A Question Of Agency?

[FrogReaver]

You are not a scientist of RPGs though. You are assuming you are like the experts in your example. And you are not. Nor am I. We are just gamers having a conversation and running up against a linguistic tactic. You have to convince people to adopt the language you are using with agency and half the posters here are rejecting your useage because that isn't what they understand the term to mean.

I think you are using a bit stronger language than I would. I'm okay using my definition or their definition and talking from there. I think you are as well. My biggest contention isn't what gets labeled as agency, but rather anytime I try to take their framework and place the kind of agency I want to talk about inside of it, I hit road block after road block in trying to talk to them about that kind of agency in their language.

 

[Aldarc]

My understanding of player agency comes from video game discussions. It's the way I have always seen it discussed in meat space. Of course I play almost entirely with Millennial and younger gamers who are avid video game players.

Here's an example: Player Agency: How Game Design Affects Narrative

Video games seem like a better point of comparison regarding agency than literature due to its interactive nature. Telltale or even BioWare games definitely have the illusion of choice. Players cannot set their own agendas or choices as one would in, for example, Minecraft or even Skyrim.

 

[Manbearcat]

A basic divide here is the agency inherent in playstyle, which seems to be what Bedrock is focused on, and agency inherent in resolution mechanics, which is what some other people are talking about. Frankly I think both are important if the project is to delineate what agency means and looks like in practice.

If I were to evaluate exactly what is happening here based on the matrix (no matter how fallible) I've devised, it would look like this:

THE IYLLIC D&D SANDBOX

* Protagonist Agency for players is either (a) non-existent or (b) its relatively diffuse. In case (b) (where some or all of the PCs do have some kind of explicit dramatic need that play attempts to resolve), it is diffuse because (i) there are a huge number of dramatic needs within the sandbox and (ii) those must all be given expression through the GM such that (iii) there will be many, many moments of play that entirely unrelated to/not framed around resolving PC dramatic need. (i-iii) are necessary in concert so the dreaded "Rowboat World" doesn't materialize through play.

The "Side Quest" is the classical manifestation of this. Through the confluence of an accretion of "Sandbox Dramatic Needs" + "Side Quests (where resolution of those Setting Dramatic Needs are the focal point around which play orbits)" = "Rowboat World" is kept at bay.

For these games (like the one BRG seems to be representing), diffuse Protagonist Agency (which means both in total and for any given unit of play, PC Protagonist Agency is diminished or non-existent because resolution of Setting Dramatic Need is the apex play priority) is "a feature, not a bug."

BLADES IN THE DARK SANDBOX

* Protagonist Agency is central to every unit of play and the entirety of play in total. Although the Setting's Factions and the Setting itself has Protagonist Agency, the Players Protagonist Agency doesn't become diffuse. It just means that every moment of play will involve some collision of the Crew's dramatic needs with other Factions/Setting and, thus, play will orbit around the Crew's dramatic needs. There won't be "Side Quests" that are "PC dramatic need-neutral."

The skirmish over, let's call it, "Haunted Painting Incident" is a perfect example of this realized in play. Its also a perfect example of a player "grabbing The Situation Piece (and possibly grabbing the Setting Piece depending upon how the action resolution mechanics/fiction resolves)" in a way that isn't present in the Classic D&D Sandbox (again, hence the "scandal" over this).

---

Both Sandboxes.

Different approaches to dramatic needs (and therefore Protagonist Agency).

This is a HUGE pivot point of this conversation. One side is saying that (to take this exact example) that the Blades Sandbox approach invests the Players with more Protagonist Agency. The other side is either (a) disputing this differential in Protagonist Agency (for reasons that aren't clear to me...but I would definitely say that there is just some fundamental disagreement/misunderstanding of these concepts/paradigms that are stifling clarity and consensus) OR (b) the other side is saying that a Sandbox (or play in general) that orbits entirely around Player Protagonist Agency is not desirable for them.

To me (a) is not defensible, but (b) is 100 % defensible.

Further, I'd say that another HUGE pivot point of this conversation is a player "Grabbing Situation Piece or Setting Piece".

