An examination of player agency

[pemerton]

I am not worried if Micah has a slightly different take than I do

But @chaochou having a slightly different take does worry you?

 

[Bedrockgames]

But @chaochou having a slightly different take does worry you?

I don't worry at all about slightly different takes. I do think an OP telling people they are delusional if they think their styles allow for agency, isn't the same as having a slightly different take. It is more of a one-true-way post IMO

 

[hawkeyefan]

I was travelling earlier and not able to reply to many posts. I just skimmed back through the thread and quoted some snippets to respond to.

As if somehow those things are different.

Storytelling exercises and games are different things to me, for sure. Games have rules. Generally speaking, rules that are expected to matter... that they not be cast aside.

As I've said in the past, and as the OP cited... if you look at almost any other game, it's very easy to see where and how players have agency.

If not actually agency that a sandbix gives what is it?

Character autonomy.

I am free to have my character go here, or go there, to do this or do that. Which is almost always all material created by the GM prior to the start of play.

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.

I think this is absolutely what the OP had in mind when talking about wanting one kind of game and getting the other, and bouncing off it hard.

If everyone understands what the game is going to be, and how it's going to work, prior to starting play... then everyone's on board. Agreeing to play an AP style game and then trying to run away from the plot? Yes, that's bad form. So would joining a player driven game and then just waiting around for plot hooks to grab you.

Now the requirement about predictability and coherence still applies but it is about those qualities in the fiction.

No, I think for player agency, it has to be about what the player does. It's not so much about the content of the fiction as the creation of that content. What binds the participants? When can they create content? To what scope or effect?

That's what players do. So it's best to examine player agency at that level.

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.

Without the rules, you're not really playing a game. This is related to my comment above about in response to the difference (or stated lack thereof) between storytelling exercises and games.

Without rules... who gets to speak when, what are they allowed to say, how do we resolve conflicts... there's little game. And without game, the idea of player agency doesn't even apply.

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.

This is hard to judge solely from a player's perspective. Did the GM elaborate on how he ran the AI? Does this happen to be the adventure module "Gradient Descent"?

If so, I am familiar with it, and although I think that it works per the rules of Mothership, which have a very skilled-play, old-school focus to them... part of Mothership is also that it is a horror game. And horror as a genre is very often about lack or loss of control. That may be very relevant.

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.

Yes, but as I said, there may also be other things they value. And at times, these two things may come into conflict. Let's say someone values immersion and also agency... for many, knowing the rules or understanding the processes or all the factors that may influence a given instance of play is an obstacle to immersion, and so they don't want it to happen.

For those people, I would say they prioritize immersion more than agency. Would you agree with that?

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.

I don't really agree with that sentiment. In some cases, yes, it's as clear as day when you're playing with a biased GM. But in many others, you may just be playing with one with wildly different takes on the rules than you. If the rules allow for such broad interpretation, then conflicts are going to arise.

Look at this discussion... look at many others here on ENW. I don't think anyone here is trying to advocate for capricious GMing so much as everyone just has different opinions about play and what makes for engaging and satisfactory play.

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 have! And not very long ago at all... last year, I believe. I did it out of obligation to a friend, who wanted to take a turn GMing. We were playing online, and I think he was so focused on trying to make sure that the combat encounters and the like ran well, that he basically just went from one to the next, while narrating bits of story in between.

It was a very frustrating play experience for me. I'm willing to play many types of games... as long as I know what a game will be when I sign up for it, I'm usually just fine. But this was much more of a railroad than I ever would have imagined. Because the GM in question is a good friend and because he suffers from some neurodivergent issues, neither I nor the other players wanted to complain for fear of upsetting him.

However, if it had been just about any other circumstance, I'd have either bowed out, or else spoken with the GM to try and address the issues.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I never concern myself with player agency. I run my campaign, and some players make choices that I exploit for ideas and plot twists, and some players are content to roll with the flow.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, but as I said, there may also be other things they value. And at times, these two things may come into conflict. Let's say someone values immersion and also agency... for many, knowing the rules or understanding the processes or all the factors that may influence a given instance of play is an obstacle to immersion, and so they don't want it to happen.

For those people, I would say they prioritize immersion more than agency. Would you agree with that?

But I don't think this describes many of the people the OP was talking about. Many of them I imagine wouldn't see knowing rules as interfering. I just think they would have a different understanding of agency than the OP. Like I don't think what the OP is describing doing is maximal agency at all. And I don't think we need to go over all the agency debates again, because I am fine with the OP having a definition of agency that is different mine. What bothers me is thinking his defintion is somehow more accurate, that players who find agency in a sandbox or in a campaign like Curse of Strahd are somehow delusional that they have agency. I think the definition is being loaded to support the style he wants to advocate for. And that wouldn't be problem, except it is used to belittle other styles (i.e. oh you can have fun in those type of campaigns....if you don't care about agency)

 

[hawkeyefan]

But I don't think this describes many of the people the OP was talking about. Many of them I imagine wouldn't see knowing rules as interfering. I just think they would have a different understanding of agency than the OP. Like I don't think what the OP is describing doing is maximal agency at all. And I don't think we need to go over all the agency debates again, because I am fine with the OP having a definition of agency that is different mine. What bothers me is thinking his defintion is somehow more accurate, that players who find agency in a sandbox or in a campaign like Curse of Strahd are somehow delusional that they have agency. I think the definition is being loaded to support the style he wants to advocate for. And that wouldn't be problem, except it is used to belittle other styles (i.e. oh you can have fun in those type of campaigns....if you don't care about agency)

Part of the point of an opinion paper is to be assertive. To state your thesis and then back it up. To present your case strongly and clearly. That's all that's going on.

As for the quality of the argument the OP puts forth... I think it's a compelling one. But it's up for debate. As I've already said... I'd much rather people argue the points rather than some perceived slight. And yes, that has happened a bit... but not nearly as much as the hand wringing and pearly clutching that's going on.

 

[Campbell]

I personally believe more conventional definitions of agency within the context of RPGs (which tend to ignore efficacy portion of the dictionary definition) are basically used to set a bar that if you try to reach over (if you have expectations about efficacy, ability to gain credible information that can be counted on or some degree of influence over content) you are being unreasonable. I also view it is specifically trying to cut out a range of play that is less conventional from the broader conversation.

Because I believe that a broad swathe of online discourse about roleplaying games comes from the perspective that having expectations about having efficacy or reliable information or especially the expectation that you might want to have some tailored content is something players should not have. That they should be happy with what they get.

 

[pemerton]

I'd much rather people argue the points rather than some perceived slight. And yes, that has happened a bit... but not nearly as much as the hand wringing and pearly clutching that's going on.

Yeah, I've had occasion to say something similar to this in other recent threads: instead of just expressing their views, posters feel obliged to accuse others of being dishonest, of being outrageous etc. In my view, the fact that someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they're lying!

 

[pemerton]

I personally

This feels like it was cut short!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Part of the point of an opinion paper is to be assertive. To state your thesis and then back it up. To present your case strongly and clearly. That's all that's going on.

As for the quality of the argument the OP puts forth... I think it's a compelling one. But it's up for debate. As I've already said... I'd much rather people argue the points rather than some perceived slight. And yes, that has happened a bit... but not nearly as much as the hand wringing and pearly clutching that's going on.

But maybe account for human nature? Like if you open a thread with "Styles X Y and Z think they have agency, but they are just fooling themselves" of course you are going to get pushback and people are going to take it as an attack on their style (because it does kind of read like one).