D&D General What is player agency to you?

[nevin]

The point is words matter. The words you used show a mind with absolutely no consideration for any other mind. (btw please don't goad the rats.). If you think those words make your point I hope my post makes you consider that they might just completely cover any message and make everyone only see the fire and smoke.
I wouldn't play in the game of the person that wrote that stuff. it was narcissistic at worst and at best uncaring.
But you do your railroads i'll do my sandboxes.

 

[Mort]

Have to agree with @EzekielRaiden.

@bloodtide what is your definition of railroad?

Because, yeah the answer REALLY dictates how much player agency, if any, is possible.

 

[pointofyou]

depends on what values n can take.

The only non-negative value where it doesn't change is zero as best I can tell. Anything else and you metaphorically go from measuring inches to square inches to cubic inches and those are all different.

 

[pemerton]

@EzekielRaiden I talk about "goading" my players into action, quite often. The alternative verb would be "prompt", but "goad" suggests something harder or (naturally enough) more pointed.

It's a characterisation of the GM function that I would associate with relatively hard scene-framing techniques, or with a game like Apocalypse World where the GM is alternating between soft and hard moves.

The contrast, for me, would be with reasonably traditional modules or adventure set-ups where the GM lays out some hooks, the players are expected to declare various low-stakes actions that will prompt the GM to reveal more backstory, and there is a lot of relatively unstructured play in which the GM's backstory gradually comes to light and things culminate in some sort of BBEG-oriented climax. A lot of D&D or CoC modules look like this. They don't involve goading the players. And generally they are low on player agency.

 

[DammitVictor]

I've been a real big fan of Israeli Theory ever since I first heard of it. Couple of really subtle and powerful tools for table management, but the important lesson is that you don't have to be the GM to use them. Every player at the table shares the responsibility of keeping the game entertaining for every player at the table, and every player has the tools to bear their share of it.

Not every player has heard of Israeli Theory, or subscribes to it. Most players, I suspect, would not be caught dead doing homework to be better gamers.

If your players seem like they don't know what to do, don't know what they could do, pick one of them and ask-- "What do you wish your character knew about this situation?" If your players complain that you do not give them enough information, encourage them to ask more questions, and encourage them to tell you what kind of information you're not giving them enough of.

If they're arguing, pick the one who's arguing the least, address them by their character's name and ask them, "Character, what do you think we should do?" The simple act of picking them out to be the leader, more often than not, will coax the other players into following them.

Trick is, you don't stop the game to ask them how to improve the game. If you don't know what they to get moving, make asking them how to get moving part of the game, indistinguishable from any other "what do you see?" or "how do you want to do this?" The more of your campaign you make your players responsible for, without letting them know they're responsible for it, the more engaged they will be; the more engaged they are with your campaign, the more brilliant they'll think it is. That's just math.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@EzekielRaiden I talk about "goading" my players into action, quite often. The alternative verb would be "prompt", but "goad" suggests something harder or (naturally enough) more pointed.

It's a characterisation of the GM function that I would associate with relatively hard scene-framing techniques, or with a game like Apocalypse World where the GM is alternating between soft and hard moves.

The contrast, for me, would be with reasonably traditional modules or adventure set-ups where the GM lays out some hooks, the players are expected to declare various low-stakes actions that will prompt the GM to reveal more backstory, and there is a lot of relatively unstructured play in which the GM's backstory gradually comes to light and things culminate in some sort of BBEG-oriented climax. A lot of D&D or CoC modules look like this. They don't involve goading the players. And generally they are low on player agency.

Given all of my GM experience is via Dungeon World, that seems reasonable then.

 

[FrogReaver]

The only non-negative value where it doesn't change is zero as best I can tell. Anything else and you metaphorically go from measuring inches to square inches to cubic inches and those are all different.

1 as well

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The only non-negative value where it doesn't change is zero as best I can tell. Anything else and you metaphorically go from measuring inches to square inches to cubic inches and those are all different.

Sure. But if n=0.1, then n+n+n=3n and on for more +n is a monotonically increasing function, while n×n×n=n³ and on for more ×n is a monotonically decreasing function. Iterated addition tends to infinity for n>0, but that's only true of exponentiation for n>1. For nonnegative n<1, it shrinks, and for n=1 it remains perfectly constant.

But perhaps we have gotten overly involved in the details of an imperfect analogy and thus removed from the core topic.

 

[pointofyou]

Sure. But if n=0.1, then n+n+n=3n and on for more +n is a monotonically increasing function, while n×n×n=n³ and on for more ×n is a monotonically decreasing function. Iterated addition tends to infinity for n>0, but that's only true of exponentiation for n>1. For nonnegative n<1, it shrinks, and for n=1 it remains perfectly constant.

But perhaps we have gotten overly involved in the details of an imperfect analogy and thus removed from the core topic.

Yup. I care about both the extent of agency and the number of dimensions.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

High agency rpg play, on the other hand, typically features;

• No agreement that the GM / MC / narrator can unilaterally disregard the rules
• Transparent rules and processes that offer guaranteed outcomes (good and bad)
• Transparent goals for characters - often through authorship of them by the players
• Faciliatation of that authorship through group creation of setting and/or situation such that character goals are given meaning and context by player choice, not secret GM backstory

I don't completely agree, though I think these are good points to think with, and I appreciate the framing. I particularly like that tying player agency to a lack of GM rules discretion reminds me of the question of whether free will can exist in a universe with an all-powerful God.

But ultimately I think you are putting too much emphasis on the formal "constitution" of a table and campaign rather than how it actually functions. A table can vote on everything can still actually just follow one domineering person's will. Similarly, and more commonly, a table can talk a big game about the GM being some sort of absolute monarch, the almighty god of their universe, while at the same time (just like many of history's more successful absolute monarchs) said potentate mostly actually seeks out and follows consensus opinion on how things should be done, using their executive discretion only sparingly where they deem it absolutely necessary (with how they construe necessity often making the vital difference between enlightened philosopher king and tyrant). Not a form of government I'd endorse in real life, but for an rpg, where certain decisions are best made behind the scenes to avoid spoiling important narrative surprises, I'll risk a little more executive vigor.

And, indeed, I feel like an approach to rules that is overly inflexible also potentially reduces player agency. If a player has a creative solution for a problem that is questionably within the rules what gives a better feeling of agency, having a rules debate and vote over the matter (even one ultimately resolved in their favor) or having a GM just say it works? I think that particular scenario probably depends on the people involved, but for me personally some executive rules flexibility in the right hands can certainly be conducive to a sense of player agency rather than a barrier to it. Of course if only the wrong hands are available I would favor the approach you outline.

But overall what I'm trying to say is simply that I think you're basically right, but emphasizing form over function. I think most successful tables I've been at have basically followed the bullet points you give to one degree or another, but more or less all of them have formally insisted that the GM was some sort of figure of sole despotic dominion over rules, at least within wide constraints, and ascribed ultimate setting authority solely to them as well. The secret to success is for the GM to know that no matter how much people claim they're okay with an absolute monarch, they actually want them to govern as a constitutional monarch like 95% of the time, and whether or not they solicit formal submissions of setting elements or anything like that they should be listening for anything and everything players think to contribute to the setting and working it in wherever deemed acceptable.