D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Oh, and Pemerton, we've been over this many times. It doesn't matter if you try to smuggle the reality editing via "knowing" or "remembering". It is still reality editing and you can dress up basically any setting addition/alteration in such a guise. It of course is fine to such a power to exist in some games, but I really don't get the need to try to obfuscate what's actually happening.

Mod Note:

And we’ve been over THIS many times: don’t make it personal.

Perhaps a vacation from this thread will give you a chance to reflect on that particular rule.

 

[pemerton]

@pemerton defined it as "the ability to affect the shared fiction" or something like that. He has also expressed his preference for high agency games. But if that is the case and the definition is sufficient, why do the games he plays have all sort of rules that limit the player's ability to affect the shared fiction? Certainly even higher agency is achieved by just letting the players say what happens, no checks or such needed? No?

Or is it perhaps not that straightforward? Is it perhaps that it is about meaningful choices, and giving the player too much authority erodes meaningfulness of the choices?

There's no need to speculate. I started a thread about exactly this earlier this year, and the OP sets out some of my own views: https://www.enworld.org/threads/why-do-rpgs-have-rules.697430/

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You need to let us know what you really think!

In Eero Tuovinen's defence, I have seen people offer this sort of explanation for the appeal of railroading, including in this thread:
And I certainly don't regret the time and effort I've put into the railroad-y CoC convention one-shots I've played.

I'm fairly sympathetic to this claim. I didn't find the railroad-y AD&D convention one-shots all that appealing.

Right, to be clear, I think I was actually more agreeing with you than disagreeing, if you follow me? Railroady play can be an attempt to do the 'grand tour' as Eero says. I mean, I'm sure that's a MOTIVE, I just find its likelihood to produce notable results as fairly limited. Now, other people have different tastes, so on and so forth. As you note with CoC, there are venues in which trad, and even pretty railroady, play can be useful. Certainly good old trad ala your weekly D&D game has enough merit to be pretty popular, and GMs can defer to players. I presume your 'vanilla narrativist' 1e games evolved that way. I mean, my 1990s D&D campaigns certainly started from a pretty trad origin, though I think in 6C terms they were maybe more neo-trad with some narrativism, maybe? These taxonomies are not all that easy to apply IRL... lol.

 

[Raiztt]

Yes, I sincerely believe we do. Not only does it help folks like me clearly avoid games I don't want to play and which would be a very bad fit for me and seek out games that may be a much better fit, it also helps people like @Raiztt in the same way, just flipped turnwise. They do not want "player agency." To include it would be damaging to their fun. Hence, being able to say, "I prefer a lower agency game" is, in fact, quite a useful thing to be able to say.

Low "player" agency*. Not just "low agency" in general.

 

[Golroc]

I acknowledge different styles and systems have different levels and kinds of agency. However, the term "low player agency" is derogatory and should be used with care. Voluntary lack of agency is associated with passivity, submissiveness and low intelligence in many cultures.

A player who is not interested in narrative agency, but cares about rollplay, character creation or even just interaction at the table is not "low agency" by definition. It is perfectly possible to combine low narrative agency with a highly interactive and expressive experience. I have seen it.

We can discuss agency and even how certain systems are high on (potential) agency compared to others, but let's please stay away from categorizing players in the same manner.

People who watch sports instead of participating do not have lower agency. They do not prefer "low agency activity". (And the distinctions for rogs are even less extreme than this)

There's great value in the discussion about how different systems and styles enable, codify, support and promote various kinds of sgency, even to someone like me who is skeptical about games with a focus on joint creation of fiction. You have actually piqued my interest, for what that's worth. But when I read posts categorizing players in somewhat unflattering language, I am right back feeling skeptical. I know this isn't about my feelings. But let's please remember that agency in the context of a system/table and the same in context of individuals have very different connotations.

Sorry for the ranty outburst, but I was surprised at some of what I read.

 

[Manbearcat]

People who watch sports instead of participating do not have lower agency. They do not prefer "low agency activity". (And the distinctions for rogs are even less extreme than this).

This statement is absolutely not true and doesn’t serve to help things. It should probably just be stricken from the record.

