An examination of player agency

[Campbell]

@Crimson Longinus

So, when it comes to gameable space, I think it depends on what you mean by rules. Like, I don't think we need fortune mechanics, but in the sense of a consistent play agenda and process that guides our decisions about what happens next we absolutely need an agreement in place. I don't think that understanding needs to be in a game text. The text is just our stand in for our vigorous agreement. We can change it at anytime, but I think we should absolutely have a discussion about changing the process if we are going to change it (and not have the underlying principles of play change moment to moment without a conversation).

 

[dragoner]

I don't think anyone is being prevented from playing games.

To criticize the OP:
Use the dictionary definiton, the one provided is too jargonistic. Drop Chess in the example, as a rated Chess player, I could make the case that Chess is an RPG with the King as the Player, that could go on a sideways tangent pretty quick.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Yeah, though I think all those are subsets of agency. And this is what I have said before in these agency discussions. Agency over what? It actually is not terribly helpful to discuss whether game has more or less player agency in some absolute sense, it is far more useful to discuss over what sort of matters the game offers agency. Like personally I don't care that much about setting agency as a player, I can take it or leave it, but I feel certain level of agency over the feelings and reactions of my character to be important. I know some people feel completely opposite. I also think this often muddies people's assessment about how much agency a game offers. If it offers agency over the things the player cares about they feel it is high agency, and if it doesn't they feel it is low agency even if it offered plenty of agency over other things.

 

[hawkeyefan]

RPGs are not like "any other game". They are collaborative creative exercises with some rules as scaffolding. It is art, not science.

RPGs have qualities like other games. They have qualities that are different than other games, too. But the presence of one doesn't negate the other.

RPGs have players. Players can have agency. How do players of RPGs exercise agency? What do players of RPGs do? What is it they want in play (not "fun", but what is the goal of play)? How do they pursue those goals?

And that is no way a player can exercise agency. To say it is not, is obviously a biased attempt to twist the definition of player agency.

I think that being able to control one's own character is a pretty minimal example of agency.

"Rules" that are required is that the GM gets to describe the fictional situation, the player gets to describe what their fictional character does about it and the GM describes how it alters the situation. That's rules for functional RPG for you.

I don't think anyone's saying that it's not. However, it's not one where the player has much agency.

And the player is doing deciding what their character does in the fiction, which in turn influences what the GM says next, thus affecting the fiction again. This is obviously the player exercising agency over the fiction.

Your example isn't complete enough to draw the conclusion you draw.

Like Wittgenstein says, there is not one concrete definition of "game." It cover a range of very different activities. By focusing of the rules in RPGs, you are eliding what actually makes them unique. Like when we talk about the events in our games, we mostly talk about the fiction. And you can have a perfectly sensible (if somewhat incomplete) account of the events of the game that does not mention any rules, but you really cannot do it other way around.

When my group talks about the game, we do so about the events of play. It's just as likely to be about what we do as players as what happens in the game world. So and so then cast that spell that really saved us, or wow the dice did not go our way in that scene.

This indeed sound terrible, and very low player agency. Yet, you probably have played games with similar or even the same rule system, where the GM still had final say, decided outcomes, decided what to frame next etc. where the experience nevertheless was not like this and you had much more agency? Which to me goes to show that the agency does not derive primarily, let alone solely from the rules.

Yes, and I think the OP mentioned that there are different levels of agency in RPGs when mentioning having played in "No or low agency games".

Like recently in our Blades game we had a situation where my character took massive amount of stress due a bad resistance roll and suffered a trauma. By the rules my character would have been out of the scene instantly, yet by the fiction that would have made very little sense. So we didn't do that, we played the scene to the end, and my character took a dramatic action and then stormed out in very emotionally unstable state.

Now perhaps we could have concocted some fiction to explain it if we had decided to follow the rules to the letter, but it would have been unsatisfactory, I would have felt it would have violated my agency over the character, utterly destroyed my immersion, and the resulting fiction would have been way worse.

Without knowing the details, it's hard to comment on this. But as described it sounds like your group was unable to come up with a satisfactory reason that your character would be out of the scene?

So I still think overtly focusing on the rules is a mistake. They're scaffolding they're a tool, but they're not what the game is about. And I think sometimes bending or ignoring the rules will better actualise the player's agency over the fiction.

I think this is from your view, which I believe is flawed, that control over one's character is the end-all-be-all of agency.

 

[Manbearcat]

If agency isn't an unalloyed good, why is so much digital ink being spilled over exactly how much of it any given shade of play possesses, and conversely how much authority the rules and/or the GM should have? Agency is not being treated as a value-neutral aspect of play here, certainly not by those claiming certain playstyles don't have much of it.

