An examination of player agency

[Umbran]

Agency defined

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

It is an Okay definition.

I disagree. It is an incredibly weak definition, which focuses most on where agency comes from instead of on what agency IS.

The "inviolable rules" part looks to me to be personal commentary on how best to achieve agency, not part of the actual definition of it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Fair enough I think I misunderstood what you meant by steering. To me this is a perfectly fine tool you are describing but it isn’t for everyone and it’s presence doesn’t really seem to alter agency to me (it is more like wish lists or something which help ensure players get something they want out of the campaign in terms of equipment, and that can matter for builds, but I don’t see as enhancing agency). I think tools like this though can radically alter how plays feel so I probably would say with a game like D&D it is better to keep them optional

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.

They do but these kinds of style divisions can also become a religion. I am all for OSR style play. I like thinking my games respect agency. I don’t think it is a zero sum game though. My games aren't made better by denigrating other games or styles of play (and belittling people who don’t play OSR style sandboxes as not having real agency, is a closed minded way to share the style: plus it makes people not even want to try it). A sandbox is one way to avoid railroads and pursue agency. I don’t think it is the only or the best way.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

Consistency is paramount at what level of the game?

Because I can say right now that I'm playing a Mothership game in which we found out last session that the villain of the scenario is a powerful AI that has the ability to plan ahead and strategize at a level beyond what we as PCs could handle. There were clear rules for the GM about how that impacted the game, but those rules were not necessarily ones that we as players knew going in but had to discover in the course of investigation of the "dungeon", i.e. the space station.

Was this consistent? Did we have meaningful choices? Did we have agency if the AI could potentially counteract whatever we had planned?

I can only say that this made complete sense within the narrative of the game, it increased the tension of the game, and we still were able to impact the scenario, though not in the way that we necessarily thought at the beginning of the scenario.

When you say that it's paramount, it suggests that the absence or hindrance of it automatically results in a lesser game, which is the problem I have with these threads. Even from the OP's initial post, the framing of his definition of player agency is to view games that fall outside their particular definition as being wrong somehow, not to mention you then have others chiming in with asides of "games versus storytelling exercises".

I'm perfectly fine with someone saying they don't enjoy a particular game or a style of play, but this thread so far (as the GM fiat thread and others that spawned it...we're on the 3rd or 4th iteration now) state in a very high-minded way that "Your fun is wrong."

 

[hawkeyefan]

“Your fun is wrong."

Except there was an entire section of the OP that already addressed this.

 

[zakael19]

I disagree. It is an incredibly weak definition, which focuses most on where agency comes from instead of on what agency IS.

The "inviolable rules" part looks to me to be personal commentary on how best to achieve agency, not part of the actual definition of it.

The rest of the post essentially says that agency comes from these things, because without them players cannot clearly set and pursue goals within and for play with the expectation they will be able to realize the goals (or at least make an honest effort).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Except there was an entire section of the OP that already addressed this.

I know and I found that section particularly frustrating because he anticipates the concern but dismisses is because he too has played D&D and he's reached the conclusion that in these styles players don't have the agency they think they have. I agree with him: the two approaches are different and the differences are worth talking about. But farming it the way he does just comes off as one true wayism

He is basically saying "Yeah, your way can be fun, so long as you don't care about agency"

 

[hawkeyefan]

I know and I found that section particularly frustrating because he anticipates the concern but dismisses is because he too has played D&D and he's reached the conclusion that in these styles players don't have the agency they think they have. I agree with him: the two approaches are different and the differences are worth talking about. But farming it the way he does just comes off as one true wayism

He is basically saying "Yeah, your way can be fun, so long as you don't care about agency"

Yes!

Although I think it’s more about prioritizing agency. If you prioritize things aside from agency… which many folks will say they do… then why is this assessment in any way an issue?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes!

Although I think it’s more about prioritizing agency. If you prioritize things aside from agency… which many folks will say they do… then why is this assessment in any way an issue?

Because people playing the ways he is saying don't have agency, care about agency and find agency in those style of play. Agency is something people value. So it comes of not just as dismissive, but kind of arrogant (it is like saying "Oh you like that director, yeah his movies are great fun, if you don't care about well written characters": There is a judgment in the statement, and I think it is a judgement that is built on some very shaky assumptions in his argument about what agency is exactly)

 

[AlexofBarbaria]

I'm not sure what you mean by "invalidate".

The player of the dummy hand in bridge obviously doesn't have agency, because their partner gets to play all their cards. The fact that it is their partner who is in control doesn't change their lack of agency.

Invalidate -- make pointless. I know OP has said RPGing isn't necessarily pointless even if they players have no agency. I guess I agree, but would argue that even playstyles requiring player agency work with trad GM power.

I don't know how to play bridge, but if the players have a conversation about what should be done with the dummy hand (as happens constantly between the GM and players in an RPG) they share control, unless one player has no capacity to influence the other.

When it comes to RPGing, if the GM is in control, then it seems clear enough that the players are not.

That's not clear to me. I can think of many situations where people share control over something, even when one person has the final say.

If I convince my boss at work that a project is worth doing, is that not an expression of agency because they had final say?

Does a film director not have any agency at all unless they have final cut?

What about sports like boxing, figure skating or gymnastics where the winner is decided by a judge? Are those sham competitions because to some degree the outcome is up to the judges' whim?

In each case I would say of course they have agency, assuming they have at least some influence over the judge.

Furthermore we can usually identify capricious or biased judges. So rules preventing them from acting this way aren't necessary. Same thing with GMs and RPGs. Players can tell when they don't have any influence over the game and tend to leave games like that. There are mechanisms to correct the problem on the meta-game level.

No, it absolutely is not. There are participants in a game. Those participants can have agency or not, according to inviolable rules, which the players know and rely on to achieve known goals.

The game can be competitive (chess) or collaborative (Pandemic, Too Many Bones) and these structural components of agency remain the same.

If your point is that RPGs can be perfectly functional and enjoyable in the absence of player agency, I agree - I've played that style many times and the initial post says as much.

Let me pose a question: do you agree there's an important difference re agency between each of these cases?

a) player A's GM is completely unpredictable and ignores player input
b) player B's GM has final say but is consistent and open to player input
c) player C and their GM are bound by the rules to roll dice checks to resolve any disagreements between them

If so, how do you describe it? I would say only player A has no agency at all. I'm not even sure C has more agency than B. It depends on the rules of C's game and the degree of chemistry between B and their GM.

 

[bloodtide]

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.

This is a big one.

There are a lot of people that just have this problem at anyone has some level of authority over them and they rebel like crazy.