D&D General What is player agency to you?

[EzekielRaiden]

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.*

How can he "rightfully believe" something that you have just said is, simply, wrong? You literally said the two choices were exactly the same. It's not agency. It's just the falsified feeling thereof.

I could tackle the other examples but this was by far the most pointed issue.

All of which is to say that agency is a combination of factors that lead to the experience during play.

The feeling of agency, surely. The presence, not so much.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

How can he "rightfully believe" something that you have just said is, simply, wrong? You literally said the two choices were exactly the same. It's not agency. It's just the falsified feeling thereof.

Because agency is not an absolute. It's not something objective. You cannot measure agency in metric units of "agentums," can you?

Oh, that game has 32 kilo-agentums.

Instead, it's about the subjective feelings of the participants. To use the most obvious example, agency is about whether the player believes that they have choices that meaningfully impact the play experience.

Whether the player (1) believes that they have choices, and (2) thinks that those choices are impacting the play experience is a subjective quality that will vary from player to player.

From the perspective of a player playing a game, there is no difference between a pre-designed map with an ogre on the left and an empty room on the right, as opposed to a quantum ogre, unless the player knows that their choice is not meaningful. While we can certainly discuss best practices and why certain styles might produce better outcomes than others (both generally and specifically), it doesn't change the issue from the subjective experience of the player. Which is, in the end, what matters.

Which is why all of this conversation which focuses on "player agency" is bunkum. It's the substitution of jargon for what people actually want to discuss. Do you like a certain style of game? Great! Talk about that, and why. I bet you can without using "player agency."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because agency is not an absolute. It's not something objective. You cannot measure agency in metric units of "agentums," can you?

Oh, that game has 32 kilo-agentums.

Instead, it's about the subjective feelings of the participants. To use the most obvious example, agency is about whether the player believes that they have choices that meaningfully impact the play experience.

Whether the player (1) believes that they have choices, and (2) thinks that those choices are impacting the play experience is a subjective quality that will vary from player to player.

From the perspective of a player playing a game, there is no difference between a pre-designed map with an ogre on the left and an empty room on the right, as opposed to a quantum ogre, unless the player knows that their choice is not meaningful. While we can certainly discuss best practices and why certain styles might produce better outcomes than others (both generally and specifically), it doesn't change the issue from the subjective experience of the player. Which is, in the end, what matters.

Which is why all of this conversation which focuses on "player agency" is bunkum. It's the substitution of jargon for what people actually want to discuss. Do you like a certain style of game? Great! Talk about that, and why. I bet you can without using "player agency."

Okay. I want a game where my subjective feeling is, in fact, true. A game which makes the subjective feeling of agency, in fact, true offers more agency than a game which simply offers the subjective feeling.

Merely giving the subjective feeling, while (usually intentionally) failing to make that feeling actually correct, is a lack of agency. That's precisely why your example player got upset--and why it ruined their past experience. Because they realized that what they thought was true was not, and the truth mattered as much as the feeling did.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay. I want a game where my subjective feeling is, in fact, true. A game which makes the subjective feeling of agency, in fact, true offers more agency than a game which simply offers the subjective feeling.

Merely giving the subjective feeling, while (usually intentionally) failing to make that feeling actually correct, is a lack of agency. That's precisely why your example player got upset--and why it ruined their past experience. Because they realized that what they thought was true was not, and the truth mattered as much as the feeling did.

What about the other examples then, if that one bothers you too much? Those were true agency on both sides.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Okay. I want a game where my subjective feeling is, in fact, true.

Cool. You like chocolate ice cream.

A game which makes the subjective feeling of agency, in fact, true offers more agency than a game which simply offers the subjective feeling.

This is just word salad, since agency is subjective.

Here, let me help- "I want to fall in love for real. Except, I want it to be actual love, not just my own subjective feelings of love. Because actual love is more love than what I am feeling at the time."

What you are subjectively feeling as agency ... is the agency. That's why we can't objectively measure it. You keep saying you want "more agency." Cool!

Now, tell me how to objectively measure agency. Instead of continuing to ASSERT that one thing has "MOAR AGENCY" explain to me, as if I was a slightly dumb golden retriever, how we objectively determine the difference in agency such that we can measure it.

