An examination of player agency

[Micah Sweet]

It's something that some people value more than others. Some people trade off a degree of agency for what they feel is a greater degree of setting coherency/verisimiliitude. Why can't we discuss that trade-off? Why can't we talk about how different techniques or approaches create more player agency than others? Why does one approach get to be the default way of playing that we're not allowed to question?

When you tell people what they consider agency or freedom isn't that, because you have a stricter definition of the term that removes what they value from being what they think it is and enjoy, you aren't just "having a discussion".

 

[Bedrockgames]

None of this requires a GM's thumb on the scale. It can all be done with open and principled resolution.

Sure you can do it that way. I use a lot of principled solutions myself. But those can also be a straight jacket. What @Crimson Longinus and I am wary of here, is saying the GM should never step in and fiat. There are going to be times when even principled solutions break down or fail to respond adequately to player requests. There are going to be times when even the best rules and procedures break down or didn't adequately foresee the situation the players are in and what they are trying to achieve (I ran into this problem a lot during the 3E era for example, where you had a rule for everything it seemed but the rules did not always adapt well to what was actually going on, and they didn't allow for much flexibility in terms of breathing life into the things like the creation of magic items (there was a very regimented way of doing things). Now to be clear, I am not saying other people dont' have different experiences than me. For some people I am sure all those codified rules were helpful for bringing the game to life. But for some of us, the ability of the GM to occasionally, not always, not most of the time, act as a stop gap is very crucial to the game functioning in a way that makes agency matter.

You will probably be familiar with the Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide from AD&D second edition (which is a great book). There's a whole section in there that (from memory) is all about a group painting a dead minotaur red and throwing it down the stairs accompanied by some minor illusion magic to scare off some higher level bandits. The advice in the book talks about how if the GM breaks it down to a sequence of rolls the likelihood is that one thing will fail and so the bluff won't work and the characters will be killed. Therefore the GM must step aside from the rules and fiat the outcome.

Yes, and just as an aside, people should definitely read the book if they have any intention of running 2E or just want some good GM advice from that era.

But all they are saying here, regardless of how good or bad the particular example they gave was, is it is occasionally useful to put aside the rules and focus on something like what the PCs are saying they are trying to do. I don't think this advice is that outrageous, and I think it is worth keeping in mind. Here is what they actually have to say about it (this is the important part of that section):

But that isn't the only solution. Any modern conflict resolution game can quite easily set up a conflict where the fighter's strength in throwing the minotaur is supported by the wizard's illusion magic and the thief's threatening words to create a roll with the stakes 'the bandits are scared away'. Skill challenges from 4e and similar group checks from other games can also achieve a similar thing.

Sure, but that doesn't take away from Jaquays' and Connor's point either.

 

[Wolfpack48]

All this argument over a bunch of mechanics and rules "to protect poor weak, innocent players against imaginary, despotic GMs, who just want to write their novels." As if strict rules and mechanics can somehow protect you from bad players, bad GMs or other people you don't agree with. I'm done with this one.

 

[soviet]

When you tell people what they consider agency or freedom isn't that, because you have a stricter definition of the term that removes what they value from being what they think it is and enjoy, you aren't just "having a discussion".

You're the one making this binary. The discussion has been about different levels of agency, not whether it exists or not.

Is it your position that all RPGs offer the same level of agency?

 

[dragoner]

Why does one approach get to be the default way of playing that we're not allowed to question?

Because D&D is the biggest game in the market, without question. Defaults, benchmarks, or what is often used in science, and engineering, correction factors; help to define or understand other things. Using jargon, and condescending attitudes, and such do not help.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You're the one making this binary. The discussion has been about different levels of agency, not whether it exists or not.

The OPs premise is only certain styles have agency and people who think they have agency in a sandbox, adventure path, mystery, dungeon crawl, etc are just deluding themselves.

Is it your position that all RPGs offer the same level of agency?

I woudlnt' say this. But I don't think there is a one size fits all here. And particularly around the useage of things like fiat, that is kind of there to enhance agency when rules might impinge on it. So I think demonizing it as this agency killing feature of the game, is just misguided (not saying every RPG must lean into fiat or anything, but this thread feels structured to just claim agency for one approach, and it defines agency in an odd way too)

 

[soviet]

Because D&D is the biggest game in the market, without question. Defaults, benchmarks, or what is often used in science, and engineering, correction factors; help to define or understand other things. Using jargon, and condscending attitudes, and such do not help.

I think you mean 'condescending'.

 

[dragoner]

I think you mean 'condescending'.

And there you are. Do you feel better?

 

[Micah Sweet]

You're the one making this binary. The discussion has been about different levels of agency, not whether it exists or not.

Is it your position that all RPGs offer the same level of agency?

My position is that defining agency as the ability for players to make changes to the game outside the ability of their PCs is too limiting and leaves a lot of people behind to support a specific playstyle for which that definition is true. That's IMO the thrust of the OP.

 

[Campbell]

My position is that defining agency as the ability for players to make changes to the game outside the ability of their PCs is too limiting and leaves a lot of people behind to support a specific playstyle for which that definition is true. That's IMO the thrust of the OP.

So, I think content authority should be a separate concern - but like the ability to meaningfully impact the fiction through your characters' actions and not just your autonomy should be included. But really all these factors should be part of a broader conversation and not have assumed levels of any one area. Because tradeoffs are made between content authority, autonomy and character efficacy in most designs. We should be open about what we are gaining and losing (even if we all value these things differently or want different amounts of each in different games).

I think it would be helpful to talk in terms of autonomy, efficacy and content authority as separate things and as things we all have different standards for without assuming one of the dimensions play is more important universally or that one should be assumed and the others should not more broadly.

I think we can all take a more integrative view that values all play and respects each other's craft.