A Question Of Agency?

I think this needs unpacking, and I'll do it without defining anything.
But you do. Because everything you say here relies on your Newspeak definition of agency.

Firstly, the claim that players talking and deciding things in character being crucial to agency is immediately defeated by examples of agency being wielded even while in pawn stance -- ie, without any attempt to portray the character. This isn't terrible interesting to your point though, so let's set this aside and look at cases where players are talking and deciding things in character.

In this case, the discussion between players doesn't really get to agency until they act on that decision
Yes it does. They're establishing things about the fiction. Earlier several people claimed that player's agency was limited if they were not allowed to introduce some hills in the fiction. So certainly introducing elements in fiction is use of agency. Everything the characters feel, think or say, is an element in the fiction. And just like the hills, it can affect the behaviour of the other characters too.

-- if you've ever attended a meeting where courses of action are being presented then you'll recognize that what's said in the meeting has only a loose connection to what actually happens (except in rare, special cases).
Presumably what happens in a meeting is people talking. Which is a thing that happens. You're trying to slip in here one of your arbitrary imaginary divisions.

Just agreeing between players doesn't make a thing so -- it's the actions taken to enact it that really get to agency. And, here, we're back to the same evaluations -- who's doing the resolving? If it's just the GM, then no amount of discussing or deciding in character will overcome a GM veto. There's no agency here at all. On the other hand, if the GM authorizes the plan, then we can evaluate agency. Or on the gripping hand, if the system allows players to push the issue without the GM's authorization, then we can also evaluate agency. The details of what's discussed and decided don't matter until put to action, at which point the agency of the game will show up. Just talking in character doesn't enable or disable agency.
So now the ability for the players to do what they want without GM stopping them is them having agency... except if what they wanted to do was to talk, then it wasn't...

Now, is it important for other reasons? Absolutely! I'd find my RPGs to be rather dull affairs (I'm not a fan of classic player-skill dungeon crawls) without some good characterization! And I think that making choices that advocate for your character is very important for my enjoyment. But, doing so doesn't enable agency, so I can't agree that in-character play is critical to agency. It's critical to my enjoyment, though.
In-character play is a part of the game, thus making decisions about that is making decisions about the content of the game, thus use of agency.

I'm not sure what you're criticizing, here -- it's not anything I'm familiar with. I 100% agree that the Lancelot character's player doesn't control outside characters, and that the conflict is key to the play, but I don't know what system you're talking about that would offload this to some mechanic and rob the player of agency.

For example, if the player of the Lancelot character find a situation where they can act on their forbidden love for the Queen, but it's in tension with their loyalty to their friend, does the player have agency by just saying they resist and their character resists?
Yes! They absolutely do! If they cannot do that, their agency is seriously limited and it is completely bonkers to claim otherwise!

This is a Czege violation -- the player has established both the forbidden love and the loyalty aspects and then also establishes the resolution of the tension between them. This isn't playing a game, or engaging agency, it's just straight authorship. It's isn't low or high agency because agency isn't invoked.
Yeah, I'm done with this Czege. It is invoked here like some religious doctrine, and with similar amount of subtlety too.

And this is not some pass/fail test, it is a choice. And important, character defining choice. The character is basically choosing to sacrifice one thing that is important to them, they cannot have both.

Now, you can also have the GM decides aspect here, and the GM can decide how the character reacts. This is clearly a low agency situation -- the player can only try to persuade the GM to issue a preferred resolution, but has no ability to influence it otherwise. This gets a bit better if the GM decides a check is in order and the player can then leverage character abilities to improve the odds of success, but, again, what success and failure is will be decided by the GM. The best that can be hoped for here is a keenly interested GM that will act as benevolent dictator and deliver a fair evaluation/resolution and that you like this. I find most D&D games live in this space -- the players like how the GM decides things. Or, don't dislike it.

Alternatively, you can have a situation where the GM can say, "sure, you resist," or they could say, "um, this seems like a good time to see which side of Lancelot wins, let's have a check." The terms of this are system restricted -- on a success the player gets what they want, on a failure the GM can narrate the failure state. Note this differs from the above in that the ability to dictate resolution steps is shared -- the player gets to dictate the success, the GM the failures. The player here has more agency because they can set at least half of the wagered outcomes and the GM cannot gainsay them.

