A Question Of Agency?

[hawkeyefan]

Right, there's a lot that happens in a different way, and is contributed by different participants. Anyway, we don't really disagree, certainly not on much that I can see. I am less extreme in my categorizations that maybe Pemerton, not sure, but I also have more skepticism about people's explanations of how some of these methods of play actually work vs how they are commonly depicted.

Yeah, I think what happened is that @Manbearcat stated a few foundational elements that are true of any game, and I think @FrogReaver took that to be a statement of the only things important to a game? But I don't think that was the point.

I think the intention was to take that foundation and then show through example how different games go through the process of getting from 1 to 3. And yes, I think we are in agreement about there being very different means depending on system and style or approach.

 

[pemerton]

In the most irrelevant place of all: their own mind.

Right. I've reposted myself, because I'm yet to see any response by @FrogReaver or @Crimson Longinus to it:

Now, if a player's conception of agency in a RPG is my private imaginings about what my PC is feeling and thinking then yes, FoW is a burden on that: if you're playing sincerely you have to imagine your PC feeling the forceful commands of the dark naga, and the impulse of hunting first for Joachim and now for his blood.

But two things;

(1) As @AbdulAlhazred has said upthread, this is no different from the GM telling you you see a dead-end in front of you. Now, if you're playing sincerely, you have to imagine your PC seeing a wall.

(2) I find it odd that, in playing a RPG, I would treat my private imaginings rather than the content of the shared fiction as the focus of my desire for agency. Because playing a social game based around a shared fiction is necessarily going to constrain one's private imaginings.

I also made much the same point about 8 posts up.

 

[prabe]

Right. I've reposted myself, because I'm yet to see any response by @FrogReaver or @Crimson Longinus to it:

I also made much the same point about 8 posts up.

In my case, it was about something that it seems is usually player's choice (Beliefs) not being. Sort like having a character build changed by the GM.

Now, with more explanation and more time on my end thinking about it, I don't see it as being more intrusive than similar elements in other games.

 

[FrogReaver]

Do you think that there's a difference between chance and a person deciding?

I assume you mean another person deciding. If so then - Not when it comes to agency.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, let's continue ad argumentum. The situation you have here is that you claim that there is agency in choosing or not choosing to do in-character role play. That this choice is largely a wash -- both work equally well.

Work equally well for what? If the purpose was to have an action adventure with an interesting set of fun characters, then I'd argue that roleplaying an unresponsive mute who has no emotion does not work equally well than playing a character who has emotions and expresses them in an interesting manner and quite likely elicits responses from other characters in turn.

We're still, then, back to looking at how the actions are resolved in the game as the prime measure of agency. How the choice to go towards water works is where we'll find any differences in agency. Here, we're back to the structures I posted earlier -- either the GM has full authority to determine the resolution of the action (including negating it) or the player has some ability to determine the resolution space, either through a mechanic or the GM not being allowed to negate the action, only test it. Here, it seems clear that the agency balance still tilts away from GM decides systems, even as you claim that there's still agency in choosing whether or not this happens while you choose to act in-character or don't.

Yes, different games place limits on agency in different ways we already know that. Like how some games with personality mechanics place limits on players agency to roleplay their character.

Put simply, even if we accept your premise that the choice to act in-character or not is agency

OK...

(and I agree it is, just not player agency but rather outside of the game),

What? This is a complete non sequitur.

then we're still looking to the same set of issues to determine whether or not one method involves more agency than another. Your claim doesn't impact the situation. Feel free to pose a counter example where you think it does, though. I played traditional style D&D for decades, and I can't think of any.

At this point I don't even know what you think my claim is.

And, again, this isn't a value statement. There's lots of other things the games can do that can matter more to you. Clearly, I don't have a problem with playing a game I think has less agency than others. You still haven't addressed this point, by the way -- why would I engage in devious redefinitions to win a point that aims squarely at my own play?

I'm not a mind reader.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not when it comes to agency.

How do you figure?

If the outcome of something is left up to dice to determine, whose agency is involved?

Let's say I want my character to convince some NPC to help my party with a problem. This NPC is someone my PC knows, and so I have a bit of weight to pull, but it's a big ask. I'm putting my PC's relationship with this person at risk by asking for this favor.

I roll for Persuasion.......

Whose agency is involved here? That of the dice?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, you can see it that way. So same way that if one of them had chosen that their character stays put, they would have used their agency to do so. It doesn't still change the fact that they're using their agency to have their character to do things, whether it was to go somewhere or reminisce about the past. Why you think that having the character move is a choice, but having the character reminisce isn't?

Where does it lead? Is it building up to something? Is it 'propelling the story' in some way? Nobody disagrees that RP like that is good, but calling freedom to talk to yourself in character 'agency' is pretty low bar. It almost seems like the player is actually shaping his character's backstory and mental life to match with the material presented by the GM, so how free IS this agency?

I mean, this is actually a critical point, which may not have been made well before. If I'm being presented with situations to negotiate, and then I'm going to have a believable, consistent, appropriate characterization of my PC, aren't I almost obliged to shape that to reflect the material to an extent? I mean, perhaps players simply revolt at that often, but in real life we are a product of our environment, not so much the other way around. I think I want that relationship to be different in RP, so I get to really explore what I wish to in the character's inner life, instead of it being at least heavily reliant on someone else's idea of what I should care about.

 

[FrogReaver]

How do you figure?

If the outcome of something is left up to dice to determine, whose agency is involved?

Let's say I want my character to convince some NPC to help my party with a problem. This NPC is someone my PC knows, and so I have a bit of weight to pull, but it's a big ask. I'm putting my PC's relationship with this person at risk by asking for this favor.

I roll for Persuasion.......

Whose agency is involved here? That of the dice?

The player had agency to attempt to try and persuade the NPC.

The dice removed the players and DM’s agency to to decide if the NPC was persuaded.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In a 5e game playing through the Ravenloft RP, where does a player get to decide what his/her PC wants?

I'm not familiar with it, as I don't really care for railroady adventure paths, but I'd still assume that pretty much all the time when not being mind controlled by vampires (which given the name of the adventure might admittedly be a frequent occurrence.)

The campaign not offering opportunities for the characters to act on their wants is a perfectly valid criticism, no one is denying that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The player had agency to attempt to try and persuade the NPC.

The dice removed the players and DM’s agency to to decide if the NPC was persuaded.

Do you realize how much of RPGing you just said happens with no agency?

Edited to add: More to my original point, I think you are acknowledging that the dice and the GM deciding are at least different, correct?