D&D General What is player agency to you?

[EzekielRaiden]

Go has one single action

And if I were using it as an example of agency, this would be relevant. It is not. I--rather, Oofta--was using it as an example of complexity.

Go is provably, mathematically, more complex than chess. This is not a topic of debate. It is mathematical fact.

Nobody is denying any of those 4.

1. We agree that agency exists.
2. We agree that agency can be counted. HOWEVER, since agency is subjective a countable moment for you may not be a countable moment for me, even if we are in the same moment with the same actions and options. "Matters" is subjective and just because the choice matters to you, doesn't mean that it matters to me.
3. We agree that agency has meaning.
4. This is what we have been saying the entire time. Narrative games offer equivalent agency to traditional games, not more as many people in this thread have claimed.

Your 2 is a denial. Like, there's no other way to say that. You are denying that agency can be counted. Further, you yourself said that either agency is present, or it is not. If there's a moment, either it offers agency, or it doesn't. You can't have this both ways, Max. Either agency really is present, and we can count it, or agency really isn't present, and we can count its absence. Unless you want to walk back that binary now?

Finally, you have fundamentally misunderstood point 1. The statement isn't that agency doesn't exist. It is the claim that types of agency don't exist: there is one and only one type of agency, unqualified, universal. All instances of agency are the same sort of thing, never with variations. Like how, for example, there are many colors of photon, but there are not many "colors" of electron, just electrons with different kinetic energies.

 

[Maxperson]

And if I were using it as an example of agency, this would be relevant. It is not. I--rather, Oofta--was using it as an example of complexity.

Go is provably, mathematically, more complex than chess. This is not a topic of debate. It is mathematical fact.

It was being used as an example of agency as well.

Your 2 is a denial. Like, there's no other way to say that. You are denying that agency can be counted. Further, you yourself said that either agency is present, or it is not. If there's a moment, either it offers agency, or it doesn't. You can't have this both ways, Max. Either agency really is present, and we can count it, or agency really isn't present, and we can count its absence. Unless you want to walk back that binary now?

It was not a denial. If you and I sit in a game having the same exact options, but view those choices differently, we can in fact each count the number of times we had agency. Just because out of the 20 times we had options you had agency 20 times and I had agency only 9 times, doesn't mean that it couldn't be counted. It just means that there's no point to trying to compare the two numbers.

Finally, you have fundamentally misunderstood point 1. The statement isn't that agency doesn't exist. It is the claim that types of agency don't exist: there is one and only one type of agency, unqualified, universal. All instances of agency are the same sort of thing, never with variations. Like how, for example, there are many colors of photon, but there are not many "colors" of electron, just electrons with different kinetic energies.

I understood and that's what we've been saying all along. One type of agency. Either you have it or you don't. Everything you guys view as more or less agency are just the aspects people subjectively prefer and/or the game focuses on.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I missed that post, but it feels like there have been lots of threads we've both been in where things like that have been discussed (I think me having you help me think through some things). So I'm kind of surprised fresh ones were needed (although at the beginning of the semester I'm lucky to remember anything at all sometimes).

There are VERY few examples in all of RPGing of games which allow players to 'just invent something' in anything like the way that was suggested in MULTIPLE posts in just this thread (and I won't even begin to mine the 1000's upon 1000's of repetitions of nonsensical statements about how the players will just "poof the solution into existence") that litter almost every other significant discussion on these boards. You post and thus read enough to know what gets posted here, so no, you are not 'surprised'.

Doesn't BitD have a flashback mechanic that lets the player declare something was already prepared in the past and is ready to go now (to capture the feel of many heist movies). I believe I suggested that in a non-heist setting that's kind of like being able to wish things into existence. I think there were some other games you play where players could insert connections or backgrounds or what not where in D&D a DM might take the suggestion but could veto it.

I can go search up the specifics if that would be helpful.

Yes, do that! lol. You're going to come up with very little. I can name 2 marginal examples: you have touched on BitD where a player can take unused inventory slots (and they must declare those slots as being filled at the start of the score and take the penalties for the resulting load factor FROM THE START) and retroactively describe how they planned for the current situation, pay all the required resource costs, and posses whatever piece of equipment or item it is they just described. Unless the GM deems this to be a routine common-sensical equipment choice (IE a rope when climbing is easily anticipated) an additional stress cost is also assessed, which is VERY significant in BitD! There are also fictional considerations, if you were just searched then you better be equipping an hidden concealable weapon and paying the extra costs for such, etc.

