Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9096593" data-attributes="member: 71699">I want to attempt to list out some facets of agency to understand all this better.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">who a character is in the game world (if I can't play a crooked cop, then I don't have agency to be a crooked cop)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">what a character knows (about others, the game-world, the metagame)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">what a character thinks (anything that overrides this, relieves me of agency in that moment)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">how a character represents itself (as above)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">how a character alters themselves, others or the game world mechanically (game mechanics they can avail of; I'm using mechanics to include anything explicitly systematised such as rules, parameters, tables, and metagame mechanics such as fate points)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">how a character alters themselves, others or the game world normatively (e.g. where there is no mechanic to appeal to, to what extent I'm limited by principles such as "say yes or roll the dice", group ideas about plausibility, and even how flexibly the design and group conspire to rule acts into the ambit of general mechanics; note I'm using "principles" as short-hand to include anything normative other than explicit game mechanics)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">other characters on each of 1) through 6) (if I can't decide who other characters are, what they think, how they represent themselves, and how they change themselves, others or the game world, I don't have agency over them: this includes adversaries)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">game-world contents mechanically (can I create a building, a land-mass, a climate, a people and culture, epochs past)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">game-world contents normatively (as above, but as afforded/limited by principles)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">game-world events mechanically (can I decide events my character is uninvolved in, including past and future)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">game-world events normatively (as above, but without mechanics to avail of, so as afforded/limited by principles)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">character and world genre</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">subjects of focus (to what extent do I decide or influence what comes into and stays within the spotlight of play)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">what players know (including any mechanics and norms relating to how they can apply what they know)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">creative ambitions (to what extent do I decide or influence the creative ambitions of participants, e.g. participation drama, storytelling, exploration, mastery, etc, for one or for all)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">situation and premises (to what extent do I decide or influence where play commences)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">game mechanics (can I choose between, add or remove, apply or disapply, or modify game mechanics? for myself? for others?)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">game norms (can I add or remove, apply or disapply, or modify our affording/limiting principles? for myself? for others?)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">who the players are (game mechanics and norms cover their roles)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">who the other participants are (e.g. GM, game mechanics and norms cover their roles)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">when and where we play</li> </ol>That's probably not a complete list, but enough to be illustrative. So here are two connected observations and questionsA) The count of possible "actions or interventions producing a particular effect" in respect of the above is infinite, even were the count of "things or persons that act to produce a particular result" finite*. Put simply, there's no limit (infinite) to what a player (finite) can decide their character thinks. This implies that count of actions or interventions, things or persons, alone cannot tell us whether we have more or less agency in the context of TTRPG. A test for meaningfulness is required. Counting facets of agency (the list above) doesn't help, because all TTRPGs have the same list.B) Is the sum of mechanical and normative agency constant? If not, then why can't I say that FKR offers the most agency possible? Is the sum of agency across participants constant? If so, then why can't I say that solo and coop TTRPG offers the most agency possible for players? (And the former by far the most for any given player!) One option is to agree with those statements, solo-FKR offers greatest agency to any given player.I've of course omitted story, exploration, and mastery from the above list. They're not absent, however. Rather they exist in the arrangement and unfolding of the above. The narrativist position is essentially that if GM is doing a large part of that arranging and unfolding, then all the less agency left over for players. This is obviously a claim to a bigger infinity (all possible agency) being diminished by the subtraction of a smaller infinity (the part exercised by GM), so the countervailing positions are a) if a player has infinitely many actions or interventions available to them anyway, how does one assert any meaningful curtailment of their agency - it's still infinite! - and b) what if GM's choices in fact make even more "actions or interventions" available to players (i.e. trade-offs are non-zero sum)?Which is why I think it comes down to what you care about. I don't think chess players consider their agency less than rugby union players just because the possible permutations are technically finite for chess and infinite for 15-aside rugby union played on an open field. But shouldn't I at least concede the technical point that chess players have less agency than rugby union players? As I said above, doing so sets aside due acknowledgement of what agency in games is all about. It's not something that can be simply ennumerated: the only agency that can be counted is that meaningful to the distinct play under consideration.I realised that the above perhaps places a burden on me to define ludic-agency. Drawing upon Bernard Suits, It's something like this: the power players have to intentionally satisfy their prelusory goals without abandoning their lusory-attitude, thus within the lusory-means. To the extent I count GM as part of the lusory-means, they cannot perturb player agency except where the given player's prelusory goals require control of facets of agency that mechanics and norms of the distinctive play under consideration give to GM.*Due to the inclusion of norms, and considered across the domain, that count is of course also infinite.</blockquote>

Verification