D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Maxperson]

You can't describe a move in go without describing the change the move makes to the board. This means that there is no single action - there is a choice of many actions (roughly, equal to the number of vacant points on the board).

Go also doesn't have a GM.

The only action is place a piece on the board. How that action affects things will differ depending on where you place it, but the action remains the same no matter where you place it.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I don't actually agree with you about this example. Because the action declaration is I look up my friend. Which is purely a description of what the character does, thinks, hopes, etc.

And then that is resolved. The resolution does take as a premise that the player-authored PC belief "My friend might be around here* is true - but that goes to my point about who gets authority over veridical mental states.

An example of non-"character agency" would be that the the player gets to establish elements of the shared fiction that are not connected to the player's mental states or actions. For instance, "It would be cool if the Evil Emperor has heard rumours of my PC's exploits, and sends his henchmen to try and capture me!" That is not a declaration of a PC's action, nor a decision about what they think, feel, remember etc. It's straightforward collaborative authorship. And it is not a canonical part of Burning Wheel, Torchbearer, Apocalypse World or Dungeon World!

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

Lots of RPGing involves things "becoming true retroactively".

For instance, the first time the PCs meet Orcs, the player of the barbarian decides that their PC has a grudge against this Orc tribe. The GM asks why, and the player says something about their PC's family, village, Orc raiders, etc. I've never heard that described as "altering reality". Mostly I hear that described as roleplaying and characterisation.

Or, the GM tells the PCs they arrive in a village, and theirs a blacksmith, a cooper, a tavern etc. A player says "My PC wanders over to the blacksmith to see if they sell iron spikes." The GM now has to decide that - they roll on the random blacksmith inventory chart, or they make a call, or whatever. Is that "altering reality"? Who is doing the altering - the player or the GM?

My own view is that the actual nub of the matter was hit upon by @Oofta in post 177: it's not the fact that it's retroactive - which is commonplace in RPGing - but the fact that it is consequential. My view about this is reinforced by the repeated reference to "I win" buttons, seen most recently from @Cadence.

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.

So the reason to avoid player agency is that some players are skilful in the exercise of their agency? To me that doesn't make much sense.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And as I have said--repeatedly--what is essential for many players who care about agency is that you have two equally necessary criteria:

1. You feel as though you have agency.
2. You actually do have agency.

I, personally, don't think agency is binary. I have only been speaking of it as such because Maxperson specifically does, and I wished to respect parts of their conception if they aren't a problem for me. But, despite the criteria above being perfectly straightforward and appropriate, I've had no end of ridiculous responses, including things like "there is no such thing as actually having agency," "there are no forms of agency, it's all the same," etc.


Yes. I've covered that. I've explicitly said that people IRL often lack agency (which, I mean, that should be obvious, but evidently not.) Also...if you're suffering a calamity, legal agency isn't really that relevant, is it? Financial and personal agency is rather more prevalent, both of which tend to be massively curtailed in . Midlife crisis is not really about agency; no discussion of the topic on any medical or personal discussion thereof mentions "agency" (except in the "organization" sense.) Instead, it is about whether one's past actions, skills, career, etc. have meaning, which is related to agency but not the same.

It is quite possible for a person to be mistaken about whether they have agency or not--but surely that is not simply a matter of opinion, it's also a matter of fact, and misunderstandings of fact can be clarified. Just as, for example, it is not simply a matter of opinion whether one has a functional limb, or money in one's bank account, or various other things. Certainly, one can (mistakenly) believe that one has little money when in fact one has much of it, but that mistaken belief is easily fixed by being informed of the true state of affairs. Things can be less obvious, of course, as with the functional limb or the like, but the fact of the matter generally tends to be quite persuasive here.


Okay. I want objective agency. I've been quite clear about that; as I said before, I want to believe I have agency, and I want that belief to be correct. If others do not share that want...okay! That's no skin off my back. People have instead been telling me that it is impossible for that belief to be true or false, that I am a fool to even think it.


This requires that I grant what you said above--that one can objectively have agency, and yet feel that one lacks that agency. Note the "that"--one can feel one lacks (objective) agency of some specific type, and prioritize that type over other types one actually has, without a problem. But it would be a mistaken belief--one easily corrected by better information--to think one simply lacks a form of agency one truly has. If we assume good-faith discussion, I don't see how such a mistaken belief wouldn't be ameliorated by a conversation between adults.