One side says that a more prolific ability for player to grab those pieces means (a) more breadth (at least) of Tactical and/or Strategic Agency and (through this) (b) an amplification of ability to positively resolve Protagonist Agency (because you can advocate harder and better for your dramatic need...your dramatic need doesn't become more relevant because its at optimum relevance already...but your ability to have your advocation for it result in positive affirmation becomes more potent).

The other side (a) disagrees with this (one reason is because of a misappropriation and misapplication of The Czege Principle...which the intent is to substantiate the claim "Tactical or Strategic Agency is subordinated by the Schrodinger's Painting") or (b) doesn't feel this is desirable.

To me (again), (a) is not defensible, but (b) is 100 % defensible.

---

Ironically (BRG would disagree with this I'm sure), this gets us right back to The Right to Dream essay on The Forge. (b) in both of the above (x is not desirable) is precisely because it makes those people feel like it negatively impacts their play priority of experiencing this particular variety of Sandbox play. And if it does negatively impact their experience, that is 100 % defensible! But just say that!

@hawkeyefan , you bet and sounds good!

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is what a lot of your side's position in this discussion sounds like to me

You've intentionally taken that out of context and painted is as if I'm proposing a One True Way, when I've been explicit that I both enjoy and support multiple approaches to gaming. If you cannot quote me without engaging in bad faith, please stop quoting me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The pot calling the kettle black, no?

I don't believe so

 

[FrogReaver]

Then push back. Debate my assertion that I made. But belief in having a coherent position does not equate to having a coherent position. The position requires being put to the rigor of testing. At which point your position may turn out to be coherent or it may not. But asserting that your position is coherent is contentious. If you disagree with this assertion, then go for it.

Your assertion is that you think his position isn't coherent. The counter to that is "i think my position is coherent". Where else do you really go from there? If there's some specific detail you think is incoherent then state what that is and i'm sure it will be addressed or already has been addressed.

And it certainly has been applied to me and my positions. Others with similar viewpoints have likewise been accused of having incoherent views of agency.

With the specific parts that were felt to be incoherent provided by those expressing that view. Please do the same for us.

Then put the coherency of your position to the test with an open-mind.

We have been. Why haven't you?

 

[Bedrockgames]

You've intentionally taken that out of context and painted is as if I'm proposing a One True Way, when I've been explicit that I both enjoy and support multiple approaches to gaming. If you cannot quote me without engaging in bad faith, please stop quoting me.

Perhaps I misunderstood you: you appeared to be saying there is only one way to talk about literary agency. My point was I see a lot of this kind if language coming from your side. I wasn't referencing one true way in gaming when I quoted you.

 

[FrogReaver]

If I were to evaluate exactly what is happening here based on the matrix (no matter how fallible) I've devised, it would look like this:

THE IYLLIC D&D SANDBOX

* Protagonist Agency for players is either (a) non-existent or (b) its relatively diffuse. In case (b) (where some or all of the PCs do have some kind of explicit dramatic need that play attempts to resolve), it is diffuse because (i) there are a huge number of dramatic needs within the sandbox and (ii) those must all be given expression through the GM such that (iii) there will be many, many moments of play that entirely unrelated to/not framed around resolving PC dramatic need. (i-iii) are necessary in concert so the dreaded "Rowboat World" doesn't materialize through play.

The "Side Quest" is the classical manifestation of this. Through the confluence of an accretion of "Sandbox Dramatic Needs" + "Side Quests (where resolution of those Setting Dramatic Needs are the focal point around which play orbits)" = "Rowboat World" is kept at bay.

For these games (like the one BRG seems to be representing), diffuse Protagonist Agency (which means both in total and for any given unit of play, PC Protagonist Agency is diminished or non-existent because resolution of Setting Dramatic Need is the apex play priority) is "a feature, not a bug."

BLADES IN THE DARK SANDBOX

* Protagonist Agency is central to every unit of play and the entirety of play in total. Although the Setting's Factions and the Setting itself has Protagonist Agency, the Players Protagonist Agency doesn't become diffuse. It just means that every moment of play will involve some collision of the Crew's dramatic needs with other Factions/Setting and, thus, play will orbit around the Crew's dramatic needs. There won't be "Side Quests" that are "PC dramatic need-neutral."

