A Question Of Agency?

[Crimson Longinus]

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!

I am not the one who is confusing my personal preferences to objective facts here. I have been pretty consistent on my view that agency is subjective and based on value judgements.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So your play characters so that their portrayal and their decisions are completely disconnected from their feelings and desires? Very strange.

Well, here I kind of agree with you. The feeling described is a hard limitation on character actions and thus portrayal. So is a wall in a dungeon.

Hard problem of consciousness remains as one of the biggest problems (or perhaps the biggest) of philosophy.

Meh, IMHO philosophy has utterly botched it. Now you have these idiots talking about 'existential zombies' and other such BS, its sad. Please leave this stuff to the sciences, we have no problem answering these questions. They are 'hard' in the sense of "taking a lot of work to answer" but we are making steady progress and we WILL answer them in the only way which matters, by creating artificial consciousness, and/or manipulating human consciousness with technology and demonstrating its purely physical basis. Descartes' notions are largely obsolete, though I would accept that 'cogito ergo sum' is a sort of tautological demonstration that consciousness is indeed a 'thing', as if we really needed such a proof...

 

[Thomas Shey]

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?

I'd like to think so, but the hard edge comes down to "Event happens; player decides his character will do X; X effectively removes the character from the game". Is this unacceptable?

While I absolutely think the GM should be communicating enough to make it clear where these sorts of borders are, I've gotten the sense from some respondents that the above situation is considered unacceptable, and that's why I've been claiming that there seem like some problems here.

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.

And I've got absolutely no problem with someone who is willing to contextualize their goals and expectations. If that's what people are talking about, we're talking past each other.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If it requires that the player chase his agenda no matter what the campaign is actually about, then I stand by my opinion. Otherwise, as I said, you need to go in keeping your agenda, whether at start or later, in the context of the game.

As I said, in the police game, does the player expect to be able to leave the police and still play in the campaign? If not, he's obviously constraining his agency to one degree or another, or being very careful to set up the character so its a nonissue (and some people seem to have a problem with that, too). If he does expect to do that, then he's essentially defining every campaign structure into a sandbox.

Right, I don't think anyone is really seriously suggesting that there are no limits on what players can introduce into a game. I don't know of any games which provide for arbitrary insertion of any old element, nor any which don't at least point out that character agendas and such should relate somehow in a way which facilitates/allows group play. These are simply necessary considerations related to RPGs, limitations of the medium. Notably Gygax got around some of that by engaging in 'troupe play' where there are a large number of players with large numbers of PCs and an entourage which can act independently. That allowed for a wider latitude. Your PC could be engaged in something totally unrelated to, or opposed to, other PCs, and you'd just play some different PC on Tuesday night, or whatever.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

We are really talking past each other. I have nothing against the action in the game being related to the motivations of characters. I've been pretty clear that I'm for it. But this tangent was about some people thinking that agency over characters feeling and motivations for some reason doesn't count, and that expressing character's feelings and desires via portraying them are not proper events in the game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Right, I don't think anyone is really seriously suggesting that there are no limits on what players can introduce into a game. I don't know of any games which provide for arbitrary insertion of any old element, nor any which don't at least point out that character agendas and such should relate somehow in a way which facilitates/allows group play. These are simply necessary considerations related to RPGs, limitations of the medium. Notably Gygax got around some of that by engaging in 'troupe play' where there are a large number of players with large numbers of PCs and an entourage which can act independently. That allowed for a wider latitude. Your PC could be engaged in something totally unrelated to, or opposed to, other PCs, and you'd just play some different PC on Tuesday night, or whatever.

I'm not going to say anyone outright has said that here, but some people have seemed to dance up to the idea that its an imposition, and as I've mentioned, I've absolutely hit a few people in the past who seemed to think anything but an open-world sandbox was not vastly different than a railroad, so I've been trying to make sure that wasn't where we were going here.

Once you get past that, you can at least get down to the idea that where the line is drawn is pretty subjective.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If it requires that the player chase his agenda no matter what the campaign is actually about, then I stand by my opinion. Otherwise, as I said, you need to go in keeping your agenda, whether at start or later, in the context of the game.