I would answer this question with because the frequency, magnitude, and type of agency expressed in any given game is enormously sensitive to its organizing goal, principles, structure, participant role dynamics, resolution procedures, and authority distribution.

Anytime you have a thing that is (a) important, (b) complex, and (c) sensitive to conditions, there is going to be (because there needs to be) a whole heaping helping <alliteration > of digital ink (preferably 1on1, physical conversation... @thefutilist and myself have had two of these recently and they've been more productive in navigating daylight between two parties than any 50 threads I've been involved in on ENW) spilled!

 

[zakael19]

All I can say that in the actual situation I alluded to earlier, I felt that my agency was honoured by the GM acceptance of setting aside the rules a bit so that the fictional situation could unfold in satisfactory and logical manner and had we not done so I would have felt that my agency was limited and violated.

I generally feel that it is part of GM's job to make sure that the fiction unfolds in a manner that does not produce "this doesn't make any bloody sense" from the players, and if that requires overriding rules, then so be it. That is the coherence that allows players to make meaningful decisions, not the coherence of the rules. Granted, in a good game this should be in harmony most of the time, so that the expectations are one and the same, but this doesn't always happen.

What does your agency mean in this context though? Is it specifically “agency over character outcomes?” “Agency over dramatic beats?” Did you feel like the moments leading up to that were not in service to the goals you had articulated for your character and play?

These are genuinely interested questions BTW. I’ve seen people struggle with or dislike this sort of thing and games like BITD / AW inserting unwanted outcomes based on the dice. Curious if this was a table misunderstanding of the stakes at hand that felt agency robbing, or a fundamental mismatch with the design or premise.

Like, my players in Blades have absolute agency to set goals of play; but there comes a point where their stress meter is 2 short of max and badness is staring them down, and we’re all asking “how important is this goal to you really?” And as the GM my hands are tied to play in a matter the game expects.

 

[hawkeyefan]

but in most rpgs the opponents skill level and the referee and the screams of the crowd are determined by the GM. Hell the whole thjng may be an illusion or a scam. Are these things part of the “rules” and if so isnt player certainty incompatible with exploration?

Is player agency “i want to play basketball”, or “i want to win this game”?

If you sign up for basketball, you know what you're getting into, right? I mean... assuming you understand the rules of play and probably some kind of expectation of the skill level. You're making an informed decision.

Wanting to win the game is the reason you exercise your agency. You can try and steal the ball from opponents... but can't foul them. You can shoot, but only score if the ball goes in. And so on. You understand at any point what it is that you should be working toward, and you know what you are and are not allowed to do.

Hence my comment, perhaps they'd prefer a game like Descent, Hero Quest, or Star Fleet Battles. Something other than an RPG. I categorically reject this interpretation of the role of a GM. It's okay if that's how other people want to play, but it's not something I have the slightest interest in.

So wanting limits on Gm authority to the point where they're as bound to the rules as a player means you don't want to play RPGs? I don't follow that logic at all.

I don't know what interpretation of the GM that you're rejecting...

If agency isn't an unalloyed good, why is so much digital ink being spilled over exactly how much of it any given shade of play possesses, and conversely how much authority the rules and/or the GM should have? Agency is not being treated as a value-neutral aspect of play here, certainly not by those claiming certain playstyles don't have much of it.

It is. But the parts where anyone says "I play and enjoy low agency games" is ignored.

I shared an example of a near absolute-zero level of agency in a D&D game. It was not what I wanted. However, it would not have taken a significant increase in my agency as a player for that game to become tolerable, and then only a little more for it to become enjoyable.

Not all games need the same amount of agency as others.

Yes, 100%

It seems to me that an awful lot of the arguments in favor of more rules...not just in this particular topic, but across the game...are motivated by a desire to prevent "bad" players and DMs from doing certain things.

I like fewer rules, and playing with people I like.

Clearly though, that's not the reason for all rules. I mean, you like fewer rules... but you still like rules, right? Are the rules you like aren't just about preventing someone from doing bad things, right?

But not anyone else?

I think the OP makes a very compelling case for... not more rules... but transparent rules. Rules that are clear and that are binding to all participants.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think that being able to control one's own character is a pretty minimal example of agency.

which is fine if you feel that way but keep in mind for many people this isn’t minimal at all. And for some it may even be the most important form agency takes in an RPG

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What does your agency mean in this context though? Is it specifically “agency over character outcomes?” “Agency over dramatic beats?”

Agency over the character's psyche and also resulting dramatic beats.

Did you feel like the moments leading up to that were not in service to the goals you had articulated for your character and play?

