A Question Of Agency?

[Aldarc]

If you don't want to come across as attacking a playstyle then you need to make a much better case that your preferred games have more agency than my preferred games than you actually are. We all highly value agency. Being told your preferred game has less of something you highly value than some other game is offensive. It's even more offensive when the offensive thing is believed to be untrue and an unfair characterization of your playstyle and believed to be based on shallow and self-serving analysis. Now, offensive things can sometimes be true. If they are true then the way to lessen the offense is to make what will be perceived as a strong and fair case for why it is true.


No one wishes that they were being attacked. I mean seriosuly?

Only because you are conscientiously choosing to take offense from a neutral comparison of player agency in gameplay types. You may value "space" in your automobile, but don't work yourself up in a fit of self-inflicted offense when you are told the innocuous statement that your coupe has less space than a station wagon. Particularly when others are telling you repeatedly that if the coupe suits your needs and preferences, then that's great and you should keep using coupes rather than station wagons. But you are not under attack from this. No one is or has been. Many people in this thread who are comparing "space" have also indicated an enjoyment of coupes.

 

[FrogReaver]

This really is not about what game or style is better. I genuinely believe players have more ability to reach the outcome they wish to see in games like Apocalype World, Blades in the Dark, and Sorcerer than games like V5, D&D 5e, and Dark Heresy. That's not a good thing or a bad thing. Its just a thing.

If that's agency then it would seem pure story telling games would have even more player agency than any of the RPG's we are talking about. Maybe you think they do?

If that's agency by your definition I'm fine with that, but can we at least agree that traditionally in RPG's player agency has been used to refer to player character's actions actually mattering in the fiction?

 

[hawkeyefan]

So maybe it is not guided by a desire to attack the style, but there is defintiely a kind of failure to understand how the style actually operates in practice. I think it feels a lot like someone coming from without imposing meaning on what we are doing, and then getting upset when we don't agree with them (and the answer is well I am analyzing so what I am saying is true).

The game I have the most experience with is D&D. Over the past five years, D&D 5E has made up the significant majority of my gaming.

I absolutely am not coming from without. I understand what 5E does and I’ve made some very strong attempts to understand why. Very often, these discussions have helped with that considerably.

My 5E game likely allows for more player agency in relation to the fiction and the direction of play therein than a typical 5E campaign using one of the published adventures does. I make some pretty strong attempts to make sure that’s the case.

But that doesn’t mean that my 5E game allows as much player agency as my Blades in the Dark game. They are simply designed differently and function differently, and Blades actively seeks to put the agency in the hands of the players, while 5E largely puts in in the hands of he GM.

I am not putting down my 5E game. I love my 5E campaign.

No the players are. This is the whole point. When the GM is acting as an honest arbiter and referee of the world, the fact that you have a human mind reacting to what the players say they want to do, is giving power to the players.

I don’t think this is accurate. If the players are attempting X, and he GM considers everything in the fiction and then says Y happens, that is not giving power to the players.

It is giving power to the GM. You even described it as such a few posts ago.

Giving power to the players would mean that the GM either agrees that X happens (by saying “yes” as you mentioned earlier) or else letting the dice decide through the understood mechanics of the game, and then letting those results stand.

Again, maybe this bugs you, maybe you don't trust most GMs to do this well, I don't know. But from my experience of play, this is the thing that makes RPGs so liberating: I can literally try everything and the GM has to react. Sometimes the GM will draw on a mechanic to help aid the decision (sometimes you do need randomness or a procedure), but the point is a GM can contemplate and respond in a way no computer, system or board game can. And this was instantly clear to me the moment I sat down to play the first time, and all those boring dice, pens, paper, magically disappeared as I felt like I was really present in a fictional world. To me that is the height of agency: the sense that you are making real decisions and having real impact with those choices.

I don’t see how what you’ve described is “liberating” to the players. I can see how it may be enjoyable. I may play in such a game and have a great time.

I repeat, it is not a matter of trust. I go back to the idea of opposing plausibles....I as the GM have an idea of how the NPC will react to the PCs’ request. You as the player have an equally plausible idea about how the NPC will react.