Finally, in an interesting case, the player themselves can ask for a check because they're interested in both a situation where Lancelot resists and one where he doesn't. This can go to all of the above situations -- player decides all ends of the wager, in which case agency isn't invoked and the check is just an aid to deciding how to author the scene; or, the GM decides, and agency is reduced in favor of elevating GM agency; or the system has a say in how the check will be conducted and the player has more agency by dint of determining some of the resolution space without GM approval.

None of this looks like turning over the character to mechanics. In any case where agency is invoked (and just dictating outcomes doesn't invoke agency -- it's not no agency, it's not even agency) there's always a mechanic involved, even if that's just GM decides.

This is truly something. You advocate subjecting important character defining choices for die rolls and think you're advocating for agency!

Very early in this thread I talked about not sweating about agency regarding small choices, whether to go to right or left, etc. I said that it is the big choices that matter, love, loyalty, grand goals. This is that sort of a choice. Now having GM to force such choices is of course a no go, but reducing such to some soulless coin flips is almost as bad. So yeah, I'll stick to my version of agency, which means that the players get to control the crucial decision that define their characters.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think it is always a bit fuzzy. That is, in theory the color of your cloak COULD matter later on. So, the totality of the fiction is potentially within the realm of game state, but most of it will not ever be acted upon. In fact most of it will soon be forgotten, and even notes taken at the time which fully expound the causal connections between events in the fiction won't mention them. I would say these are only 'weakly coupled' to game state. Heck, hit points could turn out to be weakly coupled to a given game state. The fact that your character got bit by a giant rat for 1 point of damage might be utterly forgettable and trivial. It could lead to your death too, you won't know until later.

I would say that mental state of characters that is unattached to mechanics is, however, ALWAYS weakly coupled, at best. It is usually irrelevant. There isn't any formal mechanism to make it relevant, even in narrative games, unless the player explicitly elevates it to mechanical significance (writes a new Bond in DW or something).

Yup. But I firmly hold that if you can't suss out what is gamestate relevant at the moment of the decision-point then something has gone wrong in play. This can either be a system problem, lack of deftness of GMing, or lack of engagement on the players (which is a whole other question of why that is happening).

Its similar to the profound difference in experience of a great novel or movie where a huge reveal happens at some point (like 6th Sense or Memento) that changes the viewers entire orientation. Just like if the writer/producer/director/editor doesn't deftly seed the narrative with subtle clues, the general experience of the reveal will be either (a) completely unimpactful or (b) an absolute turn-off (if particularly opaque or ham-fisted). GMs have to similarly deftly handle their conflict framing whether the decision-points are centered around navigating the final stretch of a dangerous labyrinth by the flagging light of 3 remaining torches or the adjuring of a hostile spirit from a host or pulling off an art heist at an auction with a huge security contingent and high society.
 


I don't have time to do a full post, but I think I've uncovered where the daylight is between us. I'll write up a few play examples later this evening to illustrate things, but for now, what is "gamestate relevant" are things that the gamestate's initial state and its subsequent state are sensitive to. What does the transition of the gamestate turn on? If something within the shared fiction of play doesn't intersect with that (eg the color of your cloak doesn't matter to whether or not you suss out whether danger or your objective is down the left path vs the right), then its not gamestate relevant. That doesn't mean its unimportant to your personal fun of play...it just means its not gamestate relevant.
I mean, sure, the colour of the cloak is unlikely to affect that particular gamestate, it could affect something else though. And I really fail to see how classifying some things within the game as 'gamestates' and some not isn't ultimately arbitrary. Perhaps my cloak was the favourite colour of the gloomy elf, and by gifting it to him I can cheer him up! So now the 'gamestate' of the elf's glumness has changed, thanks to my blue cloak!
 