Whereas I think it's belittling to presume that others will be unreasonable and immature. They may disappoint you, but giving others the benefit of the doubt is important.

And...you're talking about this as though anyone here is trying to convince anyone else to switch systems. We aren't. We are literally only defending the position that, all else being equal, games which offer objective agency (to use your term) of the "player agency" type in addition to objective agency of the "character agency" type...offer more agency. Hence why I have spoken of things like the two kinds of game both offering equivalent instances of (objective) character agency, but one of those types additionally offering (objective) player agency as well. These things are quite front-and-center, essentially impossible to be subject to the misplaced-belief stuff above, which some posters in this thread have made clear is part of why they do not want to play such games, because they don't like (objective) player agency, do not wish to have instances of it in their games, and very much prefer its absence. For them, all else being equal (meaning, equivalent instances of [objective] character agency), they prefer a lower-agency game--and that is a perfectly cromulent preference to have.

If when you say "objective player agency" what you mean is, "the DM can't stop me" why don't you just say that?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't actually agree with you about this example. Because the action declaration is I look up my friend. Which is purely a description of what the character does, thinks, hopes, etc.

And then that is resolved. The resolution does take as a premise that the player-authored PC belief "My friend might be around here* is true - but that goes to my point about who gets authority over veridical mental states.

An example of non-"character agency" would be that the the player gets to establish elements of the shared fiction that are not connected to the player's mental states or actions. For instance, "It would be cool if the Evil Emperor has heard rumours of my PC's exploits, and sends his henchmen to try and capture me!" That is not a declaration of a PC's action, nor a decision about what they think, feel, remember etc. It's straightforward collaborative authorship. And it is not a canonical part of Burning Wheel, Torchbearer, Apocalypse World or Dungeon World!

Lots of RPGing involves things "becoming true retroactively".

For instance, the first time the PCs meet Orcs, the player of the barbarian decides that their PC has a grudge against this Orc tribe. The GM asks why, and the player says something about their PC's family, village, Orc raiders, etc. I've never heard that described as "altering reality". Mostly I hear that described as roleplaying and characterisation.

Or, the GM tells the PCs they arrive in a village, and theirs a blacksmith, a cooper, a tavern etc. A player says "My PC wanders over to the blacksmith to see if they sell iron spikes." The GM now has to decide that - they roll on the random blacksmith inventory chart, or they make a call, or whatever. Is that "altering reality"? Who is doing the altering - the player or the GM?

My own view is that the actual nub of the matter was hit upon by @Oofta in post 177: it's not the fact that it's retroactive - which is commonplace in RPGing - but the fact that it is consequential. My view about this is reinforced by the repeated reference to "I win" buttons, seen most recently from @Cadence.

So the reason to avoid player agency is that some players are skilful in the exercise of their agency? To me that doesn't make much sense.

If that information is decided in play, by the player or the DM (as opposed to via prep or something like a table), it is "altering reality" in the sense I mean. I seek to minimize that sort of thing, wherever it comes from.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Right. There is no change.

What's interesting about a game like Torchbearer is how it manages to combine GM-defined backstory for some bits of the shared fiction, with (say) Circles checks that govern other bits of the shared fiction. It's rather cleverly done, by relying on a type of demarcation of different elements of the fiction and different mechanical and broader processes for engaging with them (eg adventure phase vs town phase).

There are versions of D&D that actually do integrate a Circles-type mechanic into a broadly GM-backstory style of play. Here is a rule for the Yakuza class from the original OA (p 27; published 1985):

Another resource of the yakuza is his contacts. Contacts are NPCs who can provide the yakuza with specialized information and aid. They will not join him on adventures., but will buy stolen goods. provide a secure hide-out, carry messages, and provide information Contacts never do anything that might put them in peril, although they may risk their reputations. They remain cooperative with the yakuza and silent about his activities (and their involvement) so long as they are fairly treated, not threatened, and not implicated in anything. A yakuza character receives one contact for every two experience levels. The contacts are not named or defined by the DM or by a table. Instead, when the player wants his character to use a contact, he decides the name and position of the contact and tells the DM. The DM decides whet her the contact is appropriate for the character. The contact cannot be more than four experience levels above the yakuza, and the yakuza character must have had some plausible reason for meeting the contact in the past. If the DM rules the contact is acceptable, information about the contact is noted on the yakuza character's sheet. One
available contact of the yakuza has been used. Thereafter the contact can be used again by the yakuza as needed. (The DM may want to note information about the contact and create a fitting personality.) The player is responsible for keeping track of the names of his character's contacts.