Otherwise, I will respectfully repeat the same thing I have continued to say- for people to say that their preferred playing style has more agency is nothing more than putting a sheen of pseudo-jargon to try to argue that their preferences are better than other people's preference, and to not understand why people disagree with that is ... well, interesting.

Merely giving the subjective feeling, while (usually intentionally) failing to make that feeling actually correct, is a lack of agency. That's precisely why your example player got upset--and why it ruined their past experience. Because they realized that what they thought was true was not, and the truth mattered as much as the feeling did.

Nope, I think you missed the point. Here, I'll illustrate again.

I was completely in love with that person. It was the strongest I ever felt about anyone. Later, I found out that the person was lying to me. I feel terrible now.

Was the person not in love then?

 

[Campbell]

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.

The definition of agency I have relied on most of my adult life comes from exposure to undergrad Sociology.

(noun) The capacity of an individual to actively and independently choose and to affect change; free will or self-determination.

agency definition | Open Education Sociology Dictionary

(noun) The capacity of an individual to actively and independently choose and to affect change; free will or self-determination.

sociologydictionary.org

It's also influenced by the basis of agency which comes from agent - a person who has been invested with authority they would not normally have in order to act on behalf of the party (an institution or individual person) who granted it to them, wherein the agent literally speaks for them.

This isn't jargon unless introductory undergrad courses count as jargon which is an interesting take to have.

 

[pemerton]

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.

In social philosophy, this quickly gets us into the concept of adaptive preferences.

But I don't really think we need to go there in thinking about RPGs.

The definition of agency I have relied on most of my adult life comes from exposure to undergrad Sociology.

agency definition | Open Education Sociology Dictionary

(noun) The capacity of an individual to actively and independently choose and to affect change; free will or self-determination.

sociologydictionary.org

This will do the job! It broadly overlaps with dictionary definitions that have been cited upthread (including quite recently).

 

[FrogReaver]

The definition of agency I have relied on most of my adult life comes from exposure to undergrad Sociology.

agency definition | Open Education Sociology Dictionary

(noun) The capacity of an individual to actively and independently choose and to affect change; free will or self-determination.

sociologydictionary.org

It's also influenced by the basis of agency which comes from agent - a person who has been invested with authority they would not normally have in order to act on behalf of the party (an institution or individual person) who granted it to them, wherein the agent literally speaks for them.

This isn't jargon unless introductory undergrad courses count as jargon which is an interesting take to have.

You provided this definiton for sociology.

(noun) The capacity of an individual to actively and independently choose and to affect change; free will or self-determination.

This definition doesn’t sound to me like it supports saying one individual has ‘more agency’ than another individual, provided they both have some agency. Your thoughts?

Or to say it another way - an individual either has the capacity to actively and independently choose and to affect change or he doesn’t.

 

[pemerton]

You provided this definiton for sociology.

(noun) The capacity of an individual to actively and independently choose and to affect change; free will or self-determination.

This definition doesn’t sound to me like it supports saying one individual has ‘more agency’ than another individual, provided they both have some agency. Your thoughts?

Capacity can be a matter of degree. Both the capacity of buckets, and the capacity to bring about change.

I've already referred to the Whitehall study multiple times in this thread: it's a classic study in social epidemiology which takes as one of its inputs the varying degrees of agency enjoyed by different categories of worker.

The degree of agency enjoyed by various actors can be an important element in social explanation.

EDIT: @Campbell's post just following this one goes into more detail.

 

[Campbell]

You provided this definiton for sociology.

(noun) The capacity of an individual to actively and independently choose and to affect change; free will or self-determination.

This definition doesn’t sound to me like it supports saying one individual has ‘more agency’ and another individual with agency in different situations. Your thoughts?

I think that's covered by the ability to not just freely choose their actions (autonomy) but also to actively affect change which (obviously to me) can be done to different degrees by din of personal authority and efficacy.

See some of the usage notes in the link I provided.

• Agency is an expression of autonomy against social institutions, structures, and cultural forces.
• Depending on an individual’s or group’s sociodemographic background, they have more agency in the structure of society due to privilege.
• Anthony Giddens (born 1938) theorized the concept of structuration, which contends there is a constant dynamic relationship between agency (choices) and structure (chances). Giddens referred to humans as “knowledgeable agents” with the capacity to understand their circumstances and consequences of their actions, thus can possibly exercise choice.