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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Golroc" data-source="post: 9109742" data-attributes="member: 7042497">(First off, I'm sorry I didn't engage on the Traveler actual play a poster referenced earlier - I did actually start reading it, then got side-tracked by other things, and managed to lose track of the links, and now I can't find them - if you could link it again, I'd love to finish reading it and properly consider the point you were making in lieu of this actual play)(I'd also like to elaborate on my statement that I sometimes enjoy artful railroading, as I feel this was misunderstood by a lot of posters, but I'll leave that for another post).If we step back from this whole "how to define agency" and "how to define comparative analysis of agency in the context of different systems and styles", I'd like to ask a question. I'm not trying to be facetious or do any kind of gotcha - but it's related to my view that the social contract and the skills/personality of the GM matters more than the system when it comes to agency. Perhaps answers to this question can help me understand the viewpoints of others posters in this thread better.** Scenario **Let's imagine a player who approaches the GM with following complaint, a few sessions into the campaign: "Could you please add more meaningful choice to the campaign? I feel like we're exploring one area after another and it's all about just fighting the inhabitants. Sometimes we can back one group over another - or play them against each other, but I'd like if there was some larger narrative that we could impact. I would also like to have relations to various factions and individuals - friends, allies, rivals - maybe even a nemesis."The GM has created a series of sandbox sessions and there's an antagonist involved tying all the locations together - the players just haven't figured out yet. The rest of the groups seems happy with the style of play.** Question **How do different systems relate to this kind of problem of player agency? Or as a rather loaded question, how is this not purely a problem of the GM not being willing and/or capable of meeting the expectations of the player?**In this case we have a player who doesn't mention agency, but it's a relatively common style of complaint - "our campaign is too repetitive - I feel like it's adventure of the week - the overall arc is (insert any of unknown/boring/meaningless)".Now I acknowledge that there are different levels of agency in various systems when it comes to the actual play - which in the absence of GM intervention / style - can greatly reduce the freedom of choice of players. I also acknowledge that narrative agency is handled different in various systems - and all other things being equal - this makes a difference in how much narrative impact players can make without the GM being the gatekeeper of such impact. But in my experience, complains about agency (using that term explicitly or not) are almost always about the nature of the campaign and the session content. Not about how the game system allows players to affect the world. Not even about how much illusion or improvisation the GM makes use of (although I have seen clashes about that, just not very often).Hence to me, player agency relates to matching expectations with the GM and the rest of the group. This is why I consider notions such as whether a system is high or low on agency kind of an odd focus - because in the past I've always seen groups simply switch or modify systems if they become unhappy with the agency (or other aspects of it). Whereas groups where players feel unable to have the kind of experiences and choices they desire, are more common.And I also feel this relates to the GM scarcity, and why a lot of people don't like being GM. It is hard to provide agency for players who want more than a sandbox and/or players who expect a highly engaging narrative with meaningful choice. It is hard to figure out what players want. Because the don't always know it. And I'd even contend you ruin the fun for some people if you start dissecting what they actually want. Finally, because 'agency' is a term which in vogue, some players will frame dissatisfaction as issues with agency, when it's actually about something entirely different. And this relates to the original question - where my position is "you should never argue with a player about what constitutes agency - you won't solve any conflicts this way and might as well cut your losses instead".I hope this post helps explain why I focus less on the abstract definitions of agency and more on the social contract and individual interpretations of agency. Not because I want other people to ignore the concept - I think making people aware of the way different systems treat different kinds of agency is great. It can help groups and individuals find (or adapt their current) systems to better match what they want from the game. But because I think the most challenging aspects of agency are related to things that cannot be fixed by changes to the system.</blockquote>

Verification