An examination of player agency

[zakael19]

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

I think the OP's excellent argument that you cannot celebrate player agency at the same time as structuring your gameplay to remove said agency solid. Note that you can, in fact, do all the points there in something like D&D 5e. You can have players create characters with concrete goals, and group ones. You can be open about resolving tasks towards a larger conflict that is in service to the player's goals. You can take your cues of where play goes from the pre-stated pass/fail events. You can ask questions about the world, allow players to establish fiction or use knowledge/perception rolls or whatever to help that happen. The design might fight you some, but it's totally doable (I've done it and had players say stuff like "wow this is what it looks like when a DM actually means Im giving you agency?").

The difference is that you need to opt into it, and have players who are on board with working outside the baseline system a bit; since 5e doesn't give you the same hooks to grab or conflict resolution mechanics that are much more clearly player-goal oriented. 4e did so, and games like Lancer/ICON etc show another way you can meld really tight combat with strong player-agency centered narratives.

And I also concur with OP that lots of people dont really want this play. Many are quite happy with enjoying a story mostly told to them, with a little bit of their backstory laid in & some space to do 3 hour shopping expeditions or tavern scenes to reclaim some agency for a bit before relinquishing it again.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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?

Yes and the definition the OP begins with seems deeply flawed. My issue with the OP is it feels like an argument trying to capture agency for particular style of games (I.e. If you don't play games like Burning Wheel, you don't have agency). That is just kind of absurd IMO. I mean if you think these games have something great to offer, and it sounds like they do, by all means, advocate for them. But when the method of advocacy is this aggressive "you don't really have agency unless you are playing the games I am playing" it doesn't make people want to hear you out, it puts people on the defensive and makes them question your motives

Also this whole argument reminds me a lot of Wick's "D&D isn't a roleplaying game" argument using chess as an analogy

 

[NN]

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?

Random Thoughts

My hunch is your definition of agency is Narritivist and doesnt work for other agendas.

Afficionados of sandboxes will describe their preference in terms of “player agency”. If not actually agency that a sandbix gives what is it?

By rules Do you mean mechanics or the whole game ? Eg in some D&Dish games the players can say “**** it, hoist the black flag, lets slit throats and be Bad” . In some that would give the GM conniptions.
Is that about agency?


I think a problem with adventure paths, that gets mixed up with agency, is that they frustrate gamists by fudging failiure and limiring success.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Afficionados of sandboxes will describe their preference in terms of “player agency”. If not actually agency that a sandbix gives what is it?

Not just this but most sandbox people would acknowledge that agency exists in other adventure structures, even one that might seem more narrow like an adventure path (especially if the Players have the ability to get off that path if they want to). You don't necessarily need mechanics to have agency (though some mechanics can help it). The problem with this argument is it essentially is saying agency doesn't exist in most systems and styles of play, just the ones the OP has in mind and presumably is trying to promote

 

[Wolfpack48]

I think the OP's excellent argument that you cannot celebrate player agency at the same time as structuring your gameplay to remove said agency solid. Note that you can, in fact, do all the points there in something like D&D 5e. You can have players create characters with concrete goals, and group ones. You can be open about resolving tasks towards a larger conflict that is in service to the player's goals. You can take your cues of where play goes from the pre-stated pass/fail events. You can ask questions about the world, allow players to establish fiction or use knowledge/perception rolls or whatever to help that happen. The design might fight you some, but it's totally doable (I've done it and had players say stuff like "wow this is what it looks like when a DM actually means Im giving you agency?").

The difference is that you need to opt into it, and have players who are on board with working outside the baseline system a bit; since 5e doesn't give you the same hooks to grab or conflict resolution mechanics that are much more clearly player-goal oriented. 4e did so, and games like Lancer/ICON etc show another way you can meld really tight combat with strong player-agency centered narratives.

And I also concur with OP that lots of people dont really want this play. Many are quite happy with enjoying a story mostly told to them, with a little bit of their backstory laid in & some space to do 3 hour shopping expeditions or tavern scenes to reclaim some agency for a bit before relinquishing it again.

Have no issue with player agency and establishing character goals. What bores me is the attempt to systemize agency with strict rules and elaborate mechanics. Playing a character is an art not a science.

This feels very much like trying to solve a human social problem by completely changing the nature of the game. Wouldn’t it be easier to just find a group that better matches your playstyle?

 

[dragoner]

A lot of these kind of posts seem vague until one pins down they are talking about a specific game, and just trying to import the play style from that to another. Many times, when agency, or other issues come up, it is after something has gone wrong, like a player rebellion against some direction the GM is trying to push them into. Bad players can sometimes be reined in, bad GM's usually never.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A lot of these kind of posts seem vague until one pins down they are talking about a specific game, and just trying to import the play style from that to another. Many times, when agency, or other issues come up, it is after something has gone wrong, like a player rebellion against some direction the GM is trying to push them into. Bad players can sometimes be reined in, bad GM's usually never.

Yeah, when I see this sort of post I really wish they would just tell us what they think is the One True Way, accept no substitute, since it is very clear to me that they have one.

 

[dragoner]

Yeah, when I see this sort of post I really wish they would just tell us what they think is the One True Way, accept no substitute, since it is very clear to me that they have one.

Plus many times the op is a "why I don't like 5e" kind of post, which I can understand, that isn't the kind of post to make in the D&D section, so it winds up here in general. As far as different games, I mean the play style of 5e, OSR, Call of Cthulhu, Traveller, etc. are all different, so when the point seems vague, it also might not be relevant. The principle of "all generalizations are false" takes over.

One true way-ism is often fanatical, and fanaticism is the death of reason.

 

[zakael19]

Not just this but most sandbox people would acknowledge that agency exists in other adventure structures, even one that might seem more narrow like an adventure path (especially if the Players have the ability to get off that path if they want to). You don't necessarily need mechanics to have agency (though some mechanics can help it). The problem with this argument is it essentially is saying agency doesn't exist in most systems and styles of play, just the ones the OP has in mind and presumably is trying to promote

I mean, it probably doesn’t at least to the “driving definition of play” extent the OP posits. Strongly curtailed or permissive agency might exist in a campaign/AP play within bounds, such as letting players add in a rival from their backstory that’s then woven into the narrative; or pick between some set of hooks they want to pursue; etc. but I think you need a way for players to set the goal of play without GM steering, within the confines of premise.

 

[zakael19]

Yeah, when I see this sort of post I really wish they would just tell us what they think is the One True Way, accept no substitute, since it is very clear to me that they have one.

I think it’s an interesting well supported argument for what they think player-agency looks like. If you think it has a different definition and your play supports that, why not share? It’s a buzzword for sure in the hobby.