A Question Of Agency?

[FrogReaver]

Well, Bedrock's definition clearly doesn't include, "The capacity for players to advocate for their character's dramatic needs and have the system and group social contract support that intention, without unilateral imposition on that drive by the GM."

So, sure, if you exclude that proviso, then BRG's games have as much player agency as every RPG game, ever.

this last parts not true though. Having control over your character is only part of what is required for agency. There’s also the part where you can cause important things to change in the setting.

a traditional railroad allows players control over their character but removes their ability to cause important things to change.

since traditional railroads exist then not all games have this kind of agency.

 

[Campbell]

Then why make a big deal about him bringing that up instead of just ignoring it?

Just offering my perspective on things here. I would like us to get to the point where we can have a more productive discussion, but I'm not entirely sure it is possible. I would like to get to the place where we can just talk about our personal experiences and stuff. Like how discussion was on Story Games instead of the debate club / definition wars that are happening in this thread.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So this is partly the issue. You say that the GM has full setting control, but then you won't acknowledge that games that allow players some input on setting offer more agency. Instead, you shift to your take on agency and claim it offers an exchange of some sort. But I don't think that's the case.

To revisit your wannabe scholar character.....it seems you were okay with this goal because it fit with what you already had in mind, or already had a structure to deal with. And the outcome of how this would play out for the character was left to determine in play. I assume that they had a chance to actually succeed? Maybe I shouldn't.....was that the case?

Because I don't think that is what agency is in an RPG. I just don't find being given narrative control, or the ability to set the play agenda as a form of agency. I've played games that allow it. I mentioned hill folk and had lots of fun generating off camera setting content through dialogue. It was highly immersive. I didn't feel it gave me agency though, because I guess it gelt like a 'cheat' in that respect. It felt like I was given narrative power, and for what the game was doing that narrative power was cool and fun. I am presently reading the Hillfolk rulebook and hoping to one day do either a straight up I Claudius Campaign with it, or run my roman game using it. I am not knocking this style at all. It just legitimately doesn't strike me as agency, and it isn't how I've used agency for all the years I've used and encountered the word in RPG gaming.

To be clear on the scholar front, I responded in another post, but want to address it again here. In the setting I was running there was an imperial exam system based on the Song Dynasty and I was using my own game which has rules for advancing through the exams. Now I could have done rulings instead (asking for various checks), but I liked having concrete methods and I am pasting them below so you can see what I am talking about. But note, there would also be clear rules for the player conduction search. There are skills in the game that can be used to search and find clues, there are rules for traveling by ship etc. The brothers aliveness or deadness though would not be determined by any of those methods. That is a separate issue under the purview of the GM.

THE IMPERIAL EXAMS

Not only are scholar-officials still an important part of the Empire, outside the Empire exam systems for official positions are also common. The Imperial Exams are the primary method for gaining entrance into the civil and military services. Merchants cannot take any of the exams.

Exams are conducted in permanent Exam Compounds, square structures with thousands of individual cell-like rooms for candidates. Exam Compounds have a single gate for an entrance, with no back exit, and examinees are expected to stay at least three days in their respective testing room during the examination period. Upon entering the compound they are searched for contraband (cheating materials) at the first gate, and then searched again before being assigned their room. Searches are thorough because inspectors are rewarded financially for each item of contraband they find (effectively they have a Detect Skill of 2d10).

Exam Compounds are known to be haunted by those who failed the exams or died while taking them. Students seeking to pass the exams must not only contend with the exams themselves, the harsh conditions of the cells, but also with the very real possibility of being tormented or challenged by ghosts.

Below are general exams for degrees in Letters or Military Service. However there are also more specialized exams following similar systems for degrees in Law, History, Classics, and so forth. Exams are changed each time they are given, and administered by the highest available official. They involve repeating large sections of texts from memory, summarizing passages from important classic works and writing lengthy solutions to a number of difficult political or military problems. Some tests involve commentary or performance of additional skills like archery or calligraphy.

