An examination of player agency

[hawkeyefan]

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)

I would argue that those people you’re talking about value agency up to the amount they are allowed to have… or perhaps they value something that is often mistaken for player agency… like character autonomy.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I would argue that those people you’re talking about value agency up to the amount they are allowed to have… or perhaps they value something that is often mistaken for player agency… like character autonomy.

Again, I think you lose people when you tell them the way they are playing isn't what they think it is. And I think it is disingenuous to front load a style argument with a definition that leads to the conclusion you want. A lot of the tools he is talking about, I think are quite interesting. A poster just mentioned something in Blades int eh Dark for example I want to take a closer look at because it might solve a problem I am trying to address in a campaign I will be running soon. So I see the value in what he is advocating for. But I think he undermines his own position by trying to convince people they are deluded about how much agency they have in other types of play styles and systems. And on top of that, it kind of redefines agency (as you are in this post as well).

 

[zakael19]

Again, I think you lose people when you tell them the way they are playing isn't what they think it is. And I think it is disingenuous to front load a style argument with a definition that leads to the conclusion you want. A lot of the tools he is talking about, I think are quite interesting. A poster just mentioned something in Blades int eh Dark for example I want to take a closer look at because it might solve a problem I am trying to address in a campaign I will be running soon. So I see the value in what he is advocating for. But I think he undermines his own position by trying to convince people they are deluded about how much agency they have in other types of play styles and systems. And on top of that, it kind of redefines agency (as you are in this post as well).

I think it would be interesting for people who say "well my players have agency, just not like how the OP says" to try and provide what they mean by agency then. If your game isn't structured such that players can state and expect to achieve goals for play/characters by making and enacting them on the game, then what sort of agency are you permitting them?

Is it agency of speech? Interaction? Do you have a stated or unstated expectation that players can have agency to enact choices at certain stages of play; just as an example where the Rime of the Frostmaiden AP says "ok, the start of play is a sandbox - pick a direction/rumor within the scope of Icewind Dale and go."

I think that much like @chaochou I've seen lots of folks across the internet talk about how they "facilitate player agency" but don't actually mean that the player(s) have the ability to make fundamental decisions about the direction of play and enact them in a consistent manner.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Again, I think you lose people when you tell them the way they are playing isn't what they think it is. And I think it is disingenuous to front load a style argument with a definition that leads to the conclusion you want. A lot of the tools he is talking about, I think are quite interesting. A poster just mentioned something in Blades int eh Dark for example I want to take a closer look at because it might solve a problem I am trying to address in a campaign I will be running soon. So I see the value in what he is advocating for. But I think he undermines his own position by trying to convince people they are deluded about how much agency they have in other types of play styles and systems. And on top of that, it kind of redefines agency (as you are in this post as well).

I don’t think it’s a definition that is tailored to the conclusion. I think that my comments in the recent GM Fiat thread likely show that I’m largely in agreement with the definition offered by the OP.

Player agency is about the player. It’s about the player making meaningful choices about play. To make meaningful choices, they have to have a reasonable sense of how the game functions. They need to know what the purpose of play is.

If you think player agency is better defined in another way, or that not all of the elements @chaochou mentioned in the OP are relevant, then provide your definition, or challenge his.

But asserting “that’s not right” without really getting into why isn’t offering much.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think it would be interesting for people who say "well my players have agency, just not like how the OP says" to try and provide what they mean by agency then. If your game isn't structured such that players can state and expect to achieve goals for play/characters by making and enacting them on the game, then what sort of agency are you permitting them?

I am happy to let other posters have a conversation about what agency is. Perhaps a thread devoted to the question (rather than one that leads with the OPs defintion) is a better starting point, and examines some of the different descriptions of agency in different rules books and by different designers (rather than a definition that is clearly anchored in one school of thought).