The skirmish over, let's call it, "Haunted Painting Incident" is a perfect example of this realized in play. Its also a perfect example of a player "grabbing The Situation Piece (and possibly grabbing the Setting Piece depending upon how the action resolution mechanics/fiction resolves)" in a way that isn't present in the Classic D&D Sandbox (again, hence the "scandal" over this).

---

Both Sandboxes.

Different approaches to dramatic needs (and therefore Protagonist Agency).

This is a HUGE pivot point of this conversation. One side is saying that (to take this exact example) that the Blades Sandbox approach invests the Players with more Protagonist Agency. The other side is either (a) disputing this differential in Protagonist Agency (for reasons that aren't clear to me...but I would definitely say that there is just some fundamental disagreement/misunderstanding of these concepts/paradigms that are stifling clarity and consensus) OR (b) the other side is saying that a Sandbox (or play in general) that orbits entirely around Player Protagonist Agency is not desirable for them.

To me (a) is not defensible, but (b) is 100 % defensible.

Further, I'd say that another HUGE pivot point of this conversation is a player "Grabbing Situation Piece or Setting Piece".

One side says that a more prolific ability for player to grab those pieces means (a) more breadth (at least) of Tactical and/or Strategic Agency and (through this) (b) an amplification of ability to positively resolve Protagonist Agency (because you can advocate harder and better for your dramatic need...your dramatic need doesn't become more relevant because its at optimum relevance already...but your ability to have your advocation for it result in positive affirmation becomes more potent).

The other side (a) disagrees with this (one reason is because of a misappropriation and misapplication of The Czege Principle...which the intent is to substantiate the claim "Tactical or Strategic Agency is subordinated by the Schrodinger's Painting") or (b) doesn't feel this is desirable.

To me (again), (a) is not defensible, but (b) is 100 % defensible.

---

Ironically (BRG would disagree with this I'm sure), this gets us right back to The Right to Dream essay on The Forge. (b) in both of the above (x is not desirable) is precisely because it makes those people feel like it negatively impacts their play priority of experiencing this particular variety of Sandbox play. And if it does negatively impact their experience, that is 100 % defensible! But just say that!

@hawkeyefan , you bet and sounds good!

There's a piece i want to respond to but can you elaborate more on what you mean by protagonist agency. Is it like the agency to place your character in drama filled positions?

 

[Aldarc]

You are not a scientist of RPGs though. You are assuming you are like the experts in your example. And you are not. Nor am I. We are just gamers having a conversation and running up against a linguistic tactic. You have to convince people to adopt the language you are using with agency and half the posters here are rejecting your useage because that isn't what they understand the term to mean.

I was not aware that I said I was a scientist or assuming that I was the expert. That's your own assertion. Not mine. My assertion is that the coherence of your position remains contentious regardless of how coherent you believe it to be.

Your assertion is that you think his position isn't coherent.

You are already wrong. My assertion is that self belief is not the arbiter of coherency. As to where one goes from there, the solution seems obvious: debate the merits of the position itself. But simply declaring your position as being coherent isn't exactly a foolproof assertion.

Why haven't you?

Probably because you're too busy asking me bad faith loaded questions.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think you are using a bit stronger language than I would. I'm okay using my definition or their definition and talking from there. I think you are as well. My biggest contention isn't what gets labeled as agency, but rather anytime I try to take their framework and place the kind of agency I want to talk about inside of it, I hit road block after road block in trying to talk to them about that kind of agency in their language.

I have no problem with two terms either. What I have a problem with is presenting a more obscure useage, as if it is the norm (or using it to equivocate), and with being told my useage is flat wrong or doesn't apply. This is also like the third or fourth thread where a term very common to sandbox play, feels like it has been co-opted by in order to make an argument like "Burning Wheel does it better". So I am trying to take things stated here in an even handed fashion, but it isn't easy because there is a history of discussion that has always gone a certain way