A Question Of Agency?

[Thomas Shey]

Right, and I would consider that 'more agency', but I think @pemerton was talking more about something closer to my example. Also, we all find that simply giving PCs choices between scenarios invented BY THE GM is pretty constraining and 'low agency'. Now, you didn't really specify who got to come up with the parameters of 'run off and join them'. None of us demands that to be entirely in the hands of the player, it is normally expected she'll be bound by things like genre conventions, established setting, and that the tone and whatnot will be respected. So, assuming Faerie is an established part of 'Fantasy Chicago' or at least in keeping with the parts already established, then I'd think the player is just exercising agency in adding that element to the story, or utilizing it if it already exists. Not all games will provide much room for this. Some are pretty tightly focused on a specific set of elements and adding others isn't really sticking within the realm of the game/genre itself, but at least in 'kitchen sink fantasy' like D&D this is rarely a big concern (tone might be).

But that's the gig here; this all seems simply a matter of degree to me. Now, I accept that degree matters, but if your agency is the most important thing to you, its hard to see how the police game would be acceptable, given that you have to either build a character who will never do a thing to have him leave the police, or accept that character goes out of play when he does (again, operating on the premise that most people are not going to, effectively, run a separate sub-game for him for the rest of the campaign. I know that's not universally the case but I have no reason to think its common enough to make it as an assumption).

And no, his character should NOT be 'mostly ignored', that's exactly the problem! If the GM's attitude towards players wanting to engage with the game in certain ways is "that's not in MY plan, stop doing it" (passively or actively) then maybe that is a game I'm not going to stick with (pretty surely). I don't expect things to be entirely my way, why is that expected by any participant in the game?

Because its what the game is about. Otherwise, we're back to the logical conclusion being that the only really acceptable game type is a sandbox (and I've absolutely seen people outright say that). If the focus on the game is narrow, and you can't stay within that focus while still getting the degree of agency you find necessary, the proper thing to do is not to play in that game but not act like you should have the right to be in it and expect to drag it off completely sideways with your decisions. That's even true with a player group as a whole (why did you agree to play a game about X if you were going to make it a game about Y?) and its particularly true for an individual player.

Well, OK. I mean, I don't disagree with you that if someone says "I'm going to run a campaign where the PCs go through B2, A1-4, and then GDQ" then I know what I'm signing up for. That's perfectly OK. But usually its been more like we all agreed to play AD&D and then every time our characters decided to try to go north instead of south somehow we ended up going north anyway (or something like that, you get it) because 'B2' was to the north and by gosh that was the only thing we were going to get to choose to do.

Well, yes, if the GM is going to run a narrower game, he should absolutely be clear about that, especially if its with a system that normally can be assumed to have a wider scope. That's a communication breakdown right out the door.

I put it at least equally on the GM. If they are going to restrict my input to the game to a small area and expect that we will just play a game that is about whatever they are interested in, that's fine, but count me out, EVERY TIME. I been there, did it for years, not going back! And this is why I want to see narrative front in center in whatever set of rules we use, because in my long and extensive experience of TTRPGs that's the only reliable way to get what I want. Even when people are willing to do something close to that with, say, 5e, it doesn't entirely work out. The rules and play process are just not designed for it and actively undermine it.

And here's why I say that an overly strong focus on agency over everything also sharply narrows the kinds of campaigns permitted.

 

[nevin]

I've never had a GM refuse to let me play something without a good reason. Now sometimes I didn't know the good reason till months in to the campaign, because of things our characters didn't know. GM gives the story. If player decides to go off on incompatible tangents and get marginized, that's a player issue. Now I've done that as a player and done a lot of stuff in the shadows, while all the other players kept center spotlight. But that was because of my actions and I didn't whine about it. People keep confusing Agency as something that is free of consequences. You have agency to make decisions, those decisions will have consequences. If you don't like the consequences, change your behavior or find a new game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm just talking about some sort of basic equality. Every time any of us suggests that players should have any formal mechanism of input into what the subject of the game is at the table it is like "ANATHEMA!" I just instantly see that scene at the end of Body Snatchers! Every person at the table is a human being with interests and a creative mind. "I'm just not always interested in..." applies equally to them! Obviously if a WHOLE GROUP is constantly saying to one player "Oh, stop it, we want to go loot Billy Bob's Basement of Horrors" and the other guy wants to chase after the Elf King's Daughter, well, then they will have to figure it out. No rules can really solve that.