I think the definition of agency is up for discussion in the thread. But I also think that agency is more about stuff like character autonomy, the ability of the players to engage with elements of the setting that interest them, set goals and try to achieve them (I think the OP sets up a weird requirement about this though in his definition). But importantly, I am not trying to tell people that they do or don't have agency in their games. I think there is a degree of subjectivity to it. But I also think this definition is clearly intended to weight the discussion towards a particular conclusion (and the attitude towards other styles of play is also pretty clear).

 

[TiQuinn]

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

Really? Because in that section is this:

“The problem isn’t the playstyle – the presence or lack of agency. However - the claims about it, the illusion that the players’ actions matter in games where any or all of the goals of play, permissible moves, processes of play or results are held by the GM, are untenable.”

In a nutshell, OP is essentially saying enjoy your game if you like (their passing glance towards acknowledging that people can enjoy what they like), but if you do claim to have player agency in your game, you accede to my definition and if you don’t agree with my conclusions, I find your game untenable.

 

[robertsconley]

Consistency is paramount at what level of the game?

The answer depends entirely on the creative goals.

So, did we have meaningful choices? Did we have agency, even if the AI could potentially predict and counter our plans?

Yes, because the creative goal of the game was to simulate characters navigating a dangerous, semi-realistic universe where such an AI could plausibly exist. The tension it created was consistent with that goal. And within that frame, you did make meaningful decisions, just not always with full understanding or perfect outcomes.

Likewise, look at games like Call of Cthulhu or The One Ring. In those systems, your character will, given enough time, go insane or fall to Shadow. There is no escaping that fate.

But that doesn't mean you lack agency. The goal in those games is to see how far your character can go before that point. What impact they can make. Whether they retire with their soul intact, these are meaningful choices tailored to the setting and system's tone.

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".

Here’s where I stand:

Yes, I talk a lot about sandbox campaigns, which aim to maximize player agency. That’s my preference. But it’s just that, a preference. I like sandbox play the same way I like the color blue. Blue isn't superior to red. It’s just the one I gravitate toward.

What matters is whether a campaign's degree of agency supports its creative goals, not whether it hits some universal threshold.

So let me ask this:
Have you played a campaign or RPG that offered no meaningful choices or agency? Not just fewer than you liked, but none at all?

I ask not to trap you, but because I suspect that even in such cases, we’d find meaningful choices aligned with the creative goals. That’s the point I’m driving at: the amount of agency should match the goals, not exceed or ignore them.

And when that happens, I’d argue that agency and meaningful choices are present, even constrained, delayed, or subtle.

Hope this clarifies things.

 

[TiQuinn]

So let me ask this:
Have you played a campaign or RPG that offered no meaningful choices or agency? Not just fewer than you liked, but none at all?

I ask not to trap you, but because I suspect that even in such cases, we’d find meaningful choices aligned with the creative goals. That’s the point I’m driving at: the amount of agency should match the goals, not exceed or ignore them.

And when that happens, I’d argue that agency and meaningful choices are present, even constrained, delayed, or subtle.

None at all? I’m hard pressed to think of one. I’ve played a railroad or two but I usually even within those there are still key decisions my PC can make to change the outcome. I don’t find the lack of player agency nearly as destructive as some.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But asserting “that’s not right” without really getting into why isn’t offering much.

People did explain why. There have been a bunch of different posters pointing to aspects of the defitnion they consider a problem. But no one is obligated to. If you come into a thread and say "it is only real roleplaying if you are deeply immersed in character all the time, and only do things in first person". We can tell you that doesn't sound like roleplaying to us, and we aren't under an obligation to offer a different definition. There are lots of reasons for example to keep a more flexible and open definition of terms like agency and roleplaying (for example because they can mean slightly different things to different game groups and in different RPGs). Still people pointed out where they thought it had issues

 

[robertsconley]

None at all? I’m hard pressed to think of one. I’ve played a railroad or two but I usually even within those there are still key decisions my PC can make to change the outcome. I don’t find the lack of player agency nearly as destructive as some.

That been my experience as well. I know many folks who had fun with campaigns that were railroads, and comfortable with the choices they had. Hence my points about considering creative goals with issue of player agency.