D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Golroc]

So wait, we're at the point in the thread where those who think the wise GM needs to have a veto over all player actions to preserve fidelity to an imagined reality also think the GM is naive and easy to manipulate?

No. Disregarding the somewhat caricatured way of describing styles that don't have everything out in the open - ie that have some amount of GM discretion or even (gasp) grant the GM authority to change what they prepared beforehand - that's not the case (for me).

I've almost exclusively played a style with high GM discretion and I prefer that style, but I certainly don't think that the GM is naive and easy to manipulate. At least not more than anyone else.

Some individuals might be susceptible to manipulation, but I see that as a property of the individual, not a system. But then again, I've already admitted I don't fully grasp what those who talk about gaming/manipulation the GM are talking about. They seem to allude to something that is separate from "normal" manipulation (ie applicable to any interaction or activity) but is specific to systems and RPGs. I could be getting it wrong and misrepresenting what they're saying. If so, sorry about that. I am not trying to strawman anyone.

But TL;DR: No.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No. Disregarding the somewhat caricatured way of describing styles that don't have everything out in the open - ie that have some amount of GM discretion or even (gasp) grant the GM authority to change what they prepared beforehand - that's not the case (for me).

I've almost exclusively played a style with high GM discretion and I prefer that style, but I certainly don't think that the GM is naive and easy to manipulate. At least not more than anyone else.

Some individuals might be susceptible to manipulation, but I see that as a property of the individual, not a system. But then again, I've already admitted I don't fully grasp what those who talk about gaming/manipulation the GM are talking about. They seem to allude to something that is separate from "normal" manipulation (ie applicable to any interaction or activity) but is specific to systems and RPGs. I could be getting it wrong and misrepresenting what they're saying. If so, sorry about that. I am not trying to strawman anyone.

But TL;DR: No.

Alright. That doesn't really seem to comport with the way others have described "gaming" the GM, where the player is in some way jockeying for advantage by manipulating or deceiving the GM, and that this is (apparently) an inherent element of all possible roleplaying games that involve anything analogous to the GM role. So...it sounds like you personally just don't hold to that argument.

Unrelated: @CreamCloud0 I finally got that edit in, so you can see that above. Figured it was worthwhile to ping you now.

 

[Maxperson]

You were literally asked to, because the claim was that you are wrong, that there is no advantage for doing this "gaming," and thus asking what advantage you could possibly get from it.

So: What advantage can you possibly get from it? Because I don't see one either here. What does this "gaming" get you? Your "vote" example doesn't tell me anything at all. It really does merely confuse the issue. What is gained here? What is this nebulous advantage you keep talking about? Please, actually give a specific example, not something abstract and nebulous.

The vote is for the Faith ability which the player wants. The advantage is a guaranteed vote by the DM.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The vote is for the Faith ability which the player wants. The advantage is a guaranteed vote by the DM.

And this is guaranteed how?

 

[Maxperson]

And this is guaranteed how?

Gaming the DM? That's the point of gaming the DM. It's using what you know about the DM to set up a result by the DM that is to your advantage.

 

[pointofyou]

So wait, we're at the point in the thread where those who think the wise GM needs to have a veto over all player actions to preserve fidelity to an imagined reality also think the GM is naive and easy to manipulate?

By Jove! I think you have it!

 

[Campbell]

@bloodtide

This is yet another digression, but it is not a Story Now GM's duty to provide engaging situations. Hopefully everyone at the table is engaging, but that's beside the point. It is the GM's responsibility to frame scenes that address the premise of the character (what we believe to be true of them). This varies from game to game, but what this looks like in Burning Wheel is framing scenes / creating situations around the enumerated beliefs on each player's character sheet.

Imagine Joe is playing Veristandt the Bold, a dispossessed noble who believes his brother killed his father. Joe establishes the following beliefs for Veristandt:

• My brother betrayed our family and the kingdom. I will bring him the death he deserves.
• A true warrior never faces an unarmed man. I will face my enemies head on.
• Celene (my brother's wife) is a noble soul. I will save her from my brother's tyranny.

