An examination of player agency

[hawkeyefan]

Why is there a need to make an argument if the point for some people is play games and have fun? Who was proposing this “argument”?

In the very first post, he created a fantasy “other person” with which to argue? They have a term for that, right on the tip of my tongue…can’t quite place it. Oh well, no biggie.

Well, I think he addressed all this in the OP. Fun in and of itself doesn’t explain what play is about. It’s nearly universal for games to be about fun.

But they also have other goals. How are these determined? How do players go about achieving these goals? This is what’s being discussed.

 

[pemerton]

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

Was this a D&D game, where combat was mostly about deploying known, mechanically-defined "rules widgets" to deplete opponent hit points?

If so, that's particularly minimal agency as it barely pertains to shared fiction.

 

[MGibster]

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

It sounds like you want to play Descent or Hero Quest rather than an RPG. That's perfectly fine, but accepting your definition of agency as valid means RPGs wouldn't be much fun. An attempt to codify every conceivable action a player character might take is a Sisyphean task. What happens when a player attempts something that isn't clearly codified in the rules? Does it suddenly fail to provide players with agency?

For me, agency is the ability to make meaningful choices.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Was this a D&D game, where combat was mostly about deploying known, mechanically-defined "rules widgets" to deplete opponent hit points?

If so, that's particularly minimal agency as it barely pertains to shared fiction.

Yes, 5e D&D played online. I didn’t mention it because I don’t think it was the fault of the game.

We never made any decision that affected the direction of play. Our characters were literally sent on missions and probably 90% of them worked the same way… we’d arrive on the scene, trigger a kind of expo dump from an NPC, and then they would attack us.

We generally weren’t allowed to approach these different locations in different ways, like splitting up or trying to sneak our into a lair or what have you. A handful of times, maybe.

It was a frustrating experience.

 

[Jd Smith1]

It sounds like you want to play Descent or Hero Quest rather than an RPG. That's perfectly fine, but accepting your definition of agency as valid means RPGs wouldn't be much fun. An attempt to codify every conceivable action a player character might take is a Sisyphean task. What happens when a player attempts something that isn't clearly codified in the rules? Does it suddenly fail to provide players with agency?

For me, agency is the ability to make meaningful choices.

Truth.

Rules lay boundaries and structure, but in the end, they serve the players 9includeing the GM), not the other way around.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What happens when a player attempts something that isn't clearly codified in the rules?

Can’t a general rule be introduced for this that the player can understand and rely on?

 

[soviet]

An attempt to codify every conceivable action a player character might take is a Sisyphean task.

Rule 1 of 1: 'When a player wants their character to do something, flip a coin. Heads it works, tails it doesn't'.

You are very welcome.

 

[payn]

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?

Folks just gotta accept that people have different lines and degrees on the subject. If you feel sandbox must contain x,y,z agency elements then you need realize others don’t . Then, decide do I want to have an argument here or a discussion? Also, ask do they want an argument or a discussion?

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.

There is an art to suspending your position in the sake of interest in the conversation. If the person only considers x and z to be necessary agency items, it does no good to drag on about z. When the shoe is on the other foot, sometimes you gotta just disengage.

 

[Campbell]

It sounds like you want to play Descent or Hero Quest rather than an RPG. That's perfectly fine, but accepting your definition of agency as valid means RPGs wouldn't be much fun. An attempt to codify every conceivable action a player character might take is a Sisyphean task. What happens when a player attempts something that isn't clearly codified in the rules? Does it suddenly fail to provide players with agency?

For me, agency is the ability to make meaningful choices.

I'm not saying we need inviolable rules, but plenty of roleplaying games have inviolable rules without codifying every possible action. Marvel Heroic RP, Blades in the Dark, Apocalypse World are all examples. Like you can build in constrained judgement into your game design so that it can respond to just about any sort of fiction.

 

[pemerton]

It sounds like you want to play Descent or Hero Quest rather than an RPG.

Bizarre. Anyone who knows @chaochou's posting history knows that he likes Apocalypse World and Burning Wheel. And also has at least nostalgic fondness for Traveller, RuneQuest and AD&D.