Some examples of acceptable contacts include the gate keeper of a ward, a ship captain, a minor samurai in the Service of a daimyo, a district magistrate, or a wealthy merchant. Basically, the DM must rely on his judgement when determining whether a contact is acceptable.​

I think in typical D&D play this ability is probably going to be a bit underpowered, but I don't recall ever coming across complaints about it as involving player's "altering reality" via their yakuza PCs.

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.

100% this.

 

[pemerton]

The only action is place a piece on the board. How that action affects things will differ depending on where you place it, but the action remains the same no matter where you place it.

If the only thing that makes an action interesting it its relational properties, yet you insist on ignoring most of those relational properties in your description of it, in my view you will not gain much insight.

A simple example: someone who insists that moving their arm is moving their arm, and hence that there is no difference between the action of doing stretches and shadow boxing and punching someone in the face, is in my view making a stupid claim.

 

[pemerton]

(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)

In my Classic Traveller game, as I reported in some actual play reports, there was a sequence of sessions where the game drifted into lower-agency, high GM-exposition, play, and I took deliberate steps to change that.

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.

I don't think this is true. There are a lot of RPGs that provide systems that will allow a GM to do this.

A friend of mine has only ever GMed Burning Wheel. The first session of BW that he GMed was higher in player agency than most D&D sessions that I have played in (and the only I say "most" rather than "all" is because I can't remember every D&D session I've ever played).

** 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)".

You identify two problems.

One goes to whether the group is compatible. I leave that to one side, as I see it as basically a social problem - like on card night most people want to play bridge but one person wants to play poker. These are problems that sit outside the system of any particular game.

But the second problem is about How does the GM meet the expectations of a player who is not satisfied with the sort of play you describe. And there are solutions to that problem. @AbdulAlhazred has suggested Dungeon World. I would suggest Burning Wheel (or Torchbearer as a BW variant). Or even sticking to the current system of choice (what you describe makes me think of D&D, RQ, RM or HARP, perhaps even HERO or GURPS) but adopting some techniques from those games.

The most basic technique, which @Campbell set out not far upthread, is to frame scenes that are relevant to the characters' and game's premise. The GM you describe is not doing that. Changing what they are doing is not actually that hard.

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.

Burning Wheel, towards the end of the rulebook, has a page setting out the GM's role and responsibilities, and then a page setting out "the sacred and most holy role of the players". This latter page (Revised p 269; Gold p 552) includes the following statement, directed at players: If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself.

And the game gives the players the tools to do that: Circles checks, Wises checks, the various extended resolution frameworks etc. The same page also tells players:

Use the mechanics! Players are expected to call for a Duel of Wits or a Circles test or to demand the Range and Cover rules in a shooting match with a Dark Elf assassin Don't wait for the GM to invoke a rule - invoke the damn thing yourself and get the story moving!​

And of course underlying this is the fact that mechanical outcomes are binding.

I've given examples in this thread of my own BW play. I have called for Circles tests to meet NPCs - members of my order, and my family. I have called for Duels of Wits to move play away from what the GM thought was interesting onto what I thought was interesting. I have used Great Masters-wise to focus play on recovering spellbooks from Evard's tower, rather than whatever the GM would otherwise have put forward.

In my most recent Torchbearer session the players used a Convince conflict to persuade a key NPC to assist them in a particular task they wanted to carry out, which focused play onto that issue - and precluded me, as GM, using that NPC as a backstory element to bring the focus of play onto something else.

So I think there are system-based solutions here.

 

[Campbell]

The fact that the DM is not a worldbuilder and is instead obligated to frame scenes the way the game demands is why I don't want to ever run such a game. Doesn't mean anything by itself regarding agency.

