GM fiat - an illustration

[soviet]

If the GM took control of your character and had it make ten really big decisions that drastically changed the setting while you watched... that doesn't feel like agency to me.

Agency is about players.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure. You can absolutely limit the player's agency in that way. It's an understandable decision to do so, and clearly a lot of people like to go that route.

But then typically we get into these weird arguments about how it's not a limit and their games have as much agency as others and all that. Despite the conscious and willful decision to limit the agency in this way.

Well, don't think you can really measure agency in a game in "can decide more thing therefore more agency" kinda way. Because certain kind of agency requires some limitations. Otherwise a game with ultimate player agency would be one where the player just produce whatever fiction about their character they wish, unrestrained by established fiction, rules or other participants.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If the GM took control of your character and had it make ten really big decisions that drastically changed the setting while you watched... that doesn't feel like agency to me.

Agency is about players.

Yeah. This is why I don't like social mechanics that compel my character to react or act in certain way.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I get it is in the name but I think the meaning of that term usually refers to agency of the character in the world. When people complain that their agency is being taken away in a railroad, they are usually not complaining that they don't have the ability to say introduce an element of fiction to the world, they are complaining that their choices they make through their character are constrained

I think it usually refers to players. If we talk about it in terms of any non-RPG game, then it's crystal clear. So speaking about it as a quality of the player seems appropriate.

I think when players complain about a railroad, it is exactly about them not being able to introduce an element of the fiction... an element where they decided what they wanted to do instead of having to do what the GM has said they must do.

I would reject this definition. What you are talking is certainly something that matters a lot, but it isn't what I would call, and what I think not what most people would call, player agency. I think this is more about power levels at the table. Also when you start talking about it as such, it just because easier to speak about. If we are constantly conflating agency of me in the game world, with things like how much GM authority a player has, that makes these conversions confusing (and I think we see that in how they often play out)

Well, sure... I can understand your impulse to want everyone to change how they talk about things to match yours, but I don't think that's necessarily a reasonable expectation. Nor do I think that "most" people view it as you do, nor do I think that it would matter even if they did.

I would agree with this, I do think it is an unnecessary tangent on my part to raise that point.

Perhaps, but it's certainly something that influences people's thinking on this stuff. So, it's relevant in that sense.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, don't think you can really measure agency in a game in "can decide more thing therefore more agency" kinda way. Because certain kind of agency requires some limitations. Otherwise a game with ultimate player agency would be one where the player just produce whatever fiction about their character they wish, unrestrained by established fiction, rules or other participants.

Sure, there's no set measurement for these things. But we can look at two games and have an idea of the comparative level of agency.

Like what sparked this branch of the conversation was @pemerton describing the bare minimum amount of player agency for a game to be considered an RPG... the player being able to ask questions and have the GM provide answers.

If a game also allows a player to declare actions for their character that will then affect play, that's a game that provides more agency to the player. And so on.

Yeah. This is why I don't like social mechanics that compel my character to react or act in certain way.

This is why looking at player agency solely through the lens of character autonomy is flawed. If a player enters a situation where they know the stakes are loss of some amount of control of their character, and they make some attempt and it fails... then they've exercised agency. That they've lost total control of their PC isn't a removal of player agency.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think it usually refers to players. If we talk about it in terms of any non-RPG game, then it's crystal clear. So speaking about it as a quality of the player seems appropriate.

I think when players complain about a railroad, it is exactly about them not being able to introduce an element of the fiction... an element where they decided what they wanted to do instead of having to do what the GM has said they must do.

Again, I think we just disagree, which is fine. Or perhaps we agree, but you are expanding that point of agreement into territory that feels to me not covered. I don't want to belabor the point. But I think railroad complaints is about players not being able to say things like "Okay we tell the duke to screw and go west instead". It is about feeling like there are rails on the adventures and no real other options, and the player feeling like no matter what their character does, it doesn't matter. But I don't think the complaint is usually made because the player wants something from the system in terms of power, like narrative control.

