D&D General What is player agency to you?

[pemerton]

Thank you. I wasn't following.

You're welcome.

This is why I am puzzled by posts that describe D&D as a game in which the player experiences everything through the lens of their character, or as a game in which players can't exercise control over the fiction other than via the medium of things that their PCs do.

Because to me there seem to be clear counter-examples to that - the spellcasting and sword-drawing ones, for instance. And I have reasonably extensive play experience with RPGs that deliberately aim to achieve the goal of the player not exercising control other than via the medium of things that their PCs do, which therefore depart from aspects of D&D that don't fit this specification. I'm thinking of Rolemaster, RuneQuest, and to a significant extent Burning Wheel.

I'll add that it's not contradictory to mention Burning Wheel in this context, because - to repeat a point I've already made many times - what makes BW different from (say) RM as played out of the box sits mostly on the GM side rather than the player side.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’ve done that repeatedly in this thread. I’ve done it not to shut down your point so much as to use it to highlight why there shouldn’t even be disagreement about degreesof agency.

Thank you and for what it's worth I don't believe you did so intentionally to shut down my point. But regardless of intent the end result is I'm left having to explain that i don't actually think characters have agency and by the time i do that, the conversation has already moved on past my original point leaving it unaddressed.

I’ve pointed this out about three times now. Some folks just can’t seem to accept that D&D has less of something.

Do you understand how badly this comment comes off?

 

[FrogReaver]

You're welcome.

This is why I am puzzled by posts that describe D&D as a game in which the player experiences everything through the lens of their character, or as a game in which players can't exercise control over the fiction other than via the medium of things that their PCs do.

I view those things more as compromises that have to be made for playability. Whereas you seem to view them more as D&D players being perfectly okay with these things - whereas I think it's usually more that we tolerate them in small doses.

I mean I've personally tried to brainstorm houserules to hide hp values from players and just give them broad narrations for the characters fighting state.

Because to me there seem to be clear counter-examples to that - the spellcasting and sword-drawing ones, for instance. And I have reasonably extensive play experience with RPGs that deliberately aim to achieve the goal of the player not exercising control other than via the medium of things that their PCs do, which therefore depart from aspects of D&D that don't fit this specification. I'm thinking of Rolemaster, RuneQuest, and to a significant extent Burning Wheel.

I don't follow this. You seem to be suggesting that because a D&D PC can't fail to draw his sword in normal circumstances that means the player is exercising control outside their PC. That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[FrogReaver]

The primary distinction between Story Now and more traditional play modes is that the GM is obligated to frame scenes which challenge the character and or game's premise. Then they let the game's natural flow and structure do its part. The GM is not a world builder or referee. Instead, they create dynamic situations and scenarios that are directly relevant to who the characters are as people.

Sounds good. Though I wonder what a theoretical Story Now game that focused more on adventuring and the characters deeds in the world might look like.

Player Motivations:
I want to topple the giant Ormanus who threatens the Kingdom to the North.
I want to drive out the Dragon from the lake of hope.
I want to ensure my King Lacindu ascends to be the King of the 7 Kingdoms of men.

I don't even know that you would need Beliefs, though including them could be fun.

Would such a game be Story Now? Or to be more general I guess I'm asking, how far can we minimize the characters as people and still have a Story Now game?

Generally, all a player is expected to do is play their character with integrity and follow through on their desires and goals. Note that the sort of challenges we are talking about here are not can I accomplish task X?, but how does X change me or to do Y what am I willing to sacrifice?

Maybe 'Drama Now' would be a better name?

This is demonstrably different than players creating setting details out of thin air and/or play that is based on reinforcing rather than challenging premise. I would appreciate if people would distinguish between the two even if they do not like either.

I agree with this and it's been something I've been meaning to bring up. There seems to be a few things being simultaneously discussed and they are blending together to some degree.

1. The process where a player sets motivations/flaws/goals/etc for his character and the GM by rule/principle is expected to challenge those things by framing scenes and narrating consequences to bring them out during play.

As an aside, and somewhat ironically, a D&D game where a DM went about constantly framing scenes and consequences so that players always visit certain 'things' would probably get called a railroad. The most important difference IMO is the player buy in.

2. The ability of the player to author setting details and/or any fiction outside the characters direct control. And honestly this seems to be somewhat uncommon in these games - but seems often brought up in these discussions as proof such games provide greater player agency (even though such mechanics bear so little on the actual play of the games - and for some if not many - not at all). It's probably the best argument for greater agency in those games that have this but also the worst focal point for getting players of other RPG's to give those games a try.