I mean, sure, the colour of the cloak is unlikely to affect that particular gamestate, it could affect something else though. And I really fail to see how classifying some things within the game as 'gamestates' and some not isn't ultimately arbitrary. Perhaps my cloak was the favourite colour of the gloomy elf, and by gifting it to him I can cheer him up! So now the 'gamestate' of the elf's glumness has changed, thanks to my blue cloak!
And if the elf's glumness doesn't signify anything in the game, it has no salience, then so what? I mean, it could be a fun moment for the players. It is likely to be little remarked nor long remembered. States are just a way of talking about the flow of the situation in the game from one point to the next and the causal connections that are built in the narrative between them. I don't see why people are so up in arms about the assertion that 'strong' state would be created by say writing a Bond between the elf and the dwarf with the yellow cloak, which they can then act on with 'hold' (for example, in DW hold lets you keep a bonus to a check in reserve). This lets the actuality of that friendship come through in a significant way, the elf leaps to the defense of the dwarf, his friend, and knocks aside the deadly snake! How is that not a good thing? I don't get it.
 

And if the elf's glumness doesn't signify anything in the game, it has no salience, then so what?
Signify to whom?

I mean, it could be a fun moment for the players. It is likely to be little remarked nor long remembered.
That one moment perhaps. But dispositions of characters and their relationships and interactions are probably going to be far more memorable and impact the actual experience of the game far more than +2 bonus to this or that.

States are just a way of talking about the flow of the situation in the game from one point to the next and the causal connections that are built in the narrative between them.
Yes, that's how I understood it. So logically basically anything in the game is a gamestate.

I don't see why people are so up in arms about the assertion that 'strong' state would be created by say writing a Bond between the elf and the dwarf with the yellow cloak, which they can then act on with 'hold' (for example, in DW hold lets you keep a bonus to a check in reserve). This lets the actuality of that friendship come through in a significant way, the elf leaps to the defense of the dwarf, his friend, and knocks aside the deadly snake! How is that not a good thing? I don't get it.
I mean sure, you can give it mechanics like that if you want. But the friendship is not the mechanical bonus. The friendship without the bonus will be far more memorable and impactful than the bonus without the friendship. Though of course you can have both.
 

And my response to this is it illustrates the degree to which your agency, the scope of that agency, is limited when playing D&D. There is an adventure. Sure, you can color your actions how you wish, and there are undoubtedly going to be variations in how things play out, within the bounds of that adventure! Maybe, if whomever is running it is willing, they may even let you 'go off the rails', but the DM will still dictate where that leads, and could easily route the action back to the main storyline at some point.

I gather you don't believe true sandboxes are a thing? Or are we back to "if you don't have an ability to directly influence setting elements on a player level you can have no true agency"?
 

I think this description fits D&D best when playing something like an Adventure Path (which might be what you're reacting to). It's possible to play a D&D game where the DM doesn't know where the PCs will go or what they will do. I know, because I'm running two.

Yup. It requires more work in some ways, less in others, but its been done by people for decades.
 

I mean, sure, the colour of the cloak is unlikely to affect that particular gamestate, it could affect something else though. And I really fail to see how classifying some things within the game as 'gamestates' and some not isn't ultimately arbitrary. Perhaps my cloak was the favourite colour of the gloomy elf, and by gifting it to him I can cheer him up! So now the 'gamestate' of the elf's glumness has changed, thanks to my blue cloak!

Alright, to attempt to assuage you of your sense of arbitrariness.

Gamestates are sequences of play characterized by the following features:

1) They address the objective/premise of the game.

2) Each sequential gamestate is fundamentally changed (the existing orientation or nature of objects in play are changed in some relevant way - see (1) above) from the prior gamestate.

3) The gamestate marches inexorably toward the endgame or "game over", terminating when the objective/premise of the game has been resolved.

* Of note, depending upon the TTRPGs, there will be a macro gamestate (Dogs in the Vineyard - mete out justice and uphold the Faith as one of God's Watchdogs) and one or more micro gamestates (take my Dog's coat into Suzanna for mending as an excuse to attempt to romance her so I may marry her and retire) persisting simultaneously. However, some TTRPGs have an extremely small play loop such that there is only one gamestate that exists (One-shots and games like My Life With Master).

My next post is going to address specifically the meting out justice, Faith-upholding, coat-mending, Suzanna-wooing, retiring (or not). But does what I wrote above make sense?
 

