An examination of player agency

soviet said:

I think the question here is 'who decides?'. If your agency depends on petitioning an authority figure for a special exemption, that doesn't feel much like agency to me. If there are situations where the rules as written somehow don't suit the situation at hand (and I'm not at all sure your example would qualify) then what I would seek is for all participants to agree on the fix. But these circumstances should come up very very rarely.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. For instance in this case it is unclear to me who "de jure" would even have authority to grant the exception, if anyone. In practice I asked for it and the GM agreed. Was it a GM decision, or a group decision? Unclear, and didn't really matter. Now for the sake of clarity, I think it is better to have procedure for such to be defined in some way, but in case it isn't, people will figure it out.

In my D&D game it is clear that I as GM am one who has authority to override the rules and the players don't. Nevertheless, the players are ones that declare actions for their characters, and if it seems that the rules would get in the way of what would make sense based on the fiction, then I will overrule the rules. Yes, I did it de jure, but it was the players action declaration that prompted me to do it. I think that is some sort of agency.

In any case, I feel the new fictional coherence is more important for agency (and definitely more important for satisfactory roleplay experience) than slavishly following the rules.

However, I agree that such occurrences overriding the rules should be rare, and if they are not, it probably implies some sort of flaw in the system or at least incompatibility with the group's playstyle.

Crimson Longinus said:

I don't agree. For instance in this case it is unclear to me who "de jure" would even have authority to grant the exception, if anyone. In practice I asked for it and the GM agreed. Was it a GM decision, or a group decision? Unclear, and didn't really matter. Now for the sake of clarity, I think it is better to have procedure for such to be defined in some way, but in case it isn't, people will figure it out.

In my D&D game it is clear that I as GM am one who has authority to override the rules and the players don't. Nevertheless, the players are ones that declare actions for their characters, and if it seems that the rules would get in the way of what would make sense based on the fiction, then I will overrule the rules. Yes, I did it de jure, but it was the players action declaration that prompted me to do it. I think that is some sort of agency.

In any case, I feel the new fictional coherence is more important for agency (and definitely more important for satisfactory roleplay experience) than slavishly following the rules.

However, I agree that such occurrences overriding the rules should be rare, and if they are not, it probably implies some sort of flaw in the system or at least incompatibility with the group's playstyle.

Click to expand...

I think there is a code here though. 'What would make sense based on the fiction' and 'fictional coherence' are both different ways of saying 'what the GM thinks should happen'.

Putting the GM in a position of privileged authorship over the setting is a perfectly legitimate way to play. People who enjoy it will say that it makes the setting feel more real, immersive, coherent, etc. A sort of auteur theory of RPGing. But that GM control by definition comes at the expense of a certain amount of player agency. There's nothing wrong with that. Agency is not an unalloyed good. Having more is not always best. You can choose to have (or grant) less. But let's recognise that this is what's happening

soviet said:

I think there is a code here though. 'What would make sense based on the fiction' and 'fictional coherence' are both different ways of saying 'what the GM thinks should happen'.

Click to expand...

No. In my example, it was primarily me, the player, who felt that the coherence of the fiction would be violated by strictly following the rules.

soviet said:

Putting the GM in a position of privileged authorship over the setting is a perfectly legitimate way to play. People who enjoy it will say that it makes the setting feel more real, immersive, coherent, etc. A sort of auteur theory of RPGing. But that GM control by definition comes at the expense of a certain amount of player agency. There's nothing wrong with that. Agency is not an unalloyed good. Having more is not always best. You can choose to have (or grant) less. But let's recognise that this is what's happening

Click to expand...

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.

hawkeyefan said:

I don’t think that’s true. It’s more that they don’t want the GM to arbitrate over the player. Or the rules.

Click to expand...

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.

I've yet to see much that wasn't covered in the OP:

What I see are a lot of claims of exceptionalism for a certain subset of RPG play. The claim is that these games must feature agency simply because they assert it is the case, irrespective of their hidden processes, unstated rules, ability to write and undermine rules and processes unseen, and willingness to conceal player goals.

Even though transposing any of these features into tens or hundreds of thousands of other games (chess, ludo, Monopoly, tennis, I Spy, snap, poker, basketball, doesn't matter) clearly and obviously destroys the agency of other players, they claim this simply doesn't happen when they play their version of this rpg. Their player agency is different. Their game is the exception.

These assertions, these claims of exceptionalism, are unsupported and - in my view - untenable.

Crimson Longinus said:

No. In my example, it was primarily me, the player, who felt that the coherence of the fiction would be violated by strictly following the rules.



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.

Click to expand...

I am groggy and my min didn't clear, so I don't know how well I can state this, but for me the thing that has long struck me about RPGs since I first started playing was this ability of the player to say to the GM "I am going to do X" is what makes it a transformative medium. And the GMs ability to take that and turn it into just about anything, is what makes the medium limitless. It is what separates an RPG from a computer game, a movie or boardgame. It is what made me feel like I was suddenly in a world or in a movie, but could actually affect the stuff around me, and move the 'plot'. In the hands of a bad GM, I don't think anyone disagrees, that can impact the agency this set up provides. But I don't think that is a problem of the arrangement itself. The arrangement is the thing that is what gave me so much agency when I first played RPGs. And I don't anyone disagrees that good rules and good principles can be very helpful for managing RPGs, even for enhancing agency. But both of these also have the potential to constrain agency by constraining the GM too much, and there is a balance to be struck there. There is also just a difference of philosophy around it. I don't think either camp wants less agency here. Some people just think it is better achieved by constraining the GM, while others think it is better achieved by not constraining the GM. Some of that is taste, some of that is personality, some of that is risk assessment (i.e. for less constrained GMing there may be greater risk of a bad GM, but the reward that comes with a less constrained good GM is worth that risk). I don't think there is one right answer here. But one side calling the other delusional, doesn't advance the conversation.

soviet said:

I think there is a code here though. 'What would make sense based on the fiction' and 'fictional coherence' are both different ways of saying 'what the GM thinks should happen'.

