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: 9124208" data-attributes="member: 7042497">Now that we're returning to discussing definitions, I still prefer a slightly different definition than the one used by most posters. I don't agree that there is one single definition within sociology. I've seen multiple different definitions within management theory - which is a discipline of sociology. But let's not quibble about that. Instead let me explain why I prefer a different definition:Agency is the objective and subjective capacity to exercise self-determination through action and effort. In the context of an RPG, agency is the objective and subjective capacity to perform actions and make decision that have a meaningful impact on the outcome of the game. Note that  the perception of what constitutes outcome and meaning differ between individuals.I think it is important to not reduce agency to simply concern itself with the decision space of the player in the context of the game. One has to consider the effect of the decision. In order for agency to exist, the player must not only have a meaningful and open-ended freedom of choice in what actions to perform and which decisions to make. to act. The actions and decisions must also be able to have the desired impact.Freedom without agency is a very common pattern within sociology, and it repeats within RPGs. For example, if all roads lead to Rome, and I don't want to go to Rome, then it doesn't matter how many roads there are. But on the other hand, if what matters to me is the journey, then the choice of road is highly relevant.Agency is multi-dimensional. There are many aspects of agency. In this thread we've mostly discussed narrativist systems and how they contribute to agency. And they certainly do for a lot of players. The extent to which they provide agency is of course directly linked to how important the player considers the sharing of narrative authority and the decision space for impacting the shared fiction. Some players do not have a desired to impact the shared fiction beyond controlling a character. Earlier in this thread a poster asked me what I meant by "Story Mechanics" - and to me that refers to mechanics that allow the player to impact the shared fiction by means other than direct control of a character. In classic D&D systems I would consider character creation a Story Mechanic by this definition, and the same goes for character progression mechanics like levelling up. So Story Mechanics are not a matter of whether they are "gamey" or not.But if we return to how agency can relate to other concepts than shared narrative authority and Story Mechanics, another example is GM discretion. Some players consider GM discretion that goes beyond a certain threshold a violation of their agency. This could be a player who wants a simulationist approach to the game - where the GM has authority to define the pre-game state of the fiction (some would use the terms world or scenario, but I hope it's clear what I'm referring to), but where the GM is purely an arbiter and mediator once the game session starts. Other players have a concept of agency where they are open to the GM changing the (unrevealed) state of the fiction, within certain limits.Finally, a fair number of players that I've met over the years are mostly concerned with "fun/entertainment" and/or character progression. The former is sometimes derisively consider a casual and amateurish priority - where players don't care about the integrity of the shared fiction, don't care about their ability to impact it, etc. and are thus little more than passive consumers of low-brow entertainment. It is not entirely untrue for a subset of these players - for some people RPGs are just a light-hearted pastime. They can still have plenty of agency - if they're able to meaningfully act and interact to make the game more entertaining. For example, such a player might feel deprived of agency when playing with a group that is too serious or too concerned with following the rules of the game. To an observer they may seem devoid of agency when playing with like-minded individuals, but that's not the case - because there is a decision space and a meaningful ability to impact the outcome of the game.For the character progression crowd - they're much more focused on whether progression delivers tangible increases in mechanics-based character power and/or narrative character identity, than on the shared fiction or the interactions at the table. Again, this kind of play is sometimes regarded as primitive and boring by those who value other aspects of RPGs. But it is a valid kind of agency. A power-gamer may feel deprived of agency if character progression does not allow for synergistic use of mechanics - or at the very least goes beyond a simple scaling of character power. Such a player does not care about whether they can affect the narrative - but they do care about whether they can pump out bigger numbers or feel the thrill of executing some cool combo of mechanics to dominate combat.In reality, people don't fall into single categories, and groups of players will often have idiosyncrasies that impact agency. A player may feel devoid of agency if they don't get to fill the role of GM with some regularity - and opposite situation also exists (ie the "trapped" GM is a common trope, as is the player who desperately wants to GM but never gets the opportunity). Choice of system, setting and houserules can also be a point of relevance for agency. Players who dominate socially at the table also affect the agency of other players. Even with an accomodating GM, players have tremendous ability to undermine the agency of each other.Now, I know that many here don't like to include subjective feelings as part of agency - I disagree, but fine, if you want to use a different moniker for the subjective parts, that shouldn't stand in the way of discourse (which is why I've simply relented for most of this thread, and accepted the purely objective definition). But even given the purely objective definition of agency - it still stands that freedom of choice is not enough - the choices have to be able to impact the right things for the given player. And other participants (GM or players) being able nullify or undermine this can also remove agency.Player agency doesn't exist in a void. Conflicts about player agency can revolve not just around having sufficient freedom of action - but also be related to different preferences and styles. And this where the social contract is so important. By agreeing in advance on the system, conventions, priorities and limits of the game - and internalizing any compromises made - participants know if they're giving up on agency. The negotiation of a compromise is in itself a possible outlet of agency. This kind of meta-agency can make it easier to enjoy the game, if one is in the situation of having to compromise.But as for the GM asking the RPG community at large - "What is player agency (to you)?" - I hope the take away is that agency means different things to different people, and if a player is complaining about lack of agency, you need to focus on what matters to this particular player (and whether you are even compatible participants), not on what agency means to other people or what a possible theoretical definition of agency may be.</blockquote>

Verification