An examination of player agency

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, it probably doesn’t at least to the “driving definition of play” extent the OP posits.

I think that is part of the problem though, the definition and explanation of agency the OP offers

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.

It is going to try from group to group. I wouldnt' equate creating a rival with agency. But I think even in an AP there are ways for characters to have agency, and for players even to break out of an AP if agency demands it (it really comes down to how the group is running it). The point is agency isn't some unique thing only one style of play encourages. I like sandbox play, but I think other styles can have it too.

but I think you need a way for players to set the goal of play without GM steering, within the confines of premise.

If you want that, totally fine. But why do we need to have it? Some people are perfectly content with the GM controlling setting elements for example and managing things outside the characters. There is nothing wrong with this as a preference and it doesn't impede agency (this kind of GM authority is one of the things that can enhance agency). But I think what we are really talking about is a preference of style and different kinds of freedom. If you want a game where players have greater parity with teh GM, fair enough. But I think making it into an agency argument, especially if the point you are making is "these other styles don't have real agency" is just going to piss people off

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I pretty much agree with @Bedrockgames in so far as my preference is concerned. The amount of player agency in a typical sandbox-style game (for example any of Kevin Crawford's Without Number games) is perfect for me, and even the more limited agency of an adventure path can be fun sometimes. The OPs claim on what player agency has to be is too extreme for me to have fun in an RPG with it, and yes, IMO they very clearly are presenting their argument in an "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" sort of way, and I don't like that either.

 

[dragoner]

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.

Cutting to the chase, are you ruining someone else's game? Joining an adventure path is "this is what you signed up for" sabotaging the game, and then pulling the agency card is a major dick move. It's not like I haven't seen people do this either, it is really bad when it's a experienced player, with a new GM, who is using the AP to learn how to GM, and someone comes along just to wreck the game because they don't like AP's in principle. Some will also try to steal the spotlight or grandstand, and the only way they can accomplish this is by wrecking everything.

 

[zakael19]

I think that is part of the problem though, the definition and explanation of agency the OP offers



It is going to try from group to group. I wouldnt' equate creating a rival with agency. But I think even in an AP there are ways for characters to have agency, and for players even to break out of an AP if agency demands it (it really comes down to how the group is running it). The point is agency isn't some unique thing only one style of play encourages. I like sandbox play, but I think other styles can have it too.



If you want that, totally fine. But why do we need to have it? Some people are perfectly content with the GM controlling setting elements for example and managing things outside the characters. There is nothing wrong with this as a preference and it doesn't impede agency (this kind of GM authority is one of the things that can enhance agency). But I think what we are really talking about is a preference of style and different kinds of freedom. If you want a game where players have greater parity with teh GM, fair enough. But I think making it into an agency argument, especially if the point you are making is "these other styles don't have real agency" is just going to piss people off

As a GM in my games I still control setting elements and things outside the characters, so I’m not sure where that comes from. In fact, in Blades for instance it’s imperative that the GM takes the factions and follows their goals and situations to press up against what the players want.

In OSR play, the GM has high/absolute authority over setting and world, but players still set the directionality of play within the premise. They know that they can set goals, and that there are sets of rules they can rely on to achieve those. They know that there's wandering monster tables, dungeon rules, random encounters guidelines, etc. I know principled OSR play prides itself on facilitating high player-agency in that regard.

 

[robertsconley]

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

I apologize for seemingly ignoring the rest of your post, but there’s a point.

First off, the statement I quoted is excellent. It’s also true. Consistency is paramount. Without it, players feel they have no meaningful choices, and agency breaks down.

But as you noted, player agency is a subject of intense debate. Why?

Because people disagree on how to implement it. Different systems and styles of play implement that core idea in fundamentally incompatible ways.

My advice to referees and game designers is simple:
Outline your creative goals, then design or choose methods that best support those goals in terms of player agency.

And remember: that way will be a way, not the way.