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm dense. What requires this? I mean, I know the definition, I'm using it, and I absolutely disagree that it requires anything at all. It seems like you're substituting "MAXIMIZED AGENCY" in and using that as "definition" when no one but you is making this argument.

As far as saying "what the campaign is actually about" this clearly indicates that your baseline is that the campaign is about something the GM's chosen. This is arguing from the position that the GM should trump any player input in this regard, which clearly reduces player agency. Is this a bad thing? As someone that runs 5e with this very understanding backed into the game, I don't think it's a bad thing. Someone else might not like it though, and then the fact that 5e has less player agency baked it would inform their decision to play a different game. No harm in that.

As I said, in the police game, does the player expect to be able to leave the police and still play in the campaign? If not, he's obviously constraining his agency to one degree or another, or being very careful to set up the character so its a nonissue (and some people seem to have a problem with that, too). If he does expect to do that, then he's essentially defining every campaign structure into a sandbox.

I don't know what your hypothetical player thinks. It's pretty obvious, though, that if the player can make that choice they have more agency than if they cannot. Whether or not that's valuable to you or the player isn't answered by this observation, but instead by your individual preferences. I absolutely think your asserting that it's either the GM has final authority to nix sidetracks OR it's a sandbox (which, again, is a fraught term) is a false dichotomy. I mean, Blades in the Dark has more agency than 5e because the players have some abilities to direct play without seeking the GM's approval, but it's still bounded by themes -- you're going to be a criminal in a gang operating in a haunted city. So, we have a situation where players are locked into the themes of the game and yet still have concrete abilities to direct play without GM approval. This is more agency that 5e has (5e's core mechanic is GM decides) and yet doesn't require your claim be true.

I think that if you stopped looking for ways to discredit the definition because you don't want to accept that your play has less agency than some other kinds of play, you'd be on a stronger footing. The real question isn't about how much agency there is -- this is just observational -- it's why you've chosen the level of agency you like and what you get for choosing that. As, again, a 5e GM I clearly choose to play a game with less agency than other games I like and can run. I do this because there's a tradeoff in what I get -- 5e allows for other mechanics I like that don't really sit as well with more open agency games and I run a pretty fun game even as benevolent dictator so my friends trust the game will be fun and enjoy playing. That's it -- I can accept a lower player agency because the trade-off is worth it to me. Because, and I seem to not be able to say this enough, amount of agency is not a value statement, it's a preference heuristic. I absolutely won't play or run a 5e railroad, for instance, because sacrificing that much agency does not come with sufficient benefit (in fact, I see no benefit whatsoever, but someone else might).

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am not the one who is confusing my personal preferences to objective facts here. I have been pretty consistent on my view that agency is subjective and based on value judgements.

Agency is not subjective and based on value judgements. It's just an observation. How you value agency is based on your value judgements.

Again, tell me how I can both be an advocate for 5e AND agree it has less agency that other games. It's not because I'm using subjective definitions of agency or subjective analysis of the amount of authority players have to direct play in the game. It's because there's less agency and I find that to be just fine.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

YES! ABSOLUTELY! You're almost there!

Games limit agency -- they have to, elsewise they're not games. There has to be some stop, some constraint, to impose meaning to choices, which forms the foundation of agency. So, ALL games limit agency in some way.

That said, is it not clear that a game that puts all authority over the fiction in the hands of one player has less agency for the other players than a game that shares that authority, even in a limited fashion? Hence, Monster Hearts has more agency than 5e, but it is not boundless agency. Why? Because, in Monster Hearts, the players don't have to get the approval of the GM for some things. In 5e, they do, because, again, the core mechanic of 5e is GM decides. Nothing in 5e prevents a benevolent dictator from presenting an awesomely fun game, but it's still an autocracy.

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.

Honestly, this is like saying that the Luminiferous Ether is still a valuable theory despite Einstein. Descartes' formulation has been overtaken by greater understanding -- there is no evidence of a mind/body dichotomy and much evidence of interdependence. Still, it is an odd sidetrack to be arguing Descartes in regards to the topic -- it absolutely removes character as a possible point of consideration as there is neither mind nor body to a character except what is imagined.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Agency is not subjective and based on value judgements.

Yes it is. It relies on concept of 'meaningful choices' and what is meaningful is subjective.