So in the sense that it is about the players wanting to be able to decide what their characters do in the setting, I would agree. But if we are talking about things going beyond that, I think you are stretching how most people think of agency in an RPG

I don't think railroad complaints about agency are a system complaint. They are a GMIng style complaint

Well, sure... I can understand your impulse to want everyone to change how they talk about things to match yours, but I don't think that's necessarily a reasonable expectation. Nor do I think that "most" people view it as you do, nor do I think that it would matter even if they did.

I don't think we are going to resolve this disagreement. But I think I am using a much more standard definition of the term here. And I think it is very reasonable to push back on a definition that seems to come loaded with stylistic preferences. I am not saying those preferences are invalid, but binding them to agency, muddies the water because it confuses a discussion about how the system approaches things like the power of players over fictional elements in the setting, with one that is really supposed to be about being able make meaningful choices in the setting.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For me this aspect of D&D is its strength. It has both broad appeal, making it easy to get players for and it can be many different things. I can use it to run a sandbox, dungeon crawls, mysteries, paths, epic adventures, city adventures, etc. it is easy to adjust to a groups preferences (at least I find it so). Another aspect of it is the core components basic set up work. Something about sitting down with a PHB, DMG and MM to flesh out an adventure/dungeon/map/etc just always feels approachable and smooth for me as a GM. I don’t get as much opportunity to play it though these days

But I don't think it actually does most of these well. In fact D&D's rules often don't help at all, or even make some of these harder. To be clear, I'd say the same about actual explicit toolbox systems like GURPS or BRP as well.

Narrativist systems like common PbtA implementations address something a bit higher level. Even so they still carry assumptions about tone, agenda, etc. which tend to limit their applicability. I'm not really a fan of "do it all with one system" Multitools are always inferior to a good box of specific tools, though I certainly understand why they exist. It's fine to say I can run a mystery in my D&D game. Not sure what would be the argument for this being unique to D&D though.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Again, I think we just disagree, which is fine. Or perhaps we agree, but you are expanding that point of agreement into territory that feels to me not covered. I don't want to belabor the point. But I think railroad complaints is about players not being able to say things like "Okay we tell the duke to screw and go west instead". It is about feeling like there are rails on the adventures and no real other options, and the player feeling like no matter what their character does, it doesn't matter. But I don't think the complaint is usually made because the player wants something from the system in terms of power, like narrative control.

Set aside the idea of narrative control... because it is itself a muddy term. I mean, telling the duke to go screw and heading off to the west... that's an exercise of narrative control. It's the players saying that they're not interested in this duke situation, and they want the characters to go west. Surely this will change the narrative.

So, let's just set aside that phrase and instead look at it as what can the player do. In what way can they influence play.

I agree that this difference of how it is viewed is often at the heart of disagreement in these discussions, but I don't think that means we should limit the idea of player agency to your view. Why would we? There are other ways to influence the game beyond the character, and that's true of almost every game, even ones that want to limit things to the lens of the character.

So in the sense that it is about the players wanting to be able to decide what their characters do in the setting, I would agree. But if we are talking about things going beyond that, I think you are stretching how most people think of agency in an RPG

Again, I don't know if either of us is capable of concluding what "most" people think of as agency in an RPG. I can only speak for myself, and for the concepts that the words imply... which I think is not limited in the way you describe here.

I don't think railroad complaints about agency are a system complaint. They are a GMIng style complaint

Oh, I think complaints about that vary a great deal. I absolutely think some such complaints are system based. Look at the OP of this thread as something that pushes into that territory. It describes two games and their methods, and shows how one is susceptible railroading, while the other is not.

Systems absolutely matter when it comes to this stuff. There are some systems that allow for a wide range of GM methods... and those can be used to railroad, or can avoid it entirely... and in those cases, you're right, it's a matter of the GM. But the system has to be one that allows the GM to railroad.

And this is also why you see some variance in the idea of what even constitutes a railroad. Earlier in the thread, @Maxperson challenged @pemerton about his view of railroading as it applied to an NPC being "important". And setting the term aside, I think we can all see why such a description of an NPC may be questionable for some of us.

