D&D General What is player agency to you?

[soviet]

If you cannot measure verisimilitude or gameyness, and thus they are entirely subjective, I assume we're all cool agreeing never to say that 4e has any less verisimilitude or any more gameyness than other editions, right?

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I think it comes in instances, right? Like, everything could be going along just fine, and then something happens that you feel removes your agency. Perhaps it's minor enough that you can shrug it off. Perhaps it's not. But I don't think things need to get to the extreme before we can care about them.

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.

Sure. There's subjectivity involved in any evaluation of a game. But I don't think that doesn't allow for varying degrees of agency, or that it means agency is binary.

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.

Sure! I've offered plenty of examples from my actual games. I've kept those mostly to D&D 5e in this thread because otherwise the "apples to oranges" dismissals start happening.

I would love it if the discussion moved on to how people go about gaming in a way that provides agency to players. Most folks seem reluctant to actually provide anything from their actual play experiences as examples, though, and instead we get examples that are hypothetical, which are often vague or hyperbolic.

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.

Sure, there are going to be social contract type issues that need to be considered. Some folks never want PvP. If so, that's perfectly understandable, but that's a limit on agency. As a player in that game, I cannot shift things toward a meaningful conflict with another player's character.

It's not inherently good or bad... it depends on one's preferences, and those of the other players... but it's clearly a limit. Denying that it is because I enjoy no PvP and so it doesn't "feel" like a limit is... well, silly.

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.

Sure, but your experiences may not be typical. Or the folks who've participated in the same games as you may not have worried about agency. That doesn't mean it can't profoundly affect how the game seems to others.

For example, I expect my threshold for lower agency play is higher than some other folks who've posted in this thread. I can play in a low agency game and enjoy it perfectly fine! I've done so for decades. What bothers me is if I'm expecting a game with more player agency, and I wind up with less than expected. Or if I go into a game with minimal agency, and the little I have is ignored.

Everyone's preferences on this will be unique to them. I wouldn't deny that at all.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

I quite like this one:

If you cannot measure verisimilitude or gameyness, and thus they are entirely subjective, I assume we're all cool agreeing never to say that 4e has any less verisimilitude or any more gameyness than other editions, right?

It's also helped me realize that there's no measurement for logic, so all the points folks have made in this thread are equal! Yay!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

IMO, the problem is a bit more complicated because we aren’t just dealing with me and you. We are dealing with about a dozen or so people and getting that many all to agree is hard!

1) conversation with those other posters gets really confusing when you and I do 1.

2) this has been attempted by both sides and people just go back to using the disputed jargon. Like I’ve personally tried to get your side to talk about the concepts without using the term agency. In general they refuse to do so.

3) seems to be where these discussions always go.

Ultimately I’m not sure we really do all know what each other means. I think alot of that is due to lack of specificity. Because there’s been countless times where both sides declare they didn’t say something only to have a past comment trotted out that seems to imply they did.

Of course we know, you literally stated you wished a short, and not disputed, phrase would replace the term 'agency' in every case. Clearly you know what I mean by the word. I'm using the term because you DO understand it, and any argument we have is in regards to our analysis of the subject, which is a perfectly valid debate. Also agency is hella easier to type,

 

[Micah Sweet]

I quite like this one:


It's also helped me realize that there's no measurement for logic, so all the points folks have made in this thread are equal! Yay!

Still seems pretty snarky, and clearly slanted.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you cannot measure verisimilitude or gameyness, and thus they are entirely subjective, I assume we're all cool agreeing never to say that 4e has any less verisimilitude or any more gameyness than other editions, right?

This is fair.
Verisimilitude is subjective. So is gameyness.

I’d ask you to remember your feelings when others unprovoked enter a discussion and proclaim a game you like objectively has less of some subjective quality. Especially when for you it subjectively has equal or the same if that quality.

*I think there’s a difference if someone is being asked why the subjectively likes or dislike something.

 

[FrogReaver]

I quite like this one:

You do realize that was made after I brought up the previously consistent lack of constructive posts?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Still seems pretty snarky, and clearly slanted.

I think it offers a very clear use of the same logic applied to another topic, that helps demonstrate how flawed the logic is.

But hey, opinions vary!

You do realize that was made after I brought up the previously consistent lack of constructive posts?

Who cares? It's an insightful post. @soviet has made plenty throughout the thread. A little snark can help a conversation.

Also, I couldn't measure the snark, so I don't think his post is any snarkier than anyone else's!

 

[FrogReaver]

I think it offers a very clear use of the same logic applied to another topic, that helps demonstrate how flawed the logic is.

But hey, opinions vary!



Who cares? It's an insightful post. @soviet has made plenty throughout the thread. A little snark can help a conversation.

I agree that particular post was insightful and not snarky. I also replied to it with substance because of that.

But that doesn’t mean there’s not been an inordinate amount of snarky one line posts with no other substance to them before now.

Also, I couldn't measure the snark, so I don't think his post is any snarkier than anyone else's!

Lol. Good Joke!

 

[soviet]

If you like my posts, folks, buy my game! It has an unmeasurable amount of all the qualities you desire in a product.

;-)