I'm not sure I get "formal" in this context. I'm not allergic to a certain degree of player input, but also don't see an intrinsic benefit to mechanically formalizing it. But then, I'm not sure from what little I've seen of it that I'm particularly interested in the concept expressed as "play to see" either as a player or a GM most of the time (there are exceptions).

On the other hand, I'm hardly with the group in this thread that thinks any player addition to setting or background is an abomination. I just don't feel any need to have a mechanical tool to let a player do that. That seems rather different than automatically being able to introduce things in the middle of the story, however (and even there I'm not intrinsically allergic within limits, and am not one of the people who throws up at, for example, using metacurrency to do scene editing).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, I'm saying that I am not opposed to discovering and evolving what those inner feelings and desires of character may be through emerging play and recontextualizing my growing sense of the character, particularly if those desires, values, and the like are mechanically tested through play. Maybe my character in the fiction learns or experiences something surprising about themselves and/or their own passions, and in the process, I learn something new too as their player, and I adjust my roleplay accordingly.

That's fine. And that sort of game limits your agency.

Maybe, but Cartesian mind-body dualism is mostly been discarded on the wayside in favor of a more holistic approaches that incorporates cognitive science, biology, medicine, psychology, etc. without viewing the mind and body as dichotomies.

It is really not about Descartes' answers, it is about the question he articulated which still remains unanswered. Also a tad beyond the scope of this tread.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Perhaps in my mental image Lancelot is actually secretly in love with Arthur?


Yes, absolutely. Descartes can tell you why.


This has gotten bizarre. Such a conflict would probably be the driving force of the character, and it is for the player to decide whether they want to play character like that or not. You're seriously trying to argue that the player not being able to decide the desires and motivations of their character is not an imposition on the player agency, whilst earlier it was also argued that player not being able to decide facts about the world external to their character was? 'Agency' truly does not mean anything beyond 'things I like' to you. What a joke.

So, it is fine to say that part of the conditions of play is that you are stuck at a locked door and cannot proceed, and the players lack any influence on how to resolve that, but its anathema for a player to be faced with an obstacle/challenge in which his character has unwanted feelings? I don't see what makes one perfectly OK and the other one NOT, except that you guys cannot escape from your little conceptual box where you've already decided that RP is only one certain thing!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Meaningful to whom? You're using 'meaningful' like it had was some objective, measurable thing, whilst it is actually a value judgement. This is what I have been saying all along, agency is subjective because what is 'meaningful' is subjective.

To the participants. In this case, that would be @pemerton since we are talking about his preferences.

How about an example? Let's say that the PC is a fighter who is looking for his brother, who rumor has it joined some kind of cult and ran off. The fighter wanders the land trying to find a clue to his brother's whereabouts, so he can ultimately find and save him.

This is central to the character, right?

Is it central to play? That is the question. Is the game about what the player wants the game to be about?

Someone like @Lanefan might say absolutely not. He sees that kind of personal quest as being boring to everyone else at the table, and so it is self indulgent on the part of the player who'd like to see this play out. He specifically does not want this level of player agency in his game. He prefers that whatever agency is allowed is happening at the character level, with the player declaring the actions and decisions he'd like for his character.

To @pemerton, he has specifically cued the GM to what he'd like to see come up in play. For the GM to ignore that and instead just run his prepped material, whether published or of his own design, would be frustrating. He wants play to be about his PC's search for his brother, and the related beliefs and principles that may be called into question by that search.

Does this mean that every single thing that happens in play needs to revolve around the missing brother? No, of course not. But for it to be meaningful (and I'd argue, objectively so), it has to matter more than the PC showing up in a new town, asking around about his brother, and being told "nope, never saw this kid around here" and then roleplaying sadness at the lack of news.

It has to matter to the unfolding fiction. A series of clues or sightings or rumors leading the PC on in his search, learning more and more until finally the situation boils to a head, and the brother is found, or the cult he joined is confronted, or what have you.

Now, I think a lot of the confusion about this simply comes down to the specific game in question, and what the expectations for that game would reasonably be. Some games are absolutely designed to deliver this experience. Others are not suited for it at all. I think in most cases, people will adjust their expectations according to the game they're playing.