CHEATING
Characters who manage to bring cheating materials into the Exam Compound should be permitted to roll twice, rather than once for each testing subject. Anyone caught cheating is usually prohibited from taking the exams for the rest of their life.

ZHAN DAO RURAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXAMS
This is the lowest exam in the Empire and allows one to teach or serve as temple administrators in the provinces. Passing the rural exam means entry into the Shi class at its lowest ranks. It also makes one eligible to enroll in state run academies.

The exams are held every autumn. While characters are not tested on their ability to read or write, it goes without saying that literacy in the relevant language is a base requirement to take the exams. To pass characters must succeed on all the following skills (with one chance for each):

Classics (any one) TN 5
Talent (Calligraphy) TN 5
Ritual (one Rite) TN 5
History (any one era) TN 5

ZHAN DAO URBAN ADMINISTRATIVE EXAMS
This enables one to serve minor official posts, but its main function is passing it qualifies one for the Capital Exams. These are held every two years in autumn and to pass, characters must succeed on the following Skills (specific questions on the exams are chosen by official conducting the test):

Classics (Sayings of Kong Zhi, Rites of Wan Mei, or the Book of Laws) TN 6
Talent (Calligraphy) TN 6
Talent (Poetry) TN 5
Ritual (one Rite) TN 7
History (Era of the Righteous Emperor and Era of the Glorious Emperor) TN 6
Religion (Dehua) TN 5

ZHAN DAO AND HAI’AN CAPITAL EXAMS
These exams are for entrance into central government posts in the capital and the palace (overseen by the emperor or king himself). Merchants, criminals, priests, monks and artisans are all prohibited from taking the Capital Exams. Those who pass earn the title Jinshi and a degree.

Exams are held once every three years in autumn. And require the following:
Classics (Sayings of Kong Zhi or the Book of Laws) TN 8
Classics (Glorious Histories or the 26 Stratagems of Jiang Laozi): TN 8
Talent (Calligraphy) TN 7
Talent (Poetry) TN 7
Talent (Feng Shui) TN 5
Ritual (one Rite) TN 9
History (Era of 100 Pieces, Era of the Dutiful State, Era of the Great Emperor) TN 7
Religion (Dehua and Yen-Li) TN 6

MILITARY EXAMS
There are also military exams for appointment to high military posts. However military positions can easily be gained through sponsorship. To pass characters must succeed on the following skills:

Classics (26 Stratagems of Jiang Laozi) TN 5
Talent (Calligraphy) TN 5
Ritual (one Rite) TN 5
Small Ranged TN 5
Any Melee TN 5

 

[Aldarc]

I trust that @Bedrockgames has smart things to say about their own gaming preferences and can elucidate arguments to support it that do not require repeated appeals to anecdotal evidence. And moving past including such things to meatier substantial arguments would be more beneficial for us all.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't know how else I can phrase this and make it clear: in a sandbox, the player is only able to say he wants to search for his brother. It wouldn't be considered reasonable to say I want to have a campaign where I search for my brother and then explore our shattered relationship or something. Once the player says I am going to search for my brother, then the GM needs to seriously consider what happened to the brother. I don't know the details here. He may decide the brother is a live in port town somewhere, he may decide he is dead, he may decide he is dying and has thirty days to live, there are countless possibilities. But settling on any one of them just wouldn't be considered not taking the request seriously in a sandbox. It would be. I think you are looking at this from the perspective of another style of play, which is fine.

No, I'm really not. I am simply looking at it as a question of agency. I realize that this may be a broader take on agency than what you've proposed. But to me, if we're talking about players having agency, it means influencing the game.

This is a case of the player attempting to influence the game. If the GM simply denies it as was described in the initial example, then yes, I would absolutely say agency is being denied.

If the GM considers the request and incorporates it into play (it doesn't need to be the main focus of everything, just another thing that's present), then I don't have any problem with the way it ultimately turns out. I would expect and hope that it would be based on the events of play and player choice, and as long as that was the case, then i think the GM has helped facilitate agency in this regard.