 

[zakael19]

Cutting to the chase, are you ruining someone else's game? Joining an adventure path is "this is what you signed up for" sabotaging the game, and then pulling the agency card is a major dick move. It's not like I haven't seen people do this either, it is really bad when it's a experienced player, with a new GM, who is using the AP to learn how to GM, and someone comes along just to wreck the game because they don't like AP's in principle. Some will also try to steal the spotlight or grandstand, and the only way they can accomplish this is by wrecking everything.

Huh? I think you've rather misunderstood both my comment and the OP. Im agreeing, agency is curtailed by default in AP play - you're there to play the AP, and the GM may work in some degree of space for you to add input or whatever; but to go beyond that is likely destructive play. So yes, I'd agree that sitting down to play a pre-written campaign generally means that you should be relaxing any expectation of strong player agency until proven otherwise.

 

[zakael19]

I apologize for seemingly ignoring the rest of your post, but there’s a point.

First off, the statement I quoted is excellent. It’s also true. Consistency is paramount. Without it, players feel they have no meaningful choices, and agency breaks down.

But as you noted, player agency is a subject of intense debate. Why?

Because people disagree on how to implement it. Different systems and styles of play implement that core idea in fundamentally incompatible ways.

My advice to referees and game designers is simple:
Outline your creative goals, then design or choose methods that best support those goals in terms of player agency.

And remember: that way will be a way, not the way.

"Meaningful choice" is a good one. I was waiting for somebody to reply with what I've often seen cited as what they mean by "player agency:" that the players can make meaningful choices during play. Because now we need to define meaningful! APs tend to think it's "do you choose faction 1, 2 or 3 to be friends with."

 

[robertsconley]

"Meaningful choice" is a good one. I was waiting for somebody to reply with what I've often seen cited as what they mean by "player agency:" that the players can make meaningful choices during play. Because now we need to define meaningful! APs tend to think it's "do you choose faction 1, 2 or 3 to be friends with."

I strongly recommend to consider "meaningful" to be relative to one's creative goals.

It may well be that “Do you choose faction 1, 2, or 3?” is more than sufficient for a particular campaign or system. Other creative goals may demand a broader or narrower range of options, or even sidestep the idea that there are discrete choices at all. That what’s meaningful lies on a spectrum of circumstances and factors.

 

[dragoner]

Huh? I think you've rather misunderstood both my comment and the OP. Im agreeing, agency is curtailed by default in AP play - you're there to play the AP, and the GM may work in some degree of space for you to add input or whatever; but to go beyond that is likely destructive play. So yes, I'd agree that sitting down to play a pre-written campaign generally means that you should be relaxing any expectation of strong player agency until proven otherwise.

It's mentioning the elephant in the room in the generic sense. Expectations, tone, should all be discussed before character generation, it is really important in that people talk of agency in relation to the character they want to make, without sort of disregarding that whatever the character made has to fit within the discussed parameters, or suffer for the fact of the GM having to make up special situations for them to feel involved. That is an extra burden on GM's, when they often have enough other stuff to do.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think meaningful choices are at the core of the agency, and I think the OP correctly identifies, that this requires certain level of predictability and coherence. However, in comparison to some other games like chess, I believe there happens a category error. For most games rules are what the game is. The game is defined by the rules, so the meaningful choices by participants are by necessity choices outlined by the rules. But substance of RPGs however is not the rules, it is the fiction, and choices the players make are fundamentally choices about engaging with fictional positioning. Now the requirement about predictability and coherence still applies but it is about those qualities in the fiction. Codifying some fictional elements in the rules might help to achieve this coherence, but that is merely a one tool for achieving it, it is not a requirement. Fundamentally the RPGs work by the GM creating a compelling fictional situation, and the players interacting with that situation via their characters, and making meaningful choices about it. Setting goals for characters and pursuing them, problem solving, negotiation with NPCs, characters having emotional reactions, etc, etc. None of this requires rules, although some rules certainly are very helpful and thus commonly employed. But make no mistake, the rules are still just a tool in service of the real game that is about the fiction.