D&D General What is player agency to you?

[FrogReaver]

So you think you need perfect situational awareness to make any value judgment? That's an interesting position.

I’d appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth. Thanks!

 

[Golroc]

I am literally only talking about 5e D&D games. I am avoiding talking about other games precisely to avoid the “apples and oranges” dismissal.

When playing 5e and only 5e, I can tell when I have more agency in one game than in another and why.

If that’s not essential to this whole discussion, then I don’t know what is.

But isn't agency something we must care about in the extremes? Like when we feel deprived of it, or when we feel empowered? At least for me, it's not a concept I consider much otherwise - I don't sit around grading how much agency I had playing a game.

And again, even if you do know whether one game has more agency than another, another player might feel differently about those two. Not necessarily to the point of reversal, but nevertheless different.

This thread started out with a question about a GM/player conflict related to a player complaining about lack of agency. To me, that's the interesting point about this discussion. Not defining agency, how different systems related to agency or the effect of various techniques. But how to handle a player who feels deprived of agency (assuming the complaint is genuine and not the expression of a different kind of conflict). RPGs are social games. We need the group to have a certain degree of harmony and consensus.

Agency can also relate to different things than just how the GM runs the game. Some players don't feel agency unless they are able to influence other players - some even need to lead. I've had players who needed intra-party conflict to be happy. That's an interesting challenge if there isn't consensus about that kind of playstyle. Others lose agency if the group becomes too big.

So even with the same system, the same prepared material and the same GM - different players can end up experiencing agency differently.

Luckily, my experience is that lack of agency isn't really a common problem. And when I've seen it, it's been related to "domineering" players or GMs more than anything. Such people can be amazing with right crowd (either who enjoy the show or have the personality to compete with such a person), but can ruin the game for other personality types. I've also seen some complaints about lack of agency when things became too easy - "It's all meaningless, we can do whatever we want - nothing matters" or the reverse when it things were too difficult - "When we do well, we get punished with harder challenges - this isn't fun". But I suspect those feelings wouldn't care if they were caused by preplanned or ad hoc GM'ing.

 

[Maxperson]

You really cannot tell if one person is kinder than another?

No. You can feel like someone is kinder than another, but what you value as kindness might not be what I value as kindness, or perhaps we both value it but with different value amounts. Further, it may be that the person you view as kinder is really just doing it to impress the boss in order to get a promotion, but the one you see as less kind is doing it because it's the kind thing to do.

And that's all before you get into different views on what kindness is. Someone could be in great, great pain and one person would view it as a kindness to put the person out of his misery, while another would view it as a kindness to try and get the person help, even though the person is going to suffer a great deal more pain and may never recover at all.

You really cannot tell if one person is more intelligent than another? You can take that as "better at a given intellectual task" if you want to avoid debating the existence of general intelligence.

We don't even understand exactly what intelligence is.

We don't understand AI because we don't understand intelligence | Engadget

Artificial intelligence prophets including Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking and Raymond Kurzweil predict that by the year 2030 machines will develop consciousness through the application of human intelligence.

www.engadget.com

A Harvard psychologist says humans have 8 types of intelligence. Which ones do you score the highest in?

According to Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner, there are multiple types of human intelligence—each representing different ways of how we process information. And understanding where you have an advantage can help you achieve success.

www.cnbc.com

Scientists Increasingly Can’t Explain How AI Works

AI researchers are warning developers to focus more on how and why a system produces certain results than the fact that the system can accurately and rapidly produce them.

www.vice.com

A New Take on Human Intelligence

abcnews.go.com

You really cannot tell which events in history had greater influence on downstream events than others?

The butterfly effect. The person looking at the butterfly isn't seeing the hurricane it's triggering, but he can see a guy save a woman down the street and think that the guy is influencing events more by saving one person, while not seeing the dozens of damaged homes and lost lives the butterfly's hurricane has cost.

We can also have different opinions on what influence is, how influential certain types are, etc.

 

[Golroc]

Does anyone actually dispute that there are profound differences in the impact of the decisions players make in different models of play (including different ways of playing trad games [5e included])? That your capacity to exert your will differs based on availability of reliable information, connections within the setting, etc.? Does anyone dispute that in a game in which the GM is obliged to frame scenes and scenarios around player character interests/premise/connections to the setting that players have more say over what is at stake in the game?