But you do. Because everything you say here relies on your Newspeak definition of agency.
Oddly, it's only you that says this.
Yes it does. They're establishing things about the fiction. Earlier several people claimed that player's agency was limited if they were not allowed to introduce some hills in the fiction. So certainly introducing elements in fiction is use of agency. Everything the characters feel, think or say, is an element in the fiction. And just like the hills, it can affect the behaviour of the other characters too.
The element introduced is that some characters talked, so, yes, I suppose having the agency to do this is something. But, you don't actually have this agency -- the GM in your game is allowing it to happen, the players cannot decide this is so themselves and enforce it. If the GM wished, your discussion could have been interrupted by any manner of things, so it's not really a choice you've made that creates this, it's a choice the GM has made to allow it. As a player, you do not have the agency to execute a talk. The actual contents of the talk is about as important as the color of your cloak -- until the GM determines that what you're discussing is important, it is not.

This is what you have when you have a system where the GM has complete authority over the setting and resolutions. It's not a bad thing -- most GMs are going to not even consider interrupting player discussions in character because they enjoy them as well. This is just a usual exercise of the agency the GM possesses, though, not an exercise of player agency. I think that this is what you're confusing -- how a GM usually rules for allowance for the player being able to enact a thing.
Presumably what happens in a meeting is people talking. Which is a thing that happens. You're trying to slip in here one of your arbitrary imaginary divisions.
A thing happening is not sufficient for an exercise of agency. Again, if you have a choice between right or left, but no nothing about the choice other than it's a or b, and you choose one, you're not actually exercising agency because the choice is empty. Similarly, a thing happening isn't a sufficient condition for agency. For example, a player can ask a GM for there to be a friendly barman to ask for a drink at the local pub instead of the usual surly barman. The GM can acquiesce, and add one. This isn't an exercise in player agency, though, but an exercise of GM agency.
So now the ability for the players to do what they want without GM stopping them is them having agency... except if what they wanted to do was to talk, then it wasn't...
If this is the conclusion you reached from that, you've understood the exact opposite of what I said. What I said was that talking in character doesn't enable or disable agency -- there must be something more.
In-character play is a part of the game, thus making decisions about that is making decisions about the content of the game, thus use of agency.
Of course in-character play can be part of the game. It doesn't have to be, but it most certainly can be. And, I 100% agree that the player choosing whether or not to act in character is an exercise of agency -- they don't have to and it can be a meaningful choice. Just not a meaningful choice for the RPG, and not an exercise of player agency within the game. Why? Because acting in-character is not a requirement for the game -- agency exists in the game whether or not you're acting in character. You can act in character and have the same agency in the game as another player that does not. No, instead, you're exercising your real world agency to choose to act in character, and the repercussions are in the social interactions with your table, and in the meta-game layer that sits above the game being played. The role playing in RPG doesn't mean acting in character, it means taking on a role like Fighter or Wizard. You don't have to act in-character at all to do this.

Again, my preference is definitely for in-character acting. I enjoy it and prefer it. I just don't confuse it for player agency.

Once more we find that I'm advocating for the same kinds of play you are, but there's violent disagreement because I note how the game is working and you want what you prefer to be what the discussion is about.
Yes! They absolutely do! If they cannot do that, their agency is seriously limited and it is completely bonkers to claim otherwise!
Okay, let's be clear, you're saying that if a player cannot first introduce the existence of a trap on a door and then introduce that they've disarmed it that they lack agency? This is the analogue to the situation being discussed -- the player has introduced a "trap" of having conflicting motivations and then introduced their "disarming" of the "trap" by just saying that they successfully navigated it. The only difference here is that the trap example is physical and the temptation of Lancelot isn't, but that's a completely false difference in an imagined space. You're now saying that agency exists when players can invent obstacles and then narrate how they bypass them. This isn't agency, it's not even engaging agency. I can't say this is high or low or no agency because it's not even touching the concept -- it's pure authorship.
Yeah, I'm done with this Czege. It is invoked here like some religious doctrine, and with similar amount of subtlety too.
It's not a religious doctrine at all -- no one worships it, any more than "don't be a dick" is a religious doctrine. It's a clear statement that if one person is both the author of an obstacle and also the author of how that obstacle is defeated, there's no game there. It's referenced because it's an easy shorthand for a trivial truth. One I find it odd that you're dismissing given how you also dislike the idea of a player being able to introduce hills north of the swamp.