If these competing plausibles are considered, and the answer is to go with the GM simply because that is their role in the game, that’s not enabling player agency. It may be a perfectly fine and acceptable way to play the game....as I said, I understand the idea of “GM as referee”.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This really is not about what game or style is better. I genuinely believe players have more ability to reach the outcome they wish to see in games like Apocalype World, Blades in the Dark, and Sorcerer than games like V5, D&D 5e, and Dark Heresy. That's not a good thing or a bad thing. Its just a thing.

I do think there is more autonomy in a sandbox game like Worlds Without Number than a game like Blades or Monsterhearts.

From my perspective this was not really a playstyle debate until you made it one.

Most of my responses have not been to your posts. I have primarily been reacting to other poster's when I've said these things. I would actually be hard pressed to summarize what your position is on the thread, as we just haven't engaged enough. But I do not believe I made this a playstyle debate, it has been one from very early on in this thread (and in most threads like this), and I am far from the only poster to believe this to be so.

But what you say here does get at the heart of much of the disagreement. I think most people on my side, when they talk about agency (and agency gets discussed in many rpg forums online), our use of the word is almost synonymous with autonomy. The way the posters on the other side of the debate are using agency is more how you frame it, the "ability to reach the outcome they wish to see in the game". Sure, if agency is about the player's desire to achieve a certain outcome, fair enough. We've been pretty consistent in saying it is about being able to play your character without being railroaded, and to make meaningful choices.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Only because you are conscientiously choosing to take offense from a neutral comparison of player agency in gameplay types. You may value "space" in your automobile, but don't work yourself up in a fit of self-inflicted offense when you are told the innocuous statement that your coupe has less space than a station wagon. Particularly when others are telling you repeatedly that if the coupe suits your needs and preferences, then that's great and you should keep using coupes rather than station wagons. But you are not under attack from this. No one is or has been. Many people in this thread who are comparing "space" have also indicated an enjoyment of coupes.

Some people are using the term neutrally, some are not, and that is the problem on that front. The other issue in this discussion is the two sides seem to define agency very differently.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The game I have the most experience with is D&D. Over the past five years, D&D 5E has made up the significant majority of my gaming.

I absolutely am not coming from without. I understand what 5E does and I’ve made some very strong attempts to understand why. Very often, these discussions have helped with that considerably.

Couple of things. I don't play 5E, and I don't play much D&D anymore. So this isn't about 5E or D&D when I say 'coming from without". This is about more sandbox, living adventure, situational adventure, world emulation style play, when I say "coming from without".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I have a story. We were playing a Star Trek game (this was around 1993, so forgive me if I don't recall the exact game). I was playing the ship engineer, and the crew was tasked with dealing with a raider in a distant system (so no support) that had a technologically advanced ship of unknown origin. Our ship was limited to Warp 4 (or 3, exact number irrelevant), while the raider could achieve Warp 5. While looking through the rulebook, I came across a chart showing how warp levels worked. The warp numbers existed as stable plateaus of power that required a power climb above the plateau level as you approached it, but then fell to the lower power to maintain the warp speed. In looking at the chart, I saw that the power needed to climb over the hump for Warp 4 was higher than the stable power for 5 -- that, in fact, we could get close to warp 5 if we redlined the engines -- at least to give chase enough to find the raider's base.

So, I ran this past the GM, showing the chart, and got the nod that we could try this. I RP'd presenting the possibility to the Captain (another player), and prepared the effort -- we wouldn't be able to chase for long, but we could possibly keep the raider on sensors. The confrontation went as we expected (our ship was slightly more powerful in combat, if slower), and the raider broke off at Warp 5. The captain ordered the chase, I rolled the check the GM and I had discussed, and succeeded! And... the engines immediately broke down and we had to limp to dock.

I didn't play another session.

