D&D General What is player agency to you?

[AbdulAlhazred]

And this is the discussion I think we had before. I'm not sure what example I used then, but say we have: "An ogre who snuck into the keep steps out from behind the shed and advances on you." "Good, does it fall in the pit I dug their yesterday." It feels like this could be done in good faith in some set-ups, and could also be abused as an I win button by a player viewing it as getting to alter reality if they just use the right phrasing.

This would be a pretty rare thing, though a BitD flashback might allow for something like this. However, see below as there are definitely constraints! You could potentially do the same sort of thing in HoML using the fate mechanism, but again similar constraints apply and its a very limited use mechanism (once per session generally).

Leo in one of the Percy Jackson series has a magic belt pouch (iirc) that he can pull pretty much any mundane tool from. From a game play effect is that different than a character being able to say "oh, I put X in it yesterday" and being able to pull it out whenever they need that X? Did Mary Poppins really pack her carpet bag in advance?

Because such a thing doesn't require the adherence to narrative consistency which a game like BitD does. I can flashback in BitD and fill an inventory slot with a weapon, lets say, but I don't then magically pass all the searches I was already narratively subjected to on the way to the current fictional position. Your Percy Jackson is not subject to this constraint!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Yeah, I can't speak to how things will play for everyone of course. I don't think you can really do much to 'game' something like a BW Circles check. I mean, the game intends the players to focus play on their 'stuff', so the mechanic is quite natural and I'd think any use of it here would be in keeping with the intent. Remember, making assertions is not a one-way street in a game like that. In TB2 it automatically has a 'grind cost' (IE you expended a turn, burning light and food). Beyond that a negative result opens the player up to the GM's description of something else, which is generally going to put pressure on the character in some way, expend resources, etc. Its not like a Circles check is a free lunch.

And honestly this is the most core and fundamental issue with the whole "but the players will just..." sort of arguments. Yes, the players WILL just... and that's functional play in such a game! Given the constraints and cost/benefit, and seen in the greater context of narrativist play there's nothing really problematical about a BW Wises check, it does what it is intended to do (as near as I can tell, not having played core BW).

 

[Campbell]

@Golroc

This is going to be a difficult conversation to be had because I think you are operating off of a definition of system that is basically just mechanics and does not include the nature and responsibilities of the player and GM roles. I have the view that the nature and entailed responsibilities of the GM role and process of play is the most fundamental part of roleplaying game design. We can change these expectations, but I don't view such a change as all that different from changing how Power Attack works.

In the case of a player coming to me with mismatched expectations I would provide a glimpse of my methodology to the player and look to see if we could find a way to tweak that without shifting it too far away from the play experience we are going for overall, but in my view having a consistent approach to running a game is the most fundamental part of providing agency.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

(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.

Its an honest and I think fairly straightforward expression of beliefs/experience with play that I can understand from long experience with trad play as well as some nagging dissatisfaction with its character that I had 'back in the day'.

I think a lot of this just comes down to having experienced basically one paradigm of RPG play and looking at the whole problem from that one perspective. For a good 20 years that was pretty much the only perspective I had. You get discussions around agency in the terms you get them, because nobody in the discussion has conceived of the sort of alternatives that are presented today in narrativist games and were not really articulated until at least the mid 1990s in any significant form (and really not fully elucidated for a few years after that).

So, if I only envisage a game where the GM is the origin of all fiction and defines the entire state of the world outside my character's skin, and the overall focus of play, the possible plots and participants, locations, etc.; where the focus of play is ON those things, exploring them, manipulating them, etc. then the only kind of expression that said player CAN articulate is one similar to what you have described. That is they won't articulate a divergence of agenda into the realm of controlling the focus of play because they simply have not experienced the possibility of that kind of game. VERY rarely people will escape from those sorts of mental constraints! I mean, @pemerton has shown examples from 1977 Traveller of a part of the rules which envisages a kind of player-directed focus in one small area (Streetwise skill use), and I'm sure we can describe others (I think its fair to cite the game 'Toon' as being pretty open to this kind of thing). I remember we used to play a game called Gangster! where we hit on the idea of the gangsters pretty much just inventing criminal enterprises and describing how they worked, making up corrupt cops and whatever else was required to describe it. That was probably not the way the game was written, but we came up with that, though oddly we never thought to apply similar techniques to, say, D&D.