The other thing that MIGHT kind of qualify would be situations where a player can declare something, like in Torch Bearer 2 I could declare a check to see if I can find my allies in a town. Depending on how likely it is that they might reasonably be there will determine the difficulty of the check. I believe Burning Wheel has essentially the same sort of mechanics where players can make assertions about their character and things like his knowledge or relationships and then test their veracity. Again, all these sorts of things require plausibility and lack any of the character of players simply making up stuff.

 

[Cadence]

There are VERY few examples in all of RPGing of games which allow players to 'just invent something' in anything like the way that was suggested in MULTIPLE posts in just this thread (and I won't even begin to mine the 1000's upon 1000's of repetitions of nonsensical statements about how the players will just "poof the solution into existence") that litter almost every other significant discussion on these boards. You post and thus read enough to know what gets posted here, so no, you are not 'surprised'.

Yes, do that! lol. You're going to come up with very little. I can name 2 marginal examples: you have touched on BitD where a player can take unused inventory slots (and they must declare those slots as being filled at the start of the score and take the penalties for the resulting load factor FROM THE START) and retroactively describe how they planned for the current situation, pay all the required resource costs, and posses whatever piece of equipment or item it is they just described. Unless the GM deems this to be a routine common-sensical equipment choice (IE a rope when climbing is easily anticipated) an additional stress cost is also assessed, which is VERY significant in BitD! There are also fictional considerations, if you were just searched then you better be equipping an hidden concealable weapon and paying the extra costs for such, etc.

The other thing that MIGHT kind of qualify would be situations where a player can declare something, like in Torch Bearer 2 I could declare a check to see if I can find my allies in a town. Depending on how likely it is that they might reasonably be there will determine the difficulty of the check. I believe Burning Wheel has essentially the same sort of mechanics where players can make assertions about their character and things like his knowledge or relationships and then test their veracity. Again, all these sorts of things require plausibility and lack any of the character of players simply making up stuff.

I think your specific examples are the kinds of things I was thinking of. Thank you for filling out more.

As far as plausibility in the last sentence, I think we have some players who are good at being plausible sounding and good at gaming systems and very bad at avoiding doing so when it is dangled in front of them. For a heist game, though, I think it is an absolutely brilliant mechanic and hope to try it some day.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm surprised this even needs stating! It's obvious that the relevant options in Go are not place a piece on a point on the board, which describes every move taken, but place a piece on a point on a board so as to change the state of the board from X to Y.

Your other stuff about menus, various sorts of agency etc I have mostly glossed over, as to be honest I don't find it all that productive. For instance, so-called "character agency" doesn't seem to describe a different type of agency at all (it is still referring to agency in respect of the shared fiction); rather, it just describes a particular constraint on the exercise of agency (ie the only direct change in the fiction the player can make is by declaring an action for their PC).

The fact that Apocalypse World, Dungeon World and Burning Wheel operate primarily via this mode of agency is (it seems) routinely ignored.

And the introduction of additional constraints (eg the player can't declare their PC's veridical mental states except by first consulting the GM about permissible contents of those mental states) seems to be typically intended by proponents of "character agency" but it is not normally mentioned by them - eg they will often say the player is in charge of what their PC thinks and feels but in fact that turns out not to be the case, given the GM's control over permissible veridical mental-state contents.

How is it like being able to wish something into existence? What "reality" is being altered? The player declares an action for their PC. How does the fact that it is about the PC's past actions change it's character as an action declaration?

Because it becomes true retroactively. Some people don't like that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't support or particularly want to engage with the weird binary argument, but I think you have missed something. I don't think instances of agency as you're laying them out here are strictly additive, unlike items on a restaurant menu. I was arguing something similar with my attempt to divide out narrative vs. ludic agency early; depending on your stated goal it's possible to add options that increase agency along one axis, while decreasing it as much or more along another.

This doesn't seem to dispose of @EzekielRaiden 's argument at all, since you would have to argue that it is IMPOSSIBLE to add agency in one dimension without reducing it equivalently in another. I'm pretty sure you can't support that argument in any practical sense. I mean, I anticipate a flurry of "yes, but in the case of my unique combination of preferences this is how it is" responses, but I frankly discount these out of hand as both motivated reasoning and highly contrived (as well as impossible to prove).

 

[Golroc]

(First off, I'm sorry I didn't engage on the Traveler actual play a poster referenced earlier - I did actually start reading it, then got side-tracked by other things, and managed to lose track of the links, and now I can't find them - if you could link it again, I'd love to finish reading it and properly consider the point you were making in lieu of this actual play)

(I'd also like to elaborate on my statement that I sometimes enjoy artful railroading, as I feel this was misunderstood by a lot of posters, but I'll leave that for another post).

