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: 9109834" data-attributes="member: 7042497">I think a lot of the conflict over definitions stem from discussing two different things, both of which are valid meanings of the word and both of which are even used in academia.There is agency as in capacity to affect/control/influence. This type of agency is not binary. It is qualitative and multi-faceted. I don't think it makes sense to try and model mathematically (as it is qualitative), but I do agree with considering it multi-dimensional.But there is also agency as in 'sense of agency'. That's a (mostly) binary thing. It is the quality of feeling in control of what is happening. One can even interpret it as a "do I have sufficient agency (of the above kind)?". It is also a subjective thing. Some individuals can feel deprived of agency even if they have capacity to affect/control/influence the world around them. A good example is when individual is placed affected by a calamity - even if the individual is legally free, has a decent amount of material wealth, etc. - they can easily feel completely deprived of agency. Midlife crisis is often about losing the sense of agency - and very often extremely subjectively so.Both of these types of agency are used in literature. And I think both make sense in the context of RPGs. Therefore any point made or question raised should specify what kind of agency we're talking about (if it doesn't apply to both) - otherwise we just get a long series of back-and-forth that goes nowhere. We could label them objective agency and subjective agency?And when a player says "I lack agency" - we (as a fellow player, GM or outsider) don't know if they've considered agency of the first kind (capacity/objective), but we do know they're invoking the second kind (sense/subjective). And subjective agency need not be based in objective agency. It can be based on agency towards things the system cannot solve, fully or in part.Finally, arguing over objective agency might make sense, but as I've repeated someone who is unhappy about lack of agency is not going to be won over by such argument (at least if so, they are an incredibly rare kind of person). They feel a subjective lack of agency. One should address this - as it is a relevant regardless of whether it is objectively true. If it is objectively true, that opens the door to certain tools (given that the rest of the group accept these tools). It is objectively false, it still needs to be addressed or the player will remain unhappy.A lot of people want very unreasonably things. People aren't always mature, rational and/or reasonable. That's why to me, 'sense of agency' is the important thing to look at. A player who feels empowered is a happy player. But I do appreciate systems with a different approach to player agency is a possible tool for solving problems with sense of agency. Especially for players who don't enjoy the GM having autocratic rule over narrative. For those it's pretty much the only answer. But changing systems is a big deal - and there may be different issues with the new system. One should consider the circumstances when thinking of the best solution.</blockquote>

Verification