Here's a clear example you have experience with -- railroads are good examples of a Czege Principle violation. The GM has authored the obstacles and also the only solution to them. If you do not follow the GM's solution plan, you get noped until you do. This is, almost universally, acclaimed to be unfun. Viola, Czege Principle. You can't both introduce a problem and then solve it -- it's not that fun.
And this is not some pass/fail test, it is a choice. And important, character defining choice. The character is basically choosing to sacrifice one thing that is important to them, they cannot have both.
No, not in the situation I've presented. The player isn't abandoning the character's forbidden love of the Queen in favor of loyalty to his friend, they're making a decision as to which they want right now. Let's say that the player is doing so because it's materially advantageous to do so -- if they don't bed the Queen right now, which will destroy their friendship but satisfy their love of the Queen, then their friend the King will grant them lands and wealth and a new suit of armor that will improve the PC's AC and let them buy that magic sword they've had their eye on. Besides, they can always go back to the Queen next session if they want. Nothing is resolved, the player just picks because this session it's better for them this way than that. This isn't a character defining moment unless the player decides it is, which is, again, them introducing the problem and then deciding how it works out.

Unless the GM later leans on this somehow, this is the equivalent of picking the color of your cloak -- it's pantomime, not actually making character defining choices.
This is truly something. You advocate subjecting important character defining choices for die rolls and think you're advocating for agency!
I'm sorry, do you not roll dice to see if characters die in combat? Is that not character defining, in the ultimate way? Does this mean that there's no agency in combat?

Answers are, of course, Yes, absolutely, and of course there is, in that order. The presence of dice doesn't remove choice. The player has chosen these conflicting motivations themselves and put them out in a place where they will be challenged. We don't allow players to place a troll guarding a treasure and then say they defeat the troll, roll up the treasure, do we? No, and there's no actual difference between inventing a troll that you then say you defeat than there is to inventing a character dilemma that you then say how you've solved. These don't involve player agency because they're not part of playing the game -- if they occur, it's just the fun story we tell around the game, particularly the bits that don't matter except to be entertaining.
Very early in this thread I talked about not sweating about agency regarding small choices, whether to go to right or left, etc. I said that it is the big choices that matter, love, loyalty, grand goals. This is that sort of a choice. Now having GM to force such choices is of course a no go, but reducing such to some soulless coin flips is almost as bad. So yeah, I'll stick to my version of agency, which means that the players get to control the crucial decision that define their characters.
I absolutely agree that your version means that players control their characters. And, this is fine and good. One of my tenets I stick to when I run 5e (which I believe I've mentioned) is that player authority over their characters is absolute (aside from those Charm effects, of course, but I actually strive to avoid those at most costs). So, I don't disagree that this is the way that D&D generally plays. But, if a player has that complete control, then it's not agency at stake when they exercise it. Agency requires a choice that matters, one that has teeth, one that risks things, and players don't risk when they make these choices with total control. To be absolutely clear, the player's choice on these things doesn't engage agency because there's no teeth to that choice. Now, downstream, the player might declare actions in pursuit of that choice, and those can engage agency. Just like the players can discuss in-character all they want and that doesn't engage agency until they start declaring actions in the game. You're confusing the ability to choose to do something at the "inside my head" or "play-acting with my friends" level and missing that the discussion isn't about that -- it's about how the game operates. Those are grafted on top of the game -- they're not necessary for the game to function -- so they can't be exercises of agency in the game by players. They're actually part of the meta-game level -- the one you play where the reward is to entertain yourself and your friends.

And, if you doubt this, you can absolutely find the passage in the rulebook that says that what you claim is an essential part of the game. You'll find discussion about how it can be fun to do so, but no rule in the game requires that you do and the game plays just fine without it. Not a game I'd particularly enjoy, but one that works just fine. And, my enjoyment and what I like has absolutely no bearing on my analysis of agency.
 

Remove ads

Top