If we step back from this whole "how to define agency" and "how to define comparative analysis of agency in the context of different systems and styles", I'd like to ask a question. I'm not trying to be facetious or do any kind of gotcha - but it's related to my view that the social contract and the skills/personality of the GM matters more than the system when it comes to agency. Perhaps answers to this question can help me understand the viewpoints of others posters in this thread better.

** Scenario **
Let's imagine a player who approaches the GM with following complaint, a few sessions into the campaign: "Could you please add more meaningful choice to the campaign? I feel like we're exploring one area after another and it's all about just fighting the inhabitants. Sometimes we can back one group over another - or play them against each other, but I'd like if there was some larger narrative that we could impact. I would also like to have relations to various factions and individuals - friends, allies, rivals - maybe even a nemesis."

The GM has created a series of sandbox sessions and there's an antagonist involved tying all the locations together - the players just haven't figured out yet. The rest of the groups seems happy with the style of play.

** Question **
How do different systems relate to this kind of problem of player agency? Or as a rather loaded question, how is this not purely a problem of the GM not being willing and/or capable of meeting the expectations of the player?
**

In this case we have a player who doesn't mention agency, but it's a relatively common style of complaint - "our campaign is too repetitive - I feel like it's adventure of the week - the overall arc is (insert any of unknown/boring/meaningless)".

Now I acknowledge that there are different levels of agency in various systems when it comes to the actual play - which in the absence of GM intervention / style - can greatly reduce the freedom of choice of players. I also acknowledge that narrative agency is handled different in various systems - and all other things being equal - this makes a difference in how much narrative impact players can make without the GM being the gatekeeper of such impact.

But in my experience, complains about agency (using that term explicitly or not) are almost always about the nature of the campaign and the session content. Not about how the game system allows players to affect the world. Not even about how much illusion or improvisation the GM makes use of (although I have seen clashes about that, just not very often).

Hence to me, player agency relates to matching expectations with the GM and the rest of the group. This is why I consider notions such as whether a system is high or low on agency kind of an odd focus - because in the past I've always seen groups simply switch or modify systems if they become unhappy with the agency (or other aspects of it). Whereas groups where players feel unable to have the kind of experiences and choices they desire, are more common.

And I also feel this relates to the GM scarcity, and why a lot of people don't like being GM. It is hard to provide agency for players who want more than a sandbox and/or players who expect a highly engaging narrative with meaningful choice. It is hard to figure out what players want. Because the don't always know it. And I'd even contend you ruin the fun for some people if you start dissecting what they actually want. Finally, because 'agency' is a term which in vogue, some players will frame dissatisfaction as issues with agency, when it's actually about something entirely different. And this relates to the original question - where my position is "you should never argue with a player about what constitutes agency - you won't solve any conflicts this way and might as well cut your losses instead".

I hope this post helps explain why I focus less on the abstract definitions of agency and more on the social contract and individual interpretations of agency. Not because I want other people to ignore the concept - I think making people aware of the way different systems treat different kinds of agency is great. It can help groups and individuals find (or adapt their current) systems to better match what they want from the game. But because I think the most challenging aspects of agency are related to things that cannot be fixed by changes to the system.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Im curious - Why shouldn't different constraints on the exercise of agency be referred to as different types of agency? Is there something different that 'types of agency' would better refer to?

Well, suppose we talked about different sorts of constraints on driving? Maybe in Washington I can use a right turn lane on red without necessarily coming to a complete stop, but in Vermont I can't do that. Are these different KINDS of driving? I wouldn't say so. Not to say that 'constraints' and 'kinds' could never have a similar character, but I think the more you move towards kind the less easily you will be able to describe the difference purely in terms of constraints. I mean, yes, racing around the track in the Indy 500 involves a different set of driving constraints than driving around my town, but racing and ordinary driving cannot simply be described as a different set of constraints on driving, they are fundamentally different processes with different goals, etc. Yeah, they share some common features, and we may derive some value from that comparison, but constraints cannot describe that fully.

I'm not expert but I can think of examples that were provided that unless I'm mistaken were from those games that went beyond what I've called 'character agency'

He said 'primarily', and as I mentioned in a recent post, where a game like TB2 (based on BW) goes beyond that, it does so in a highly circumscribed fashion. If I want to find my friend in a town, I must pass a test and the details of that test are governed largely by the narrative plausibility of the assertion. Honestly, how different is this than D&D? I doubt you would consider it a violation of the principles of GMing for a player to say "Hey, maybe my friend is in the bar in this town, he hangs out in bars and sometimes he travels." My bet is, the GM will use a VERY similar process as what TB2 does to adjudicate this possibility.