The point you are responding to was not about agency, but rather the context by which these mechanics from other games should be addressed. Rather than responding them as if they were directly inserted into your D&D game. That point was not directly related to the agency discussion.

Where I do address agency concerns in that post is when I bring up obligations and responsibilities. All sorts of agency (including real life agency) are dependent on structures and compacts wherein exchange for a certain level of authority people agree to take on certain responsibilities / duties that are accountable for. In order to exercise our agency, we all depend on the structures/institutions in place to make decisions. How that manifests in particular game will differ, but all agency is fundamentally dependent on others performing their responsibilities.

I also don't see why it's so necessary for to keep bringing up your preferences in regard to points that are not related to personal preferences but rather attempting to bring clarity to how things work.

 

[Cadence]

So the reason to avoid player agency is that some players are skilful in the exercise of their agency? To me that doesn't make much sense.

Some players will skillfully use some game mechanics to dodge the spirit of some campaigns. Maybe it is because they want to "win" or "optimize", or maybe it's because they find themselves drawn to doing things in spite of their intentions. If such players are in the group, then games with those mechanics might not unfold in the spirit others at the table would appreciate.

It feels like this could happen if you have a group of 3.5/PF players who are all interested into getting into their characters heads via the role play and most find having access to all the character options helps them design exactly the character they want to investigate the thoughts, but then another player is sidetracked into min-maxing and finds themselves using the full array of options to design something that is at an entirely different power level from the rest of the party and warps the structure of the sessions. The same could be true for a group that decided they want to be efficient at finishing the dungeon, but one player can't resist some thematic choices that are suboptimal in the dungeon itself.

It feels like it could be a problem in social commander/EDH where most of the group has self modulated their decks to roughly the same power level. Some sprinkle the otherwise powerful deck with quirky choices to modulate it down and try fun things, while others have a quirky theme that is made playable by choosing some very powerful cards that would be overkill in many other decks. But one of them takes advantage of the format having very few restrictions to construct something that generally blows everyone else off the table.

It feels like mechanics people call meta-gamey (which are called that or felt to be that seem to vary a lot from player to player) are disliked by some because they are detrimental to staying in character or in the spirit of the game. ("My Barbarian jumps off the 500' cliff to escape." "But that's crazy!?!" "Nah, I've got more than enough hit points and the falling damage caps off pretty soon." - others might be not be tripped up by that's but the rules about how things don't catch fire, or encumbrance, damage coming with no penalties, or inspiration).

I certainly don't think the availability of all the game books, no banned lists, and being able to jump off 500' cliffs or anything else that passes the letter of the rules (are they all things that when allowed give more options and choices for the players)- should be taken away from everyone. But I think they might not be optimal choices for all players and desired play styles or goals.

I am much happier personally with more options in the first two and many things others find too "meta-gamey" in the third, but there are other "meta-gamey" things that get me out of character and grate against my soul. I know others who seemingly can't avoid optimizing for power no matter what and didn't mesh well with the groups. The mystic ability to pause time to go back and prepare something that is needed in the present (even if there is a cost based in how big the change is and a chance of failure) seems way to meta-gamey for me in most genres. I gather that there are some versions of the stochastic ogre I'm fine with that are not fine for others. Thankfully there are many play groups and systems.

 

[pemerton]

Some players will skillfully use some game mechanics to dodge the spirit of some campaigns.

<snip>

It feels like mechanics people call meta-gamey (which are called that or felt to be that seem to vary a lot from player to player) are disliked by some because they are detrimental to staying in character or in the spirit of the game. ("My Barbarian jumps off the 500' cliff to escape." "But that's crazy!?!" "Nah, I've got more than enough hit points and the falling damage caps off pretty soon." - others might be not be tripped up by that's but the rules about how things don't catch fire, or encumbrance, damage coming with no penalties, or inspiration).

I don't really see how this relates to the actual examples of RPGs or of play that are being described as "altering reality".

How do any of the action declarations I've talked about, or the BitD flashback mechanic, involve not staying in character or departing from the spirit of the game?

What does the fact that some people play a game with mechanics that are broken for their purposes (eg they use falling rules that don't deliver the fiction they want) relate to the mechanics of Burning Wheel, or BitD, or Dungeon World, or whatever?