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: 9115812" data-attributes="member: 7042497">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.</blockquote>

Verification