These are genuinely interested questions BTW. I’ve seen people struggle with or dislike this sort of thing and games like BITD / AW inserting unwanted outcomes based on the dice. Curious if this was a table misunderstanding of the stakes at hand that felt agency robbing, or a fundamental mismatch with the design or premise.

Like, my players in Blades have absolute agency to set goals of play; but there comes a point where their stress meter is 2 short of max and badness is staring them down, and we’re all asking “how important is this goal to you really?” And as the GM my hands are tied to play in a matter the game expects.

I think the moments leading to it were perfectly sensible. And I had no issue with my character taking trauma as result of that scene, that ended in a cold-blooded murder and dramatic revelation of regarding my character's past. What I would have had an issue with, was that by letter of the rules my character would have suffered the trauma as result of trivial matter, and would have been removed from the scene in which he was quite integral part of before it had been dramatically resolved. It simply would not have coherently followed from the established fiction either narratively, immersively or logically. My character took the trauma, I was not avoiding that, but it happened in a satisfactory instead of stupid way. And I absolutely think that our call on how to handle it was the correct one.

Now I think that we had to do this in the first place is because how the trauma rules are written, and I think they're bad min this regard. Because you can take stress from some pretty damn narratively trivial things, hell you can even take via flashback, where in the present literally nothing that could trigger the trauma is happening, so instantly triggering it at once when the stress meter is filled can cause unsatisfactory results. So I strongly feel that is better to keep the timing of the trauma acquisition and writing of the character from the scene somewhat more flexible, so that that it easier to keep the narrative sensible.

 

[Manbearcat]

In a sense that if GM gets to decide certain things, then the player cannot be deciding them. But the same happens when you outsource the decision to the mechanics as well. The mechanics say what happens, instead of any of the participants.

I've seen this said multiple times and "+1'd" on top of that. But this needs a lot more unpacking, because if we're merely "outsourcing the decision to the mechanics" and there are no other dynamics happening within play procedures, then I would say 100 % there is either a dearth of gameable space there or a complete vacuum. It should never be something like:

* GM frames situation/obstacle without any foregrounding of consequences and in such a way that the only permissible action declarations and consequence-suites are univariate. I would go so far as to extend that to bivariate. It is certainly substantially better than the univariate dynamic of "the GM has basically made the decision for you (thereby played the game for you)," but multivariate is so much better than bivariate.

* Player makes rote, or relatively rote, decision and either (a) GM rolls behind the screen for the player or (b) the player has no handles/currency to muster or any consequential PC build or build/spend dynamic to leverage.

I mean...yeah. If the situation/obstacle-framing is utterly weak + consequences are black-boxed such that players can't orient themselves and execute a compelling & multivariate decision-tree...and maybe tack on the player having little to no build/currency decisions to employ? Yes, that is tantamount to "outsourcing the decision to the mechanics." In scheme and consequence, that looks basically like GM disclaims decision-making when handling offscreen Faction/setting (eg non-PC) resolution in Blades in the Dark (or something kindred). But those two things shouldn't look like each other at all unless a table or a game intentionally (or perhaps accidentally) composes deterministic, univariate, adynamic decision-spaces for players (which...isn't gameplay imo) or the play in question aims for or accidentally lands upon Calvinball/Ouija play (which...again, isn't gameplay imo).

Circling back to my Torchbearer anecdote here, this is a relatively small (though of high magnitude) moment of play. This is the span of 1 singular turn in Torchbearer and 2 x tests in that singular turn. But the decision-space managed by both the Ranger Surveying and the Mage employing Aethereal Premonition was both vast in scope and consequential in impact. Though ultimately they both grabbed dice to resolve, what was baked into their decision-making scheme went way way way way way way beyond "outsourcing to the decision to the mechanics." And, what's more, all of this was downstream of the synthesis of a series of consequential decisions (around selected and employed Beliefs/Creed, around gaining the Enemy in question, around befriending the Friend in question, around actions taken in Town phase to Build Kit and Do Research, around preceding actions/resolution and elaborate currency management in this Adventure phase, around planning Camp phase which includes building up "checks" to power said phase).

I really hope we can agree on that (because man...what an absolute dead-end of the conversation if we can't agree on this); that "outsourcing the decision to the mechanics" resembles (a) GM Disclaiming Decisionmaking in something like Blades or (b) a truly feckless situation/obstacle-framing > action declaration loop of TTRPG (which, again, I would call "not rising to a gameable space")...and bears pretty much zero resemblance to something like (c) the attached Torchbearer actual play anecdote. This (a) and this (b) are not even in the same category as (c), right? Or are you actually saying they are effectively all the same?