I'm not quite sure what this means - and normally I would attempt to guess but I think that will likely do more damage than just asking for clarification.

He's saying that in games which he is describing as lower agency over fiction the GM normally exercises veto authority over what the character's mind contains. That is, take my example of the bar and the friend above, in a typical trad D&D game there would be no violation of the game's process or principles for you to simply say "this suggestion is absurd, there is no possibility of finding your friend in this bar, he's listed as being one of the NPCs present at place X." (and you needn't state that last part). Now, maybe you will assert that as GM you have no control over the player asserting things that are incorrect, but effectively the value of what is in the character's head belongs to the GM.

I don't have a great way to say this but I'm sure there's a way to -
Playing a scene in the present tense - jumping to the past tense to establish something useful for the present tense (not time travel) - from the perspective of the present tense right before the jump to the past tense there was a change. The mechanical nature of how that change came about matters - mechanics and not just the resulting fiction mattering is a sentiment you've shared with me quite often in the past so it mattering here shouldn't really come as a surprise. It's not really wishing something into existence - but absent ironing out the language to better articulate the issue - it's not like all these diverse people all make up the same issue either.

But you have asserted time and time again that your notions of what rules should govern doesn't include mechanics which are dissociated from the game world. So I can see you questioning the BitD stress cost, but nothing in the flashback rule seems 'dissociated', it is simply an example of playing scenes out of order, temporally. I mean, if that is objectionable, it is objectionable on its own for purely different reasons than being an example of 'meta-game' or of player power over things outside of the character.

I'd also suggest this is the same reason that 'remembering the tower with potentially useful stuff in it is nearby' also is an issue for many. Honestly, flashbacks of something not already established in the game and memories of stuff not already established in the game are essentially the same thing. A flashback for all intents and purposes is a memory!

Honestly, what I get out of this is that there is a strong vein in a lot of this trad play of GMs feeling insecure about their role in the game and being upset with the idea that its a viable notion to have different dynamics than trad.

 

[Campbell]

I think when folks look at things like flashbacks in Blades or Circles checks in Burning Wheel there is a tendency to react to them as if they were just inserted into the framework of a D&D game. The way Blades handles inventory management and flashbacks is done explicitly because we are skipping straight from, we're doing x to we're doing x. That week + of planning and preparation is being elided to keep the game moving. We're not actively making changes or altering anything. We're defining something left undefined. In the case of flashbacks, it's also almost always done with some risk to make things actively worse.

I would not advocate adding these sorts of mechanics into a game with GM defined backstory, but I think it's important to acknowledge the actual context behind what is happening. Something that has yet to be defined is being defined. We're not engaging in retroactive editing.

This is also not an essential feature of Story Now play. It's not part of Apocalypse World or Sorcerer. What is however shared is that the only constraining fictional elements are those that are seen actively on screen or have been shared beforehand. The GM is not a world builder. They are scene framers and are obliged to frame scenes that are relevant to the characters' and game's premise.

Fundamentally it's that obligation where agency comes from in any roleplaying game. In challenge-oriented play the GM is obliged by fictional positioning, game mechanics and preparation to grant players the victories they earn. In Story Now play the GM is obliged by the resolution mechanics, details of the shared fiction, enumerated principles and scene framing responsibilities to let events snowball. In more simulation oriented play the GM is obliged by their prep to make rulings based only on fictional details.

Without such obligations there can be no agency because there can be no assurance that any player's contributions will have an actual impact on the proceedings.

 

[Oofta]

Go has one single action. Put a piece on the board. You can "choose" which spot to put the piece on, but you are railroading into the single action the DM has forced you into. Put a piece on the board so the game moves forward like the DM wants.

Chess on the other hand may have fewer squares, but the choices are real. No railroading. I can pick which piece to move. I can move it more than once or not at all. There is no DM forcing the game and giving an illusion of choice.

DM = Rules in these examples.

Nobody is denying any of those 4.

1. We agree that agency exists.
2. We agree that agency can be counted. HOWEVER, since agency is subjective a countable moment for you may not be a countable moment for me, even if we are in the same moment with the same actions and options. "Matters" is subjective and just because the choice matters to you, doesn't mean that it matters to me.
3. We agree that agency has meaning.
4. This is what we have been saying the entire time. Narrative games offer equivalent agency to traditional games, not more as many people in this thread have claimed.

My thoughts on this whole topic? As I said, the number of possible moves in Go has no correlation to it's complexity or sense of agency. Just like the number and variety of options granted to express authority in an RPG do not matter.

What matters? How often the player uses the options they have to make reasonably informed decisions and whether they feel like their choice has the expected result, even if that means only having a chance to achieve their goal.