must be true beyond culture or personal feelings on the matter.

You really cannot tell if one person is more intelligent than another? You can take that as "better at a given intellectual task" if you want to avoid debating the existence of general intelligence.

Except, by making that change to one specific given task, you have changed the question so that it isn't about intelligence - many tasks that we might attribute to intelligence, when taken alone, can be done more quickly by rote memorization of patterns, rather than doing analysis. Speed solving a Rubik's Cube is one example. It is about having perfected some specific way to do that specific task. So, it no longer clearly indicates what we were talking about, and is therefore not relevant.

You really cannot tell which events in history had greater influence on downstream events than others?

Objectively? Again, no. If you ask several professors of music history who was the single most influential musician of all time, you will not get unanimous agreement, which should be the case if this were an objective fact. Indeed, an alien from Alpha Centauri would also have to agree, if it were objective.

With respect your inability to tell such things does not mean there are not objective differences that can be recognized and assessed and neither does the absence of universally agreed upon units of measure.

For a thing to be objective, it must be free of influence of any personal feelings opinions, or biases. As noted, "kindness" is a human cultural and emotional construct. It is founded in human feelings, and therefore cannot be objectively defined.

All acts of kindness must be assessed with respect to the mental states of the actor (which you may not have) and the recipient (again, you may not have that), the actual results of the act (which you may not know) and your own moral/ethical codes. There is no way that this assessment, generally made in ignorance, and passed through several subjective lenses, can be an objective thing.

 

[FrogReaver]

Great post.

Agreed.

I have very presumptuously replaced your terms (bolded) to show another common example of this dynamic. If I say that Star Wars d6 is less realistic than Harnmaster, I'm not sure that's really a slight against either game.

IMO. If your audience values realism in their games and likes Star Wars d6 better then it’s very easy for the way that opinion is communicated to become a slight.

It doesn’t have to be a slight but there’s high potential for it to be one. It’s basically the difference in telling someone they are wrong and in saying I see things differently. All of that comes through based on the subtleties of how you share your opinion.

 

[Golroc]

Sure, but your experiences may not be typical. Or the folks who've participated in the same games as you may not have worried about agency. That doesn't mean it can't profoundly affect how the game seems to others.

For example, I expect my threshold for lower agency play is higher than some other folks who've posted in this thread. I can play in a low agency game and enjoy it perfectly fine! I've done so for decades. What bothers me is if I'm expecting a game with more player agency, and I wind up with less than expected. Or if I go into a game with minimal agency, and the little I have is ignored.

Everyone's preferences on this will be unique to them. I wouldn't deny that at all.

But do you really think it is that simple? Low agency vs high agency? Agency is the capacity to affect. But to be more specific, I can mention my own tastes. I prefer a more serious style of gaming than a lot of people I know. I usually don't like silly humor or funny external references to be injected into the narrative. I also prefer the game to not be purely hack and slash. But apart from that I'm fairly open to different kinds of gaming experiences.

For me, it is not low agency if a particular session is heavy on story that the GM has created. As long as I can do my thing, interact and I feel that things make sense. I am even ok being railroaded as long as it is done artfully. What is low agency for me, is if there is consensus to not be silly and not have the game all hack and slash - and that's how the game turns out anyway. Regardless of what I do during the game, I won't be able to change those facts. I would feel lack of agency. Another thing that's important to me is that I have agency in creating my character. I can play games with hand-out characters or with very limited freedom of choice in creating a character, but it's not what I prefer.

So I think it's unreasonable to simply equate agency with influence on story. There are other elements to an RPG game: tone, interactions, risk, reward, etc. Do we really gain anything from labelling systems and styles low agency and high agency? I think it's weird jab at people who like different things to label their style of gaming 'low agency'. Because at the end of the day, even in a high agency game where the system is built around shared authority and impact, it will only work if there is consensus.

It's not just preferences for agency that are unique (and I do agree some people are satisfied with a more passive style of gaming) - it's also what people want to achieve. It's a multi-axis kind of thing - and I'm truly baffled why some posters seem to think that I should find agency irrelevant just because it's relative and individual. On the contrary. It's really important to figure out what a particular individual cares about - especially as a GM because otherwise you risk taking away their agency unwittingly. Or you might take pains to avoid doing things they don't even care about.

 

[soviet]

IMO. If your audience values realism in their games and likes Star Wars d6 better then it’s very easy for the way that opinion is communicated to become a slight.

It doesn’t have to be a slight but there’s high potential for it to be one. It’s basically the difference in telling someone they are wrong and in saying I see things differently. All of that comes through based on the subtleties of how you share your opinion.

Come on. Who's playing Star Wars d6 thinking it's more realistic than Harn?

 

[pemerton]

If any one of those things is true it demonstrates both people have the capacity to make choices and affect change. Do you agree?

I don't really understand what you're saying or what point you're trying to make. I don't know of any social theory that asserts that no one ever exercises any agency ever - not even the most hardcore structural explanations go that far.

The interesting discussions are about degrees of agency, whether particular social roles permit any significant agency to be exercised, etc.