It then becomes the GM's responsibility to frame scenes that put the following beliefs to question. Maybe ones that throw some measure of doubt that Veristandt's brother really betrayed either the family or the kingdom or perhaps he did both, but perhaps his death might come with other repercussions. Perhaps provide opportunities to gain some advantage on his brother that might require a measure of duplicity or might put Celene in a measure of danger. Hopefully the player who came up with these beliefs considers that engaging, but it's not really the GM's job to make them engaging in for Joe. It's up to Joe to engage with them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Part of the problem is that I've adjusted my verbiage to match what most people in this thread use. I actually do think agency as a concept has both subjective and objective elements. But that's not how this thread is using it, so it's useless for me to cling to this. Hence I use terms agency and perceived agency. With definition of agency used by most people in this thread (where it pertains only to objective agency) those two very much are different things. I am not trying to claim that the perception of something is the same as the actual thing. (and I don't think a debate about definitions contributes anything, so I've adjusted my jargon accordingly - therefore lets not return to the discussion about how to define agency).

But regardless: with the definition of agency and perceived agency as separate concepts, there are players who will value perceived agency as much, or even more, than (objective) agency. Several people in this thread seem to reject that this is possible and/or that it is a valid preference. That's my issue. A discussion about player agency has to consider that some people find perceived agency to be important. Because if one is faced with a player who is upset about lacking agency, it matters a whole lot whether they care about perceived agency or not. Especially if they're the kind who have less perceived agency than objective agency (because generally such players are not going to become happy by being told they're wrong and they actually have more agency than they think*).

And it is also important to recognize that perceived agency depends on a mixture of actual and imagined agency (as entirely subjective agency with no objective agency generally doesn't happen in practice). If one accepts that some players enjoy perceived agency, it becomes relevant to consider relevant techniques and ways to align expectations so to avoid ruining the perceived agency.

Finally, the post you replied to wasn't just about perceived agency - it was also about mediated agency and authority - and how a player who contributes to the shared fiction does not lose all agency simply because the GM has a function of mediating/filtering those contributions. As long as it happens within the agreed upon conventions it really is fine. If a player contributes and the contribution has a material impact on the narrative/world/state/shared fiction, that is objective agency. Some might consider it a lesser form of agency than one without a filter. I don't agree - because by the same measure, contributions gated by dice would also be lesser as they're equally contingent on a secondary factor. GM authority acting as a mediator of (elements of) player agency does not lessen it, unless one considers weird hypothetical situations that are nothing like an actual game.

So there are two separate things here - acknowledging perceived agency as relevant and valid (for some) and acknowledging filtered/mediated agency as relevant and valid (for some). I am not trying to say these things are all the same, just that they are equally relevant and valid.

* I've played with a person who genuinely believed she had bad luck. She considered random elements unfair to her and even expressed feeling powerless when resolution of game mechanics used dice. That is of course absurd - even if it also holds a nugget of truth in that dice can be unfair and can evoke feelings of powerlessness. Such a player needs a diceless system to be happy. This is of course an extreme example, but it is real, and I am using it to make a point that subjectivity can matter a lot in practice.

Yeah, I don't have any reason to dispute about what you call 'perceived agency'. I don't have a term for it, and don't really have a problem with yours.

In terms of 'filtering', I think you get into a bit of a question there. I mean, I think it is going to highly depend on the degree. Like, it would be ridiculous to say "well, this game has a rule 0, so its all just the GM!" That would be one extreme, and it could in fact describe the actual case in a specific game (unlikely, but as a hypothetical). It could also be that its MY 1e game and the players mostly do whatever the heck and I only 'filter them' when it would be impossible to play otherwise due to the limits of 1e, or because the entire premise of play would break down. That's probably close to how @pemerton's 1e game worked. So, obviously we would need to make some judgment calls, or measure, how much actual effective agency existed there. I think that's possible in theory at least.

