Right, but I'm trying to view it in context... which you say is important to you.
Losing control of your character is a form of agency loss. But my point is that it is an understood risk and so, when we look at play on the whole, it makes far less sense to call that instance of play a loss of agency. From the player perspective, that moment of play came about precisely because of my influence on the game. That in that moment, it didn't go the way my character expected... that the character isn't willing to kill in that moment... doesn't seem to be taking anything away from me. Yes, technically, I've lost control of my character for a moment and that can be called a loss of agency... but it seems pretty silly to do so based on the context.
If I fail a climb check, my agency is limited in that my character is no longer able to access whatever is beyond the wall. But we wouldn't call this a loss of agency.
So...
You seem to only be examining this kind of play from the lens you'd use to examine more trad leaning play. Which I talked about. It makes more sense to label this kind of thing a loss of agency in a trad game, where the moment most likely comes not as a consequence of a situation that came about as the result of player contribution, but rather as something entirely of the GM's creation.
I am challenging the accepted meaning because it's limited. While it suits more traditional type play, it is an outdated way to judge all of TTRPGs.
What I have been doing is taking the idea of player agency as it applies to all games and applying it to RPGs. As far as I can tell, the only issue you're able to point to as problematic about this approach is that it means that your preferred play style is not as high on player agency as you previously thought.
That doesn't seem to me to be a valid reason not to apply this reasoning to the topic.
I'm not limiting it to players engaging with mechanics and not the setting. I'm including both. However, I'm viewing both as instances of a player playing a game.
I did use the term GM-driven, and I should not have. I have since changed it to GM-focused, which I feel is more accurate.
That this type of play is not as player focused as is often sited is my opinion, and I've explained why. You may not like that opinion, but don't tell me it's problematic. And don't tell me it diminishes the amount of player agency in any game at all. The same amount of agency is available in your game after my sharing this opinion as was available prior.
Yes, that's the context I'm more concerned with than the technically correct use of the term agency. My use of the term colloquialism was just saying I wouldn't argue this if something like this came up in play and someone described it that way as a way of shorthand.
But if someone complained about a lack of agency in the game? I'd view that as a misuse of the term.
I didn't say that characters' thoughts and feelings "have nothing to do with agency". I described a very specific type of game with very specific outcome and how viewing it as a loss of agency is too simplistic.
You say context matters, but all you're focused on is the technical bit of "but you lost control for one moment".
No, that's not what I'm doing. Please don't tell me what my motives are, and please don't tell others what my motives are.
I've said exactly what my idea of agency is. I'm applying that same standard to all games. I'm not interested in building up one game over another. As I've pointed out to you many, many times... I play many kinds of games.
The issue is that I have an opinion that you don't agree with, and because it's not the mainstream opinion, you think I should change it.
Too bad. I'm not going to do that.
What's amazing is that at the same time that you expect me to conform to the norm, you're posting about feeling bullied.
I think that
@TwoSix described it pretty well. In the world of trad, GM created play, sandbox play is among the highest agency games you can find.
