An examination of player agency

[TiQuinn]

I think some people would be much happier playing board games.

 

[FrogReaver]

First of all, this is a thought provoking OP and well laid out. I gave it a like for that even though much of the analysis I disagree with.

The agency definition:
"Agency in games is the product of inviolable rules which the players know and can rely on to achieve known goals."

I'll assume this definition above for the rest of my points, even though it's not one I would personally use. I have a few questions about it.

1. In this definition what does rely on mean - is it just another way of stating the rules must be inviolable, or is there some additional meaning?
2. The definition includes the term 'known goals' - what are a few examples of unknown goals? When the definition includes 'known' in this term does that mean known to all participants in the game? What is the issue this is trying to prevent by not using the simpler construction 'to achieve goals'? Ultimately I'm trying to figure out if the 'known' in 'known goals' is possibly redundant.
3. Also out of curiosity, would the same definition apply to the GM?

Now a more specific example:

• Suppose there was a game that contained 1 inviolable rule, which says after the GM narrates the scene -> the players state what their characters do -> the GM narrates the results (which becomes a new scene) -> repeat. The rules are inviolable, known to the players, and can be relied on to achieve their known goals (in this case let's clarify that the players known goal is to roleplay their character with authenticity in whatever scene the GM frames).

Players in this example would seem to meet this definition of agency?

 

[chaochou]

Yeah a Campaign is one of them gygaxian mileu type things.

to the OP: how would you describe the difference between a (D&Dish) “railroad” and “sandbox”?

Hello.

I have a structured view on what constitutes a railroad. I view the fundamental element of a railroad as the GM setting of player character goals, which is incompatible with player agency. I don't say this a perjorative - it doesn't comment on the fun or value of the resulting play.

I have only nebulous views on what constitutes a sandbox - it seems to encompass quite a wide variety of set-ups and processes. I would, for example, describe my campaign of AD&D played with no GM and just with the DMG dungeon generation and encounter random tables and the character generation rules (4d6 in order drop the lowest, iirc) as a sandbox.

In contrast, I ran a Call of Cthulhu game - which again I would call a sandbox - where (scripted) events in a 'living world' led players to 'investigate' scripted stories with opaque processes and hidden goals.

My conclusion would be that the concepts of sandbox and player agency are independent of each other.

What are your thoughts?

 

[pemerton]

I think some people would be much happier playing board games.

Clearly, just as some people are happier not playing games at all.

But I'm not sure how this bears upon the topic of this thread.

 

[TiQuinn]

But I'm not sure how this bears upon the topic of this thread.

I think people are overly concerned about the idea that GM has some level of authority over the game and rather than go on about the superiority of their one true game that achieves their particular level of Nirvana, they’d be much happier playing a board game.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I think people are overly concerned about the idea that GM has some level of authority over the game and rather than go on about the superiority of their one true game that achieves their particular level of Nirvana, they’d be much happier playing a board game.

The method of starting with chess as the analogy to RPG makes me tend to agree. Why are we putting competitive boardgame constraints and frameworks on a cooperative storytelling exercise? Answer: because some people want RPG to be more like board (and computer) games.

 

[dragoner]

The definition I use is from the dictionary Agency: the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power. Theough in practice this is sort of a dicey thing, and isn't so cleanly delineated, the GM can say "no your character can't do that" and it is often fine, though sometimes not.

 

[darkbard]

The method of starting with chess as the analogy to RPG makes me tend to agree. Why are we putting competitive boardgame constraints and frameworks on a cooperative storytelling exercise? Answer: because some people want RPG to be more like board (and computer) games.

Last I checked, and for the half century of mainstream RPG history, these things have been called role-playing games, not role-playing storytelling exercises, for a reason.

 

[TiQuinn]

Last I checked, and for the half century of mainstream RPG history, these things have been called role-playing games, not role-playing storytelling exercises, for a reason.

As if somehow those things are different.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Last I checked, and for the half century of mainstream RPG history, these things have been called role-playing games, not role-playing storytelling exercises, for a reason.

The effort to turn RPG guidelines into hard and immutable rules is as old as the hobby itself.