Not subjective feelings, but actual differences in efficacy. If we disagree here conceptually we can hash this stuff out. If we're in the technique doesn't matter, it's all in the feels we should probably just stop talking because there's nothing useful to talk about.

No, I would not dispute that the impact different players have in different models of play (which in my experience are more related to the personality and style of the GM than the system, but all things being equal - the same GM would have different expressions of style in different systems so yes, models do of course have an impact). But I would dispute that this impact is equivalent to agency. Agency (to me) is related to whether the player feels empowered, in control, involved, engaged, etc. Not a quantitative expression of impact.

And I do think there is something interesting to talk about. Even if have wildly different approaches to this subject, for me there is value to reading what you and others write. It tells me about what other people value, how they consider this subject. Maybe I will play with someone that is similar in outlook one day - and this will be useful.

Even if we restricted ourselves purely to the relativistic - "it's about the feels" - notion of agency (which I'm not asking anyone to do, even if I'm advocating that interpretation), I think there is value to discussing how to handle people who feel bad about their agency. That's a very real problem. It's not useless to talk about how to handle player feelings. Considering feelings and idiosyncrasies is pretty important I would say, in any social setting.

We don't need to tell each other why not to talk about something - it's much more fruitful, I think, to share our thoughts, opinions, experiences, and so forth. By all means share the techniques and insights relevant to your own view on agency. Just because I'm sharing my thoughts on the matter, I certainly do not want everyone who disagrees with my preconceptions to stop talking. And I'm sorry if that's how it comes across.

 

[Cadence]

Ninja'd to a great extent by @Maxperson two posts up.

You really cannot tell if one person is kinder than another?

Does it matter if they did it out of generosity or a tax break? Or if it was compassion or a chance to get a lot of TikTok views? Do you know as you watch it being done?

You really cannot tell if one person is more intelligent than another? You can take that as "better at a given intellectual task" if you want to avoid debating the existence of general intelligence.

If the differences are big enough.

You really cannot tell which events in history had greater influence on downstream events than others?

This one feels like it might need more refining (or at least affect how people write time-travel stories).

Does Hitler get the blame for what he did? Or is it when Hitler's parents decided which moment to procreate so he came out? Or his grandparents?

With respect your inability to tell such things does not mean there are not objective differences that can be recognized and assessed and neither does the absence of universally agreed upon units of measure.

Psychometrically, reliably estimating the differences between two people on an IQ test is trivial. Determining what that IQ test actually measures in a practical sense and lining up convincing widely accepted validity arguments -- not so much.

 

[soviet]

The contortions some people will go through just to avoid saying 'I prefer less player agency' are incredible.

 

[Maxperson]

The contortions some people will go through just to avoid saying 'I prefer less player agency' are incredible.

You don't get to determine what is more or less for me, though. I get to tell what makes my agency more or less, and as I've said before, a narrative game(D&D or other system) will lower my agency considerably via "say yes or roll the dice" among other rules I don't want.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I've had players who needed intra-party conflict to be happy. That's an interesting challenge if there isn't consensus about that kind of playstyle.

That's a good observation, and one that can lead to friction within many group (especially those that play D&D).

Many tables have some variation of the "no PvP" rule as part of the social compact at their table. However, there are players who feel that this type of social compact somehow invalidates what they want to do. This can be a source of friction.

It gets resolved, as most of the matters are, through social negotiation. Not through people arguing about what form of player agency is superior.

 

[FrogReaver]

The contortions some people will go through just to avoid saying 'I prefer less player agency' are incredible.

just curious - what’s the last constructive non-snarky comment you’ve made in this thread?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Agency isn’t subjective.

However, the willingness to accept the illusion of agency is.

Its the very core of the illusionist play style.

I think it's like most things rooted in culture and society, there ARE broad agreements we can rely on even if they're imperfect. Agency is NOT some sort of totally contingent immeasurable subjective trait. At the same time we can also find differences based on context etc. Frankly I believe we can plainly agree on most cases and measure degrees of agency. We may disagree around the edges but the concept has plenty of utility and our common definitions are plainly adequate.

In fact I see all the hand wringing as confirmation of that! Nobody fights so much about empty undefinable nothings.