In terms of GM scarcity. I don't know if there's any inherent scarcity of GMs capable of running narrativist play or not. IME it is a less burdensome sort of role than trad GM, as it generally requires vastly less prep and whatnot. I mean, sure, maybe there are different skillsets involved and some people will not be good at both. I think its hard to say, and given the propensity of the hobby to be highly conservative in matters of play style I think this kind of question simply hasn't really been explored that much. PbtA/FitD based games are fairly popular these days though, so I tend to think its less about a dearth of potential GMs and more about visibility. Most people equate RPGs with D&D, so it has most of the focus and sales, and is very likely to be what people get used to playing.

 

[Golroc]

@Golroc

This is going to be a difficult conversation to be had because I think you are operating off of a definition of system that is basically just mechanics and does not include the nature and responsibilities of the player and GM roles. I have the view that the nature and entailed responsibilities of the GM role and process of play is the most fundamental part of roleplaying game design. We can change these expectations, but I don't view such a change as all that different from changing how Power Attack works.

No, to me the system very much includes the framework for the distribution of responsibilities and process of play. The group may adjust that, but I do not consider the system purely about mechanics. Some systems don't even have much in the way of mechanics.

Given this definition of system (where it is certainly more than mechanics), I still think there are (and to me probably the most important) aspects of agency that are not handled by the system. Such as what kind of narrative the GMs leads the players down. Whether players get to affect the things they want (as per the scenario and question in my previous post). I know there are systems where the narrative authority is completely shared - and of course in such systems, that's not really a relevant concern (consensus does become a concern then, but that's a different discussion). But in narrativist systems, the GM generally has the lion's share of narrative authority. Correct me if I am wrong, but such systems do not have system-based solutions to players who feel the narrative lacks an overaching story or that the sessions focus too much on combat - are too sandbox-y. Etc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, to me the system very much includes the framework for the distribution of responsibilities and process of play. The group may adjust that, but I do not consider the system purely about mechanics. Some systems don't even have much in the way of mechanics.

Given this definition of system (where it is certainly more than mechanics), I still think there are (and to me probably the most important) aspects of agency that are not handled by the system. Such as what kind of narrative the GMs leads the players down. Whether players get to affect the things they want (as per the scenario and question in my previous post). I know there are systems where the narrative authority is completely shared - and of course in such systems, that's not really a relevant concern (consensus does become a concern then, but that's a different discussion). But in narrativist systems, the GM generally has the lion's share of narrative authority. Correct me if I am wrong, but such systems do not have system-based solutions to players who feel the narrative lacks an overaching story or that the sessions focus too much on combat - are too sandbox-y. Etc.

Well, using Dungeon World as an example, DW literally specifies the type of story that the GM and players are expected to produce. It further precisely and explicitly declares what exactly the different participants can do and thus what their agency is (what they can effect).

In terms of system-based solutions to player issues with the narrative content: DW has a pretty tight focus on what it is intended to portray, and thus contain, so probably the participants kind of hashed out a lot of this at the start when they decided to initiate play. This is fairly typical with narrativist systems, they are fairly 'tight' in terms of genre and such.

Now, in terms of, say, too much focus on combat, GMs framing ability/responsibility does give them a chance to often describe situations that are LIKELY to resolve in certain ways. As the PCs descend into the dungeon a goblin leaps out, sword drawn! However, the barbarian could move forward menacingly and attempt to intimidate it (I'd think DD +CHA might be a good GM declaration here). There will be times when the GM imposes on the players, but I think the ball always lands back in their court. Since DW's mechanical process structure is loosely coupled to the fiction players have a LOT of leeway in terms of managing circumstances.

This is not to say that you're at all incorrect, GM and players must 'get on the same page' in some sense in any sort of RPG play, and narrativist games don't just magically solve that in any general sense.

 

[Golroc]

So, if I only envisage a game where the GM is the origin of all fiction and defines the entire state of the world outside my character's skin, and the overall focus of play, the possible plots and participants, locations, etc.; where the focus of play is ON those things, exploring them, manipulating them, etc. then the only kind of expression that said player CAN articulate is one similar to what you have described. That is they won't articulate a divergence of agenda into the realm of controlling the focus of play because they simply have not experienced the possibility of that kind of game. VERY rarely people will escape from those sorts of mental constraints! I mean, @pemerton has shown examples from 1977 Traveller of a part of the rules which envisages a kind of player-directed focus in one small area (Streetwise skill use), and I'm sure we can describe others (I think its fair to cite the game 'Toon' as being pretty open to this kind of thing). I remember we used to play a game called Gangster! where we hit on the idea of the gangsters pretty much just inventing criminal enterprises and describing how they worked, making up corrupt cops and whatever else was required to describe it. That was probably not the way the game was written, but we came up with that, though oddly we never thought to apply similar techniques to, say, D&D.