I think where we find conflict is with games that are somewhat suited for it, but for which it is not a necessity. Most versions of D&D would fall into this category, I think. Can it be done in D&D? Sure, to an extent at least. I run a 5E game and it very much revolves around what the players want for their characters. Am I guided in any way by the game to do that? No, not at all, really. The PCs (sometimes) have Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws.....but they don't really do much, and the books don't really offer the DM much in the way of their use. It's more just about the player getting a slight perk for actually roleplaying their character.

Other games have similar character traits that are integral to play.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've never had a GM refuse to let me play something without a good reason. Now sometimes I didn't know the good reason till months in to the campaign, because of things our characters didn't know. GM gives the story. If player decides to go off on incompatible tangents and get marginized, that's a player issue. Now I've done that as a player and done a lot of stuff in the shadows, while all the other players kept center spotlight. But that was because of my actions and I didn't whine about it. People keep confusing Agency as something that is free of consequences. You have agency to make decisions, those decisions will have consequences. If you don't like the consequences, change your behavior or find a new game.

Well, there's still a point to be had here that's I've brought up; making decisions that effectively walk the character out of the campaign. As I've noted, if you (the generic "you" here) assume a GM is going to indefinitely run what adds up to a side game that the other players are only peripherally involved in in most cases I think you've made a categorical error. I've run one or two games where that would have worked (a "people now have superpowers" game where a number of players were only peripherally involved in the main thrust of the campaign, and where often they were playing mostly by email) but in a routine game I'm not interested in taking the time or effort out to do so.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, there's still a point to be had here that's I've brought up; making decisions that effectively walk the character out of the campaign. As I've noted, if you (the generic "you" here) assume a GM is going to indefinitely run what adds up to a side game that the other players are only peripherally involved in in most cases I think you've made a categorical error. I've run one or two games where that would have worked (a "people now have superpowers" game where a number of players were only peripherally involved in the main thrust of the campaign, and where often they were playing mostly by email) but in a routine game I'm not interested in taking the time or effort out to do so.

But this all depends on the game and setting in question, doesn't it? Like, if you've established some clear constraints on what the game is to be about....whether these are determined by the setting or by some kind of theme or what have you.....then people should factor that in to their character creation, no?

If I know I'm playing Five Torches Deep or some other OSR style dungeon delving game, I'm not going to spend a ton of time coming up with a background and specific goals for my character that don't involve raiding dungeons.

If I'm playing Blades in the Dark, I'm goig to absolutely craft a background and personal goals for my PC, all within the expectation that he is a member of a criminal crew on the rise in Doskvol.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, it is fine to say that part of the conditions of play is that you are stuck at a locked door and cannot proceed, and the players lack any influence on how to resolve that, but its anathema for a player to be faced with an obstacle/challenge in which his character has unwanted feelings? I don't see what makes one perfectly OK and the other one NOT, except that you guys cannot escape from your little conceptual box where you've already decided that RP is only one certain thing!

Both of those are fine as long as the players agreed to play that sort of a game. Both restrict the player agency, hopefully for some purpose that all the players feel is worth it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

We were talking about games that impose feelings, desires etc on characters. I think you yourself referred to some mechanic that altered character's virtue or some such. These are the things the characterisation is based on. I am not merely talking about freedom to express, but the freedom to choose what is being expressed.

What about games which impose the fictional contents of play? WHY is that less of an imposition? See, you're caught in one very tight little box of definitions of what is and is not 'allowed' in RPG play, and you aren't able to escape it. You need to broaden your analysis and allow for additional degrees of freedom in terms of evaluating what is and is not allowed. This is what I meant FAR back in the thread when I talked about a failure to really analyze RPGs and look at it from all sides. I got basically the same reaction then, that suggesting it is better to look outside this narrow box is nothing but insulting to all the people who aren't doing so.

What you all don't get is, I'm fine with the idea that you can declare a preference after you do that analysis, and that preference can be "I don't want to play Launcelot in Pemerton's game." That's fine, but refusing to even acknowledge that every way in which players inputs are limited are actually limitations that matter and only weighing certain ones in your analysis, THAT is a more limited, and thus inferior form of analysis!