I don't think we are going to resolve this disagreement. But I think I am using a much more standard definition of the term here. And I think it is very reasonable to push back on a definition that seems to come loaded with stylistic preferences. I am not saying those preferences are invalid, but binding them to agency, muddies the water because it confuses a discussion about how the system approaches things like the power of players over fictional elements in the setting, with one that is really supposed to be about being able make meaningful choices in the setting.

I think your use is far more about stylistic preferences than mine. The term as I'm using it is the literal definition when we combine the two words player and agency. Yours limits it because you think of a player exercising agency in a way beyond their character is undesirable.

As for power of players over fictional elements in the setting and being able to make meaningful choices in the setting... I don't think these are different things. I think meaningful choices is one example of the power players have over the fictional elements.

But there are other examples, as well.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If that greater ability comes from outside your PC's sphere of knowledge and Influence, it is unwelcome to some. Certainly I feel that way.

I think this is a bit of a misunderstanding/mis characterization. It's easy to address concretely. In Dungeon World the players have certain inputs to play. First of all there's the fairly universal "hey, let's run a game. I have this system, what do you all think?" This is of course system transcending. Then we specific inputs in DW.

First is choice of playbook, starting moves, race, alignment and bonds. DW doesn't mandate much about backstory, but bonds at least need some elaboration.

Next are GM questions. These are going to probably elicit background and initial situation kind of stuff. The GM decides what to ask, the players can pretty much answer as they see fit. Obviously good faith is assumed, but presumably the answers can be worked by the GM.

And then we get into actual play, where the GM sets each scene, and the players simply declare actions, much like D&D. In some cases the players can compel the GM to answer questions about the situation, like "what is not what it appears to be?"

Finally the GM is directed to keep asking questions, some of which might prompt a player to invent some lore or setting information, etc.

Now, the game does tell us pretty explicitly what kinds of considerations and techniques are used in DW to frame scenes, introduce consequences etc. The general thrust of these is to generate the kind of play that DW is designed for, and to avoid the sorts of issues any game would like to avoid. In general these are no more restrictive than "principled GMing" in any RPG.

To return to your comment, I don't know of a situation where players, certainly in the course of playing characters, have any kind of extra ability or information, etc. Sometimes the player may invent something, usually when asked a question by the GM. Their interpretation of play will probably also shape the resolution of bonds and creation of new ones, maybe selection of new moves and XP granting during end of session.

I don't think any of this radically exceeds what is in trad play, except insomuch as the expectation that the material the GM introduces will generally address the input of the players via the above channels. So the GM is not going to insist on running undead infested dungeon crawls when the players all styled their PCs as pirates located on an island of pirates.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think your use is far more about stylistic preferences than mine. The term as I'm using it is the literal definition when we combine the two words player and agency. Yours limits it because you think of a player exercising agency in a way beyond their character is undesirable.

I am going to leave the prior points in this alone, not to avoid engagement but because I just think we are risking going down an endless cycle of back and forth over definitions. But I do want to address this because I think it is important in these conversations.

This, in my view, isn't how definitions operate. They aren't meaning of word 1 plus meaning of word 2 gives you definition. We operate by how those words are used in practice. Especially in something like a hobby space where you can have lots of terms almost completely divorced from the meaning of their core parts.

Also I don't think it is undesirable for players to have agency beyond their character. I said before in my last post, there is nothing wrong with systems that do that. And I have also commented a lot on the game Hillfolk, which I like, and have played, and consider deeply immersive, that gives players considerable narrative control.

As for power of players over fictional elements in the setting and being able to make meaningful choices in the setting... I don't think these are different things. I think meaningful choices is one example of the power players have over the fictional elements.

But there are other examples, as well.

I wasn't trying to say you can't make meaningful choices. I was just talking about how railroad concerns and agency usually refer to concerns about meaningful choice in the game world. I don't even disagree that narrative controls in systems are an answer to the problem of railroading. I just think it introduces a whole other topic that is really best discussed on its own and not folded into this one. You can fold it in, but then we keep having to make that distinction between player character and player agency. it wouldn't be a big deal, except there are style underlying a lot of this conversation and so it is important people aren't being convinced by a trick of language