Click to expand...

The GM isn't doing this in a vacuum. Just like when a filmmaker makes a decision about cause and effect in a movie, or what feels dramatically appropriate, they make that choice knowing it is going to be judged by the audience. And players are right there in front of them. You know instantly when you have made a choice that the players find illogical. And everything in most RPGs isn't purely up to the GM. That is a straw man. The GM is expected to defer to rules, unless there is a very good reason to do otherwise, and doing this still requires player buy in (if you are the kind of GM who just arbitrarily overrules the dice because you personally don't like outcomes for example, you won't have players after a while).

soviet said:

Putting the GM in a position of privileged authorship over the setting is a perfectly legitimate way to play. People who enjoy it will say that it makes the setting feel more real, immersive, coherent, etc. A sort of auteur theory of RPGing. But that GM control by definition comes at the expense of a certain amount of player agency. There's nothing wrong with that. Agency is not an unalloyed good. Having more is not always best. You can choose to have (or grant) less. But let's recognise that this is what's happening

Click to expand...

I think here you are equating narrative control with agency and to me that isn't what agency is. Also when you use terms like authorship, I feel like it kind of glides over what is actually going on here. A GM isn't simply narrative a story to the players. It is an extensive back and forth, with the GM responding to player input, relying on rules, and expected to make decisions and rulings that make sense to the people playing the game. But when we say someone has agency, we never really mean, that they have some kind of ability to shape reality around themselves. If we did then characters with supernatural abilities would always have the most agency in books, and I think often times those characters feel like they have the least, because there is less actual character to them. I think for most players when they say they have agency, what they mean is the ability to say "No, I am not going to go to Castle of Graven Swamp and plunder its ruins, instead I want to go north east to Tarna and see if the the House of Skulls is looking to hire assassins". That agency can arise fully in a system where the GM is the one telling the players that House of Skulls is a thing, and determining what happens when they north east to Tarna and telling them what they see when they get there. As long as you have that back and forth, and the players are able to say no, take initiative and ask question to get more information, that is agency to most people. And while it might be interesting to be able to write something on my sheet the GM has to incorporate into the flow of events, I don't think that feels like it would add agency to my character. It would give me a little control over the direction of the campaign as a player, and that might be worth discussing, but I feel like that is different from agency (at least the way I think of agency).

Bedrockgames said:

The GM isn't doing this in a vacuum. Just like when a filmmaker makes a decision about cause and effect in a movie, or what feels dramatically appropriate, they make that choice knowing it is going to be judged by the audience. And players are right there in front of them. You know instantly when you have made a choice that the players find illogical. And everything in most RPGs isn't purely up to the GM. That is a straw man.

Click to expand...

Right. The GM is right there where the fiction unfolds, reading the room and having their finger on the pulse of the events.
That is why I gladly give them the final say over a distant rules writer, no matter how skilled, who is not there.

Boundless exploration within a GM designed sandbox isn't what is special about the medium. It is what some people like about some roleplaying games. Trying to make the entire medium fit into a boundless exploration box erases the rest of us who are not here for that. It's like saying area control is what makes the board game medium transformative. It's like saying taking tricks is what makes the card game medium transformative.

It's putting all roleplaying games in a single box and elevating a single play agenda (with a little 'a') as the real one.

Crimson Longinus said:

Right. The GM is right there where the fiction unfolds, (i) reading the room and (ii) having their finger on the pulse of the unfolding events. That is why I gladly give them the final say over a distant rules writer, no matter how skilled, who is not there.

Click to expand...

I hope it is clear that these two components of your post that I've outlined are specific GM principles that are specific to a particular play agenda. Which is good. Specific GMing principles to a specified and particular agenda is excellent.

But principle and agenda-wise, this is situating all three of play broadly, player decision-space, and GM responsibilities/authority to be centered around things that would be extraordinarily adverse in other forms of play. If play situates the GM as "reader of the room" when they're mediating action resolution, that can trivially Trojan Horse in a game theoretical model where social coersion (overt or covert, individual or collective) propels moments, sequences, or all of play. That might be deeply anathema to any number of play agendas. If play situates the GM as "responsible for the pulse of unfolding events," that might be deeply anathema to any number of play agendas; (i) those that want the pulse of unfolding events to emerge sans-GM orchestration or (ii) those that don't want a pulse of unfolding events to even enter into play at all (which necessitates that none of the participants are preoccupied by such a pulse!).

Its this kind of Trojan Horse (I'm not making an accusation here...these Trojan Horses get routinely deployed, smuggling in all manner of anchoring expectations that may or may not be examined), that becomes a problem when this kind of GM authority/responsibility in a void-fraught rules becomes married to player decision-spaces that are supposed to be simultaneously goal-directed as well as contingent upon reliability in all three of orientation to situation, attendant decision-space to be mulled, and action + resolution (which includes handles, leverage, currencies, consequence-space evaluation, and possibly even advancement scheme).

And to reiterate, this isn't about outcomes (though outcomes are important). This is about the moment-to-moment orientation to and processing of individual chunks of play. It is more about the input dynamics of this stuff and the cognitive scheme in which it situates players (which is where the "gameable space" thesis picks up).