If the GM instead says to the player "this kind of personal goal isn't likely going to be the kind of thing we'll focus on; I just want you to be aware so that you're not disappointed" then I think that's a great thing. Is it denying agency? I don't think so because it's explaining something that isn't going to be a possibility.

The issue would be to treat the idea as a possibility, and then essentially make it an impossibility.

And in that style of play, this wouldn't be considered a fair consideration (because the player has an expectation that they are able to set out some of the things that are going to be explored with the brother). I get that. I play in a savage worlds group where we do that often. Someone might say I want to look for my father who abandoned us when we were young and have a kind of "girl named sue" relationship with him. We'd all be fine with that, and if I was running the game, and said "Sure thing". Then at the very start of the game handed the player a letter saying his father died of lung cancer, that would be a crappy move I think (honestly though I can't imagine players in my group getting angry if I did that, I think they would see it as an attempt at humor, and roll with it, but it would certainly deviate from the spirit of play and what the player was fairly expecting, so it wouldn't be a good GM judgement).

This is all I've been saying.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just offering my perspective on things here. I would like us to get to the point where we can have a more productive discussion, but I'm not entirely sure it is possible. I would like to get to the place where we can just talk about our personal experiences and stuff. Like how discussion was on Story Games instead of the debate club / definition wars that are happening in this thread.

Understanding and recognizing that we tend to mean different things by the same word seems to be the starting point for any productive discussion.

Until all/most of the participants acknowledge the two different ways agency is used are both valid ways of using the word this discussion isn’t going to go beyond why we can’t use a word to mean what we are accustomed to having it mean.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's not hard to see, no. I understand. And I hope it's clear that I have no problem with that approach. The issue I had a concern with was the example of allowing the PC to have a personal goal and then just shooting it down.

But the goal, as phrased, isn't a viable one. In a sandbox, you can't set that kind of goal and have the expectation the GM will let that outcome unfold

 

[Campbell]

Here's something to consider : Do different sorts of fiction offer different amounts of agency. Like to me it's patently obvious that when I'm playing Exalted where a starting character can start as a world class swordsman, have substantial connections in the setting, and may even have an army, and substantial divine blessings they have considerably more ability to enact their will upon the setting than a game where I play a fairly weak conscript who has little autonomy in the fiction. For purposes of this discussion assume similar GMing techniques apply.

 

[Aldarc]

I found a great essay (i.e., not just a press article) about player agency in video games. It speaks to a number of the issues we are presently discussing: What is Player Agency?

For those interested, I recommend giving it a read. It also includes further linked articles and papers that people may find of interest.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Here's my perspective : Anytime I am engaged in a conversation with anyone I want to have a conversation with them about their specific experiences and perspective. Anyone who is not a part of the conversation is irrelevant up until the point the decide to speak up. It's also not particularly my job to advocate for anyone else's perspective. If they want to offer it they can and I will do my best to engage with and understand their perspective.

I'm not even really here to advocate for my perspective although I will freely offer it. I just want to have interesting conversations. At the end of the day I only really give a damn about how the other people play with feel about this stuff. That's the only time there are any real stakes involved. I'm not here to be an ambassador or engage in a debate. That's boring to me.

I am not a huge fan of normative language because in my experience it usually acts a shield wall against foreign perspectives. Often on these boards I see people get shut down and told their perspective is irrelevant because they play games in unusual or the games they like to play are niche so their perspective isn't worth engaging. It feels real bad being shut down like that.

I care about what @Bedrockgames has to say. Not what other people who are not in conversation have to say.

I think we have to be able to draw of our experience though and report that in these discussions (and the opinions of players in our circles and people in our communities are going to matter: they can even be an important reality check for the poster in question, me).

Also I am not saying the niche perspectives are not worth engaging. My own style is niche, it isn't the norm. But within that niche, there is a norm of play. That norm doesn't create an ought, we are all free to move away from it for any reason, and there is no problem with doing so. But understanding that norm is important because it does inform how terms like agency get used in the broader community, and it does inform the assumptions some of us have going into this discussion.