 

[Golroc]

@bloodtide

This is yet another digression, but it is not a Story Now GM's duty to provide engaging situations. Hopefully everyone at the table is engaging, but that's beside the point. It is the GM's responsibility to frame scenes that address the premise of the character (what we believe to be true of them). This varies from game to game, but what this looks like in Burning Wheel is framing scenes / creating situations around the enumerated beliefs on each player's character sheet.

Imagine Joe is playing Veristandt the Bold, a dispossessed noble who believes his brother killed his father. Joe establishes the following beliefs for Veristandt:

• My brother betrayed our family and the kingdom. I will bring him the death he deserves.
• A true warrior never faces an unarmed man. I will face my enemies head on.
• Celene (my brother's wife) is a noble soul. I will save her from my brother's tyranny.

It then becomes the GM's responsibility to frame scenes that put the following beliefs to question. Maybe ones that throw some measure of doubt that Veristandt's brother really betrayed either the family or the kingdom or perhaps he did both, but perhaps his death might come with other repercussions. Perhaps provide opportunities to gain some advantage on his brother that might require a measure of duplicity or might put Celene in a measure of danger. Hopefully the player who came up with these beliefs considers that engaging, but it's not really the GM's job to make them engaging in for Joe. It's up to Joe to engage with them.

Please stop selling this Story Now stuff so well. You're making me want to play it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Right, and that is what I'm talking about. You give lots of examples of actual play. They read like typical sessions. But then you say there is "player agency" in there somewhere. Maybe you can break it down a bit more as I'm missing it.

I get you endless talk about the rules. But I still wonder "how" do rules give players agency? You never say it, so my guess is your saying "the rules"......somehow" are "forcing" the GM to do something?

GM: "The vault door is locked"
Player: "Whatever GM, my character does their Door Action Ability...and got a total of 17, and as per page 11 of The Rules, My character opens the door! All Hail the Rules!"
GM (looks down utterly defeated and powerless) "Yes, your character opens the door...All Hail the Rules!"

And I get that many games are made of all Rule Zealots, all the players and the GM. Where everyone is waiting for "the rules" to tell them what happened

Now you don't say this.....but it SOUNDS like your saying "The Rules" can be used by the players to over power and over rule the GM. Like the GM says "the door is locked and your character can't open it". Then the player whips out a rule like a 'reverse Uno card' and says "Ha I got a 17 for my Action Check and my character opens the door! All hail the rules!" So over rifing or over ruling the GM is "player agency".

And, IF the GM is a hard core Rule Zealot they will look at the rule and nod "your character opens the door, All hail the rules"......willingly.

But, ok, so what if it's not a Rule Zealot type GM? The player makes a roll and takes an action.....but the GM can ALWAYS say "nope, did not work." Even in a normal simple game there can be dozens of reasons a "roll rule" does not work 100%. So, a GM always gets final say...no matter the roll or rules.

And the question then is, WHY would you ever do that?! And how would you NOT describe such a game as simply "the GM tells a story"? OK, you let the players toss some dice around sometimes, and if you feel like it you 'go with the dice'. Its either that OR you do actually obey some sort of 'rules' even if they are unwritten and purely internal, which govern your GMing.

ALL that narrativist play really, at its heart does, is say that there are EXPLICIT 'rules' for the GM to follow, as in the ones laid out in Apocalypse World which he will always follow. This simply makes it so everyone knows what is happening and it becomes an actual game instead of Calvin Ball.

And another aspect then arises, which is that these 'rules' describe who gets to say what and when, and the situations under which it becomes binding on the other players. THAT is @pemerton's 'who gets to say what and when'. Finally we see how this bears down on the question of agency, since clearly such a set of rules will at least partially define areas where each participant does or does not possess the right to act.