I have played different paradigms over the years. From old-school to challenge-based to LARP'ing even to GM-less ones. And narrative miniature games as well (which are interestingly almost always without a GM and despite the execution of games being wildly more focused on mechanics than RPGs, the narrative is decided upon as a shared activity entirely, and thus are strongly narrativist even if the games linking the story are the opposite). I generally don't experience problems of agency myself - outside of bad groups - and that's really a different kind of agency ("how can I get out of this the quickest without ruining the fun for the rest of the table?"). But when I read about people who complain about agency it tends to fall into three categories:

1) People looking for a new system (or to modify their existing system) to support a certain level of agency. I've also found that harmonious groups can adapt systems to match, but I also recognize that picking a system with better support can create enthusiasm and bring more smooth gameplay. So I understand why people do this, and I think it's great that different system exists and that people are constantly experimenting with creating new ones.

2) "Flawed" players and/or GMs. This is kind of a tough one to go into without writing a very long post - but some people simply create problems for others at their table. This can manifest as (real or perceived) agency-related problems.

3) Mismatched expectations. If the table don't agree on the social contract, then a system isn't going to fix those problems. It can make the problems worse. This could be a GM doing narrative rubber-banding when the players expect narrative agency - no system can fix that. It could be players who want to focus on mechanical challenges and puzzle, but the GM and/or other players focus on other aspects of the game.

People who are well-informed about systems, who know what they want - they're not going to have problems with player agency. A player who hates the concept illusionist-based techniques shouldn't play with a GM who uses those techniques.

For me the interesting discussion isn't so much about academic discussions about defining agency in the context of different systems. I recognize the value of that discourse, but I don't think it's the interesting discussion to have. I think the interesting one is how to deal with problem tables. Especially that subset that can actually be fixed. The ones who who know what they like and how to get it are not interesting - nor are the ones that cannot be fixed in other ways than removing specific individuals from them. The interesting ones are the ones where there is a compromise to be made, a technique to be learned - or perhaps a system change to be made.

Some groups will benefit from switching to a narrativist system as the solution to their woes. But I suspect that for most it's actually more about learning how to be a better GM and a better player. That's about preparation, improvisation and/or interaction. Hack and slash is still the most common style of play - and I think the problem is very often that moving beyond that is hard. Giving players agency - if they do not want to switch to a narrativist system - but want the agency in the context of a different system is hard.

Yeah, I guess that's really it - I think the interesting challenge is how to handle groups that do not want to fully share the burden of narrative agency - but that still want player agency. How can GMs provide that? How can players do that? What kind of limited sharing of narrative authority can help affect narrative agency.

For me, I don't like rules-based shared narrative agency. I guess it does to me (as player or GM) what illusionism does for some others. I want shared narrative agency - absolutely. But I want it based on informal means. By the GM picking up on player cues. By players talking to them GM between session (or even passing messages/notes to the GM). Sometimes it can be done by creative "initiative" (ie players making factual statements as if they were the GM - "I know this person - we went to the same school - I recognize her and .. etc etc"). But such techniques require very harmonious groups. That's my preferred situation. Fully shared narrative authority - but without making it part of the system. And with the GM having the ultimate burden of keeping things fun and interesting. But everyone is different.

I don't think my preference is low-agency because I like the shared narrative agency to be manifested without system support. But I do recognize that systems can support and provide agency in different ways and at different levels. Absolutely. But I think helping groups, that like me, don't enjoy having player narrative authority codified, is a valid subject of interest. As is how to make the most of narrativist systems - because I can enjoy those, even if I don't prefer them as a baseline. It's possible to enjoy more than one system and one style. Which is where my earlier comment of railroading came from. I like it sometimes. Either as an element in an experience that is full of agency - or even as the main style. I don't think there is any gain to only enjoying one style of play (just like I read different kinds of literature and listen to different kinds of music). But sure, I have a preference - and that's not railroading.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

For me it's about what the options mean.