3. The typical mechanic of Roll high get success, roll low face a consequence and roll middle, get success and a consequence/complication. This style of mechanic itself has also been deemed by some be a vital place where player agency is granted compared to the 5e D&D method of DM decides is success, failure or uncertain and then roll if uncertain against a DC set by the DM based on the fictional position.

Lots more to say on these 3 things, but they seem to be the crux of assertions that this class of games offer more 'player agency'. Did I miss any prominent point?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Thank you and for what it's worth I don't believe you did so intentionally to shut down my point. But regardless of intent the end result is I'm left having to explain that i don't actually think characters have agency and by the time i do that, the conversation has already moved on past my original point leaving it unaddressed.

I’m glad you didn’t think I was just trying to shut you down.

I went on to address what I understand to be your point, and you didn’t comment on that at all.

Do you understand how badly this comment comes off?

I’m unsure what other conclusion should be drawn here.

Folks who seem to disagree with me are making comments I’d make to support my argument.

What else does it seem to be? People are openly saying they want their agency as a player of D&D to be limited to what their character can do. They’ve said that’s their preference. To have their agency limited in this way.

But then those same people go on to say or agree that agency is binary or that their game has equal player agency to one that doesn’t limit player agency solely to what a character can do.

I can’t figure out what else could be causing the issue.

 

[pemerton]

I view those things more as compromises that have to be made for playability. Whereas you seem to view them more as D&D players being perfectly okay with these things - whereas I think it's usually more that we tolerate them in small doses.

I mean I've personally tried to brainstorm houserules to hide hp values from players and just give them broad narrations for the characters fighting state.

Well, there are perfectly playable RPGs that don't have these features. So if the features really were a problem, then I'd expect people to play those other RPGs!

I don't follow this. You seem to be suggesting that because a D&D PC can't fail to draw his sword in normal circumstances that means the player is exercising control outside their PC. That doesn't make sense to me.

A player who declares I cast a spell therefore also makes it true that nothing will happen to interrupt my PC's speaking.

A player who declares I draw my sword therefore also makes it true that I will not in any way lose my grip - but under the normal conception of a D&D fighter (ordinary human, not supernatural, etc) how is that possible from the character perspective?

 

[pemerton]

Sounds good. Though I wonder what a theoretical Story Now game that focused more on adventuring and the characters deeds in the world might look like.

Player Motivations:
I want to topple the giant Ormanus who threatens the Kingdom to the North.
I want to drive out the Dragon from the lake of hope.
I want to ensure my King Lacindu ascends to be the King of the 7 Kingdoms of men.

I don't even know that you would need Beliefs, though including them could be fun.

Would such a game be Story Now? Or to be more general I guess I'm asking, how far can we minimize the characters as people and still have a Story Now game?


Maybe 'Drama Now' would be a better name?

Well, "story now" is a defined term:

Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:

• Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place.
• Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.
• Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances.

Can it really be that easy? Yes, Narrativism is that easy. The Now refers to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying attention to one another as they do it. To do that, they relate to "the story" very much as authors do for novels, as playwrights do for plays, and screenwriters do for film at the creative moment or moments. Think of the Now as meaning, "in the moment," or "engaged in doing it," in terms of input and emotional feedback among one another. The Now also means "get to it," in which "it" refers to any Explorative element or combination of elements that increases the enjoyment of that issue I'm talking about.

There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s). Story Now has a great deal in common with Step On Up, particularly in the social expectation to contribute, but in this case the real people's attention is directed toward one another's insights toward the issue, rather than toward strategy and guts.​

I think the notion of "engaging issue" or "problematic feature of human existence" is pretty capacious. @Campbell has talked about challenges to who the character is. Burning Wheel also emphasises this (Revised edition, p 12; Gold edition, p 90):

There are consequences to your choices in this game. . . . "If my character undertakes this task, he'll be changed, and I don't know exactly how."​

But the essay that defines "Story Now" gives other examples too. Some are a bit more impersonal:

I don't think I've ever seen a more challenging Premise in a role-playing text than "religious requirements are not human ideals." That is HeroQuest in a nutshell, and there is no avoiding it during play. A character may begin as just another goat-herder, but he isn't going to stay that way.​

HeroQuest is the updated version of Robin Laws's Glorantha RPG HeroWars.

And this one is different again:

The Dying Earth facilitates Narrativist play, because its Situations are loaded with the requirement for satirical, judgmental input on the part of the players.​

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, The Dying Earth is another Robin Laws RPG.

What the personal, the impersonal and the satirical all have in common is that the player, through the play of their PC in the game, has to express some sort of emotional, moral, aesthetic or similarly evaluative judgement. And this is why there is no the story - because the player has to be free to express their judgement or else the whole point of play is defeated. The judgement need not be self-conscious - that's part of the beauty of RPGing compared to writing a story - but it is still expressed. The GM, in framing scenes, is inciting it.