This is really funny, because apart the GM being terrible, what you're doing here is what I want to see to happen in a session. I know the chart you're referring to. The players are engaging the fictional reality, treating it like it was real and making plans based on this. This is great stuff and should be rewarded and encouraged. The GM wasn't doing their job properly.

(Also, warp five? What sort of a garbage hauler were you flying?)

 

[Bedrockgames]

My 5E game likely allows for more player agency in relation to the fiction and the direction of play therein than a typical 5E campaign using one of the published adventures does. I make some pretty strong attempts to make sure that’s the case.

But that doesn’t mean that my 5E game allows as much player agency as my Blades in the Dark game. They are simply designed differently and function differently, and Blades actively seeks to put the agency in the hands of the players, while 5E largely puts in in the hands of he GM.

But we seem to have a very different concept of agency. My understanding is the crowd saying Blades in the Dark, which by the way, I have not played, so I am only going by your descriptions of it (and to be clear, I am interested in trying Blades in the Dark at some point), is that Blades in the Dark increases agency because it gives players more narrative control over in game outcomes (it is possible I am confusing this with another game that came up, so if so, I apologize). That is fair if you like that. Having more control over narrative outcomes definitely is an innovation in gaming that provides an experience not had in games that don't provide it. But I wouldn't label that agency. Like some of the other posters on my side, when we've encountered those kinds of mechanics, they actually seem to upset out sense of agency. Now I don't want to oversimplify because a lot depends on context and specifics. And not having played blades in the dark, maybe there is something special about the way it is implemented that I would see in play. But speaking general, when we talk about agency, we are thinking of your ability to play the character without being railroaded. And in everyday speech at my game table when I hear a player talk about having agency that is what they mean. If we are using definitions that are different, then surely we are never going to make any headway. But I think the problem is there are two kinds of agency being discussed here.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don’t think this is accurate. If the players are attempting X, and he GM considers everything in the fiction and then says Y happens, that is not giving power to the players.

It is giving power to the GM. You even described it as such a few posts ago.

Giving power to the players would mean that the GM either agrees that X happens (by saying “yes” as you mentioned earlier) or else letting the dice decide through the understood mechanics of the game, and then letting those results stand.

We are getting hung up on language and terms and not really seeing what one another are saying. I am talking about power in terms of agency in the setting, not in terms of raw mechanical power over the game outcome. You won't consider it power, unless the player has unchecked ability to narrate what happens. That isn't the kind of power I am talking about at all, and not the kind of power I am very interested in as a player. I want the power to try anything in the setting and I want a human referee to help mediate that. That is what is empowering to me in the game. It is giving the players the power of agency in the setting. Would giving the player narrative control be an increase in total power overall? I suppose. Though it would take away from the setting agency I am talking about. So I don't think it is as simple as the more narrative tools you give to players the more power in total they have. But in the end, this isn't the sort of power that I feel enhances my sense of agency.

 

[FrogReaver]

But we seem to have a very different concept of agency. My understanding is the crowd saying Blades in the Dark, which by the way, I have not played, so I am only going by your descriptions of it (and to be clear, I am interested in trying Blades in the Dark at some point), is that Blades in the Dark increases agency because it gives players more narrative control over in game outcomes (it is possible I am confusing this with another game that came up, so if so, I apologize). That is fair if you like that. Having more control over narrative outcomes definitely is an innovation in gaming that provides an experience not had in games that don't provide it. But I wouldn't label that agency. Like some of the other posters on my side, when we've encountered those kinds of mechanics, they actually seem to upset out sense of agency. Now I don't want to oversimplify because a lot depends on context and specifics. And not having played blades in the dark, maybe there is something special about the way it is implemented that I would see in play. But speaking general, when we talk about agency, we are thinking of your ability to play the character without being railroaded. And in everyday speech at my game table when I hear a player talk about having agency that is what they mean. If we are using definitions that are different, then surely we are never going to make any headway. But I think the problem is there are two kinds of agency being discussed here.

It seems to me that it would be a fair assessment to say that games which provide more control over narrative outcomes guarantee a certain amount railroad prevention (our kind of agency) that a game without such mechanics cannot guarantee.