Go is torture for me. My options are...put a piece down, then put another piece down, then put another piece down, then put another piece down... It's boring as hell and is a railroad to me no matter how complex the game is because of the number of game states.

Chess on the other hand is incredibly fun for me. I have options that mean something. I can choose to move the knight, bishop, king, etc. I have castling and en passant. I can move a piece multiple times. There are a ton of different things for me to do, so I feel like I have much more agency than I do when I play go since it's essentially a railroad.

However, for people who simply view the number of game states or complexity of the game as what makes them feel like they have agency, they might view go as giving them more agency than they get from chess.

Agency is binary. You have it or you don't and it's only what you value in the aspects of agency that a game focuses on that matters and makes it feel like more or less. Absent a railroad anyway. A railroad is the only way to not have full agency.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

It did not read so to me, and I did not give any analysis as though it were, so the point is moot, if you were replying to me about it. I don't consider either chess or go to have more or less agency than the other, because both of them are ultimately very constrained in terms of actions players can take. They just have high game complexity (with go being, as stated, provably much more complex--fifty orders of magnitude or more.)

It was not a denial.

Yes, it absolutely was. The whole point of counting events is that they can be discussed. You are literally saying they can't be counted, that the numbers are meaningless. Either the count is a count, or it is not.

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.

Sure there is. At least one of them is wrong. Either there was agency or there wasn't. That's your binary. Either it's present, or it's not. Either the count-er is right about their count, or they are not. Your subjective interpretation that you felt agentful is irrelevant. Did you have control and/or influence over the event, or not? If yes, it goes in the yes column. If no, it goes in the no column. Two people can disagree about any given event; one of them will be right, and the other will be wrong. False positive or false negative depends on the actual instance.

It's that simple.

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.

Then you are simply wrong. Authors have a form of agency--control and/or influence--over their work that no human being could ever have over their actual, lived life. Those are distinct forms of agency. Period.

 

[Golroc]

Then you are simply wrong. Authors have a form of agency--control and/or influence--over their work that no human being could ever have over their actual, lived life. Those are distinct forms of agency. Period.

I think a lot of the conflict over definitions stem from discussing two different things, both of which are valid meanings of the word and both of which are even used in academia.

There is agency as in capacity to affect/control/influence. This type of agency is not binary. It is qualitative and multi-faceted. I don't think it makes sense to try and model mathematically (as it is qualitative), but I do agree with considering it multi-dimensional.

But there is also agency as in 'sense of agency'. That's a (mostly) binary thing. It is the quality of feeling in control of what is happening. One can even interpret it as a "do I have sufficient agency (of the above kind)?". It is also a subjective thing. Some individuals can feel deprived of agency even if they have capacity to affect/control/influence the world around them. A good example is when individual is placed affected by a calamity - even if the individual is legally free, has a decent amount of material wealth, etc. - they can easily feel completely deprived of agency. Midlife crisis is often about losing the sense of agency - and very often extremely subjectively so.

Both of these types of agency are used in literature. And I think both make sense in the context of RPGs. Therefore any point made or question raised should specify what kind of agency we're talking about (if it doesn't apply to both) - otherwise we just get a long series of back-and-forth that goes nowhere. We could label them objective agency and subjective agency?

And when a player says "I lack agency" - we (as a fellow player, GM or outsider) don't know if they've considered agency of the first kind (capacity/objective), but we do know they're invoking the second kind (sense/subjective). And subjective agency need not be based in objective agency. It can be based on agency towards things the system cannot solve, fully or in part.

Finally, arguing over objective agency might make sense, but as I've repeated someone who is unhappy about lack of agency is not going to be won over by such argument (at least if so, they are an incredibly rare kind of person). They feel a subjective lack of agency. One should address this - as it is a relevant regardless of whether it is objectively true. If it is objectively true, that opens the door to certain tools (given that the rest of the group accept these tools). It is objectively false, it still needs to be addressed or the player will remain unhappy.

A lot of people want very unreasonably things. People aren't always mature, rational and/or reasonable. That's why to me, 'sense of agency' is the important thing to look at. A player who feels empowered is a happy player. But I do appreciate systems with a different approach to player agency is a possible tool for solving problems with sense of agency. Especially for players who don't enjoy the GM having autocratic rule over narrative. For those it's pretty much the only answer. But changing systems is a big deal - and there may be different issues with the new system. One should consider the circumstances when thinking of the best solution.