A Question Of Agency?

[FrogReaver]

OK, but even if you are only talking about what things the player can do that are "in the realm of the character" (in-game) things. Being able to do other things (meta-game) doesn't impinge on that, they are disjoint sets. So I am still not able to follow @FrogReaver's logic from A to B. Nothing I can do meta-game inherently restricts what I can do in game.

OK, but even if you are only talking about what things the player can do that are "in the realm of the character" (in-game) things. Being able to do other things (meta-game) doesn't impinge on that, they are disjoint sets. So I am still not able to follow @FrogReaver's logic from A to B. Nothing I can do meta-game inherently restricts what I can do in game.

It’s really not complicated. Does the meta game mechanic in question allow another player or DM to force my character to do something or not do something.

Most mechanics that enhance fictional agency can be used in the way I described above.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, well said. And this sort of agency can perfectly well exist in a 'traditional' RPG format. All it requires is an open world, players with initiative and a GM that is willing to let the 'story' go where the characters take it. Now you of course can do this with players having narrative controlling meta mechanics too, but they're by no means a requirement.

Right, we just circle back to the question of "why won't it work better if your game has provisions for this?" Obviously some people won't want to play THAT game, but it should work better for people who do.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The problem I have with fiction is people use it to equivocate all the time (it happens regularly in these enworld threads). So I just can't embrace that term in this conversation. It always seems to be used to promote one playstyle (personally I have nothing against the term itself, it is just in the contexts of these discussions)

I don't think I'm using it to equivocate. I'm using it because I feel it's an accurate description of the result of playing a RPG. I don't mean fiction as in a work of literature or art. My kid lies to me all the time; those are fictions, not War and Peace.

I feel like it's the most accurate word for what I'm trying to say. Game or setting or world.....all those seem prone to interpretation.

This is all fine. But the point is we both want very different things and have much different expectations at that able. I think we have also probably have different attitudes towards games and allowing a person to act as a referee. That is all fine again. I don't begrudge your style. All I can do is mine has worked well for me (and I also have no problem venturing into other styles of play from time to time).

I don't know if I'd go that far, honestly. These days I'm trying to play different games as much as possible, and the goals of play can vary wildly.

For instance, I just got some new books for Mothership, which is a game that plays in a very traditional sense and is very much old school in its approach. I can't wait to run that for my group.

This is the point of contention. People are rejecting this definition. They don't see agency as the ability to do anything at the table. If so then a game or at a table that forbids me from pouring coke over my GM's head is infringing on my agency. But it is pretty obvious a lot of people just mean what your character is free to do in the setting when they speak of agency. You are talking about narrative power and GM/Player power. Those are very specific concepts. And part of why people are resisting your line of reasoning is it feels like agency is being used to slip those things in as superior or better.

I think that this is an interesting example because there is nothing as a player that would lead me to expect that I would be allowed to pour soda over someone's head. That's more an element of being a guest.

But if we examine things as a player....not the character, but the player.....then I think the kinds of things become more clear. How much ability does the player have to influence the game? I think it was @Manbearcat who compared this to football. There are rules and there are processes that determine how a player can influence the game of football.

There are rules and processes for a RPG, and they determine how a player can influence a game.

No it really isn't. Agency is pretty much seen as a good thing, as a positive thing that is valued in RPGs, literature etc. Exploration is a much more neutral term. Agency is more in line with labels like railroading, immersion or believability. I think it is no accident many of these discussions also revolve around terms like immersion.

I have literally told you that I do not mean it as an insult. I can do no more at this point. You can choose to believe me or not, but then as I said, that is on you.

 

[Campbell]

I do not think of agency primarily in terms of the tools I have available, but if I am able to use the tools available to achieve outcomes not chosen by the GM or other players. I generally prefer the resources I have available to correspond to in character things, but that is immaterial to agency from my perspective.

I have gone around with @FrogReaver on this issue. Their use of agency does not regard playing a linear game where the GM may resort to manipulating the fiction, fudging dice rolls, or social pressure to go along with the adventure as constraining their agency. I regard the power to meaningfully bring about change in your situation as fundamental to agency.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It’s really not complicated. Does the meta game mechanic in question allow another player or DM to force my character to do something or not do something.

Most mechanics that enhance fictional agency can be used in the way I described above.

I have not encountered a game which specifically does this. I mean, I don't recall a real admonishment or 'principle' that says "don't do this" in such games which I've played/run, but it GENERALLY seems to be a lot like other 'table etiquette' at the very least (IE don't murder other people's PCs). I mean, there are some specific games where it may come up, and even play a genuine role in the game, but I would think you'd know that going into such a game.

Anyway, lets think about Dungeon World for a second. The GM frames scenes in that game, and they are intended to be such that they will engage the players and challenge the characters. Now, could a player create a bond for his character that could be satisfied by, say, murdering that other PC? I guess so... Said player might then declare an action with the intent to cause that (although PvP is not really covered by DW's rules). If this is against the wishes of the other player, then something about the game isn't really going right. Not only that, but something very similar is just as possible in D&D, but you wouldn't condemn freedom to run your PC as you wish on that basis, would you? Instead you'd rely on table etiquette, or else everyone would know it was allowed (IE we once played an 'evil campaign' where this was a completely legit action).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Right, we just circle back to the question of "why won't it work better if your game has provisions for this?" Obviously some people won't want to play THAT game, but it should work better for people who do.

Yes, a game with narrative meta mechanics will work better for people who like having narrative meta mechanics. This seems uncontroversial.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I have literally told you that I do not mean it as an insult. I can do no more at this point. You can choose to believe me or not, but then as I said, that is on you.

I am not saying you are using it as an insult. I am saying it isn't a neutral term at all and there is a reason people are arguing over it. Further it is highly, highly subjective. People here have said countless times that your definition of agency doesn't capture what they are talking about when they are using it. All this amounts to fundamentally making this a playstyle debate around the term agency.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, a game with narrative meta mechanics will work better for people who like having narrative meta mechanics. This seems uncontroversial.

Hmmm. It seems possible you could have people who like metamechanics in principal, but still don't like the outcomes they produce in some cases.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Hmmm. It seems possible you could have people who like metamechanics in principal, but still don't like the outcomes they produce in some cases.

Sure. That certainly is possible.

 

[Bedrockgames]

OK, but even if you are only talking about what things the player can do that are "in the realm of the character" (in-game) things. Being able to do other things (meta-game) doesn't impinge on that, they are disjoint sets. So I am still not able to follow @FrogReaver's logic from A to B. Nothing I can do meta-game inherently restricts what I can do in game.

Sure it can, if my agency in character is contingent on me being able to make meaningful choices, any number of metamechanics could undermine that. And this is especially so when you are talking not just about 1 player, but all the players. I am not knocking your style. It is just that if you are prioritizing something like giving players the ability to control 'the fiction' that can easily come into conflict with my agency in the setting that has been established. It doesn't give me concrete ground on which to make my meaningful decisions.