A Question Of Agency?

[Thomas Shey]

Also, as I said earlier, I think trying to act like what I've called character agency and what I've called player agency the same thing does this kind of discussion a wound.

(And no, I'm not going to get particularly worked up over the fact that some people don't like calling that player agency.)

 

[FrogReaver]

Also, as I said earlier, I think trying to act like what I've called character agency and what I've called player agency the same thing does this kind of discussion a wound.

(And no, I'm not going to get particularly worked up over the fact that some people don't like calling that player agency.)

Tried that distinction before. It amounted to - characters don’t really exist so they don’t actually have any agency.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

But this is the whole point whether you emphasize the player or the character, that makes all the difference in the world. That is one of the elements that makes it hard to say agency is objectively enhanced by X style of play. It is very contextual and dependent on what you are playing the game for in the first place.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Characters don't have any agency of their own, but as a shortcut for "agency expressed only through the vehicle of the character" that seems a perfectly fine term too. On the other side, if people have an issue with that idea, that's not my problem, either.

 

[TwoSix]

Having control of my PC within the world is pretty much the base level of agency, right? It should pretty much be a default expectation. So if a game has that and then also allows the player to choose their characters purpose in the game, then isn't that more?

This. I don't know of any RP games where the player isn't assumed to have primary agency over action declarations of their character.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I find this to be a highly theoretical objection, at best. I say this because I have not witnessed a situation like this in an actual game. I mean, yes, 2 players agendas could simply be mutually exclusive, but it is actually pretty HARD to arrange that, unless each player is very specific in what they declare as an agenda/goal, and then they would almost have to arrange for this to be a problem (IE if I claimed my PC must destroy the Book of Eibon and you claimed your PC must own the Book of Eibon). You almost have to contrive something like that. Plus I'm not super convinced this would create an actual problem in play, because the conflict would surely drive a lot of story!

Again, I think it is quite likely similar problems can arise in games without this sort of mechanics. In fact, the very coherence of action of most D&D parties smacks of being pretty contrived. That actually bothers me a heck of a lot more than questions about who is going to get to build their castle on the hill.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This. I don't know of any RP games where the player isn't assumed to have primary agency over action declarations of their character.

It is more about GM style and adventure structures in traditional RPGs. There were no rules against agency in D&D in the 90s, but there sure was a lot of GM advice that led many players to feel they were along for the ride of a story the GM was telling. I think both groups in this debate had a strong reaction to that (which wasn't just something in D&D but pretty prevalent in the hobby in general at the time), probably a strong reaction to some of the things that were present in the early 2000s as well; we just have very different answers to that problem.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Well, I think that kind of answers the "question of agency", right? The answer is that it's not a very good term for fostering useful discussions around RPGs!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again, I think it is quite likely similar problems can arise in games without this sort of mechanics. In fact, the very coherence of action of most D&D parties smacks of being pretty contrived. That actually bothers me a heck of a lot more than questions about who is going to get to build their castle on the hill.

What bothers you and what bothers others is going to be very different.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, I think that kind of answers the "question of agency", right? The answer is that it's not a very good term for fostering useful discussions around RPGs!

I think it is as long as people are not actively debating play styles as well. I mean I use it in conversations at my game table, and there it can enhance play because my players can communicate with me if they feel I am giving them agency or not. Conversations like this, especially with myself and the other posters who tend to be present in them, are naturally combative (because we've been having variations of this conversation for years). You have two groups with deeply different play styles, using the same term in different ways. At the end of the day, I think the obvious solution is to say, people are using this term differently in this conversation, and there probably isn't really any way to bridge that gap. It is also not particularly important because all we are doing is arguing over a word. It isn't like I am going to change how I use the word at my table because Hawkeye makes a good point here about it. We all have our gaming vocabulary and that is slow to change.