An examination of player agency

[Micah Sweet]

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!

Who said anyone was lying? I expect the OP believes every word they wrote. I just feel, in addition to disagreeing with them, that the sentiment was expressed in an unnecessarily arrogant way that was likely to irritate some people.

Seems I was right.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But then again this is turning into GM Fiat The Sequel and I’m very much not interested in doing that.

You want to switch back to martial vs. Caster?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I guess one of the things I would ask those who want agency to include autonomy, instead of player ability to effect change in the shared fiction is how we can get to a point where we as a community can meaningfully discuss the latter without having to write novels? What's the solution to having the conversations we want to have instead of fighting over definitions as a means to fight over expectations?

Someone has to come up with jargon, and a criticall mass of other people have to agree to use it.

 

[TiQuinn]

You want to switch back to martial vs. Caster?

 

[Pedantic]

I guess one of the things I would ask those who want agency to include autonomy, instead of player ability to effect change in the shared fiction is how we can get to a point where we as a community can meaningfully discuss the latter without having to write novels? What's the solution to having the conversations we want to have instead of fighting over definitions as a means to fight over expectations?

I don't think you can skip the rhetorical step where you persuade people you're right. You either have to do that, and convince everyone involved that your view of agency should be universal or concede the point and have a discussion about "authorial autonomy" or some other concept that signifies the thing you're driving at instead of player agency.

You can always start a plus thread and state your assumptions that are beyond question, but that transparently is not what's going on here.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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).

Maybe getting pushback is part of the point? Like… let’s talk about this stuff!

IMO the only that players do in every RPG is control their characters. Creating content outside your PCs influence is a sometimes food for gamers.

But we’re not even necessarily talking about stuff “outside the PCs”. Things like the goal of play can be very much related to the PCs.

Do you think you'd feel that way if you didn't already agree with the OP's fundamental point and definition of agency?

Yes! I’d argue my points, I’d try to counter argue the points made by the others. I would try to keep my comments focused on the content of what they said rather than how they said it. I would probably fail at that from time to time, but I’d try to avoid it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think you can skip the rhetorical step where you persuade people you're right. You either have to do that, and convince everyone involved that your view of agency should be universal or concede the point and have a discussion about "authorial autonomy" or some other concept that signifies the thing you're driving at instead of player agency.

You can always start a plus thread and state your assumptions that are beyond question, but that transparently is not what's going on here.

Yeah, as I've said before when people start getting soggy about "semantic arguments", semantics matters; until you have an agreement about terms and their implications, a discussion can't really happen because people will keep talking past each other. You may end up during the argument about terms discovering people have irrevocable disagreements about them (or as what seems to be going on here to at least some degree) what constitutes them, but that's the way it goes.

 

[dragoner]

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.

D&D play style dominates, it isn't about wanting it is about only knowing that style. I have a disabled friend that likes RPG's, pushed his wheelchair through GenCon before, this time he wanted to check out a new FLGS and so we went. He asked why I wasn't promoting my game there, so we went over to talk to the owner. The owner was excited to talk to a local game designer, though his only knowledge of RPG's was from the adventure path style, it is mostly a boardgame, CCG type joint. He would like me to come in and run games, I can, though it is a lot of work, it generally goes well. One has to get over the hump of explaining that there isn't a level grind, and that the character's prior careers aren't their character role. Some dig it, some do not. So "If everyone understands what the game is going to be ..." isn't so easy. Adding to that setting fiction player authority, that is becoming expert RPG player territory. It is all good though.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I am quoting this out of order because I sympathize with your frustration and experience this myself quite recently in fact. Now, the cause of this was different; more how the group choose to handle their campaigns with this referee. However, the proximate cause was similar, I was there because of an old friend from high school that I recently reconnected with. Go VTTs.

Yes, this is one of the drawbacks of playing with friends… there may be social factors at play that influence decision making on games.

I am not trying to pick an argument here. But was this a case of no agency? As opposed to limited agency that wasn't your cup of tea, so to speak, i.e., the only meaningful choices came during combat. Was he instructing the group and you on what to do in combat?

Keep in mind Agency limited to combat doesn't make it any less of an issue.

I suppose we had agency in combat. Not about whether combat happened or not… we were only ever able to talk our way out of one fight. Every other time, it was a foregone conclusion. And it was obvious to the point where we mostly stopped trying to avoid fights.

But in combat, we could make decisions, sure. I’d say that’s a really minimal amount of agency, though.

Outside of combat? The GM asked “what do you do?” one time. It was near the start of the campaign, and it was to ask us if we wanted to become the defenders of a town… to which the obvious answer was meant to be “yes”.

So we said yes… and then it was one mission after the other, with “random” encounters as we’d travel from the town to other locations.

A reasonable choice given the social circumstance.

Yeah, I didn’t want to upset him in any way. He’s been through a lot, and has his condition on top of that, and just seems very potentially fragile.

Anyone else in my group, though… I would have asked to have a discussion about the game.

 

[pemerton]

As far as APs, I do believe that the style exhibits a lower level of player agency than some others, including sandbox play and most Narrativist games I know of. From my perspective, if you are expected to follow a story progression to attain a specific goal (as in, that's the game we're playing), and the GM exerts any pressure to keep the players on that progression, through the module, their own notes or otherwise, then player agency is going to be reduced (though not eliminated). That doesn't mean it's an inferior game to mine or anyone else's. It just means what I said it means.

Ditto for the OP!