The scenarios that you (@FrogReaver) present do not, on their face, seem to oblige the player to express these sorts of judgements. They seem like external challenges. If we are going to play to find out whether or not the PC can succeed at them, then - in the lexicon that gave us "story now" - we are talking about "Step on Up" (=, in that lexicon, "gamist") play.

 

[Golroc]

Agency as I interpret the concept doesn't mean being able to affect everything, it refers to the subjective and objective experience of being in control and/or making choices. It is perfectly possible for one person to have full agency while being restricted greatly, whereas another person may experience no agency with full freedom of action - due to perhaps the actions of other players or the narrative made by the GM.

Agency is not a detached concept of degrees of freedom. It is tightly coupled to individual experience and expectation. Defining agency as freedom and/or some variation of power is distorting the concept in my opinion.

I think narrative agency is an interesting concept and it certainly is part of what separates systems/styles, but I don't think it is always required for maximum player agency, as the latter is subjective (in my interpretation of the concept). Some players might even feel less agency if other players have narrative agency.

 

[Oofta]

I’m glad you didn’t think I was just trying to shut you down.

I went on to address what I understand to be your point, and you didn’t comment on that at all.



I’m unsure what other conclusion should be drawn here.

Folks who seem to disagree with me are making comments I’d make to support my argument.

What else does it seem to be? People are openly saying they want their agency as a player of D&D to be limited to what their character can do. They’ve said that’s their preference. To have their agency limited in this way.

But then those same people go on to say or agree that agency is binary or that their game has equal player agency to one that doesn’t limit player agency solely to what a character can do.

I can’t figure out what else could be causing the issue.

More options to express agency doesn't necessarily mean more agency. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But every game has limitations on the agency of the people playing the game.

More options don't necessarily feel like more agency, which is the only comparison you can really make. Even if it does, there's no way to put it on a scale and measure it because it's going to vary from one individual to the next.

That's all.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Agency as I interpret the concept doesn't mean being able to affect everything, it refers to the subjective and objective experience of being in control and/or making choices. It is perfectly possible for one person to have full agency while being restricted greatly, whereas another person may experience no agency with full freedom of action - due to perhaps the actions of other players or the narrative made by the GM.

Agency is not a detached concept of degrees of freedom. It is tightly coupled to individual experience and expectation. Defining agency as freedom and/or some variation of power is distorting the concept in my opinion.

I think narrative agency is an interesting concept and it certainly is part of what separates systems/styles, but I don't think it is always required for maximum player agency, as the latter is subjective (in my interpretation of the concept). Some players might even feel less agency if other players have narrative agency.

This is exactly correct.

I would add to this with the following examples of why these discussions generate so much heat, and so little light.

1. Two people are talking about 3e and FKR. The person who like FKR says that they appreciate that they have "more agency" since they can do anything, since they engage in tactical infinity. The person who likes 3e says that no, FKR is just asking for the DM's permission, so it's "less agency," and they prefer 3e since they can have more specified options to use that they know will work absent "DM fiat". The FKR player comes back and says that no, 3e is "less agency" because people are just "pushing buttons on their character sheet" and can't do something unless they have an ability to do so. And so on....

2. Two people are talking about narrative games and trad games. The narrative games player says his game has "more agency" because he can author the fiction. The trad games player says that this doesn't matter, because real agency is about always being able to control your own character, and narrative games don't always allow for that exclusive control. So the trad game has "more agency."

3. A player goes into a adventure. A skillful, Mercer-level DM uses a "quantum ogre" that the player doesn't notice, and the player has a great time. He rightfully believes that his decision had a meaningful consequence that led him to that ogre, and had a great time. Later, the player plays with a bad DM, and when there is a choice between going left or right, the DM says, "Whatever, they both lead to the ogre." The player is angry. Afterwards, the player complains that the second game had less agency than the first, even though the choices were exactly the same.*

All of which is to say that agency is a combination of factors that lead to the experience during play. The reason that these threads get argued about is mostly when people attempt to assert that a particular game (or a playing style) necessarily has "more agency" than another. Which is just the usual attempt to substitute jargon for preferences.

Chocolate ice cream has higher agency than butter pecan ice cream. I mean, I'm using "agency" so it has to be true, right?


*This particular example is extrapolated from an example I have repeated before, which is an anecdote someone posted here. They recounted this time that they had the most amazing game of D&D ever (I believe it was 3e). At some point later, they realized that the DM was not bothering to take into account all of the various bonuses and what-not that their PC had, but was simply eyeballing rolls and just seeing if they were, you know, high or low. This retroactively made it a bad experience for them.