Every parent/guardian athlete ever would vehemently dispute this claim about sports above when watching their kid/ward. Their first commentary and lament is how agonizing the event typically is because they are helpless in watching their child/ward play precisely because the parent/guardian has little to no agency to impact events. They’re just stuck in an emotive, performative position of cheering and hoping rather than “doing the thing!”

EDIT: And this paradigm holds true for anyone invested to the outcome that is relegated to “spectator status” whether it be an American defensive Football player watching the offense take the field at the end of a game down a score or a starting pitcher who is up next game but has to watch his teammates on the brink of elimination try to extend a series to the next game (I’ve been in all of these situations! They suck!).

I don’t even understand how someone can say “spectators invested in an outcome have the same agency as an actual participant?” How can that even be a thing said?

 

[Campbell]

I really cannot take the athlete versus fan analogy seriously. I love my Detroit Lions, but my entire 30+ year fandom experience has been nothing but a sense of powerlessness to effect change. In comparison my time as a defensive tackle and defensive end was some of the highest agency I have ever felt in my life (obviously limited to the scope of the game). When I was in, I had the potential to on any down disrupt the play and potentially cause a turnover. Anyone who has ever played football at any level would never seriously tell you they have as much agency when the other side is on the field as when they are. That's hope and a prayer level stuff.

I think there's definite ground to be covered on how for insistence having nailed down setting information that can be discovered and manipulated can provide potentially more agency in some situations then scene framed play in some situations. We can have those discussions, but seriously man please use better examples. That like broke my brain.

 

[Golroc]

This statement is absolutely not true and doesn’t serve to help things. It should probably just be stricken from the record.

Every parent/guardian athlete ever would vehemently dispute this claim about sports above when watching their kid/ward. Their first commentary and lament is how agonizing the event typically is because they are helpless in watching their child/ward play precisely because the parent/guardian has little to no agency to impact events. They’re just stuck in an emotive, performative position of cheering and hoping rather than “doing the thing!”

EDIT: And this paradigm holds true for anyone invested to the outcome that is relegated to “spectator status” whether it be an American defensive Football player watching the offense take the field at the end of a game down a score or a starting pitcher who is up next game but has to watch his teammates on the brink of elimination try to extend a series to the next game (I’ve been in all of these situations! They suck!).

I don’t even understand how someone can say “spectators invested in an outcome have the same agency as an actual participant?” How can that even be a thing said?

Because people want different things. The family that would rather participate has less agency when watching. But not the ones who chose to watch. That was my whole point - people are not "low agency" purely because they don't choose one over the other.

 

[pemerton]

the term "low player agency" is derogatory

No it's not.

Here's some self-quoting:

I have left games because I lacked agency in them. I have made deliberate decisions in the context of choosing games, and GMing games, having regard to the effect on player agency. 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.

I've also posted about my Classic Traveller play, which had two or three sessions of relatively low agency exploration. I enjoyed those well enough, but as GM I did take deliberate steps to try and nudge play in a high agency direction after the first couple.

Some of the best RPGing I have done at conventions has been playing low player agency CoC scenarios.

<snip>

As a player my sole job was to enjoy what was going on, jump on board the GM's story, and emote my PC's descent into madness. I had very little agency in respect of the shared fiction. But they were fun, because the GM's were excellent performers, the stories were interesting, and I enjoyed my and my friends' emoting.

I am not putting myself down in any of these posts. I am describing, in general terms, the dynamics of the fiction creation in these various episodes of RPG play.

 

[Maxperson]

ALL of the adventure paths I've seen have a near 100% linear story where you go from A to B to C etc.

If the group goes off the path the DM is basically on his own until he can push them back on the path. So sure the group can go off the path, but only in a "we don't really want to do this module/adventure" way.

Ideally, the group has fully agreed to this constraint and wish to finish the adventure path. It needs to be part of the current table agreement.

Unless the table has agreed as you mention in the last sentence, there should be no "push them back on the path." Those paths can be exited. They are very linear adventures, but they are not railroads because the path can be exited. If you agree not to exit the path, then the adventures cease to be linear and become accepted railroads. The party is on the rails until the end.