Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7624998" data-attributes="member: 4937">I don't think I've ever settled on a &quot;official&quot; definition of player agency, but in general by player agency I mean tending to have the ability by your in game choices (propositions) to change both the direction and the outcome of the game.&nbsp; I think you'll find that defining &quot;direction and outcome&quot; tends to be difficult here.&nbsp; I've never defined railroading except in a Aristotelian manner either, but I would think that as close as I've come to defining &quot;to railroad&quot; it isn't an antonym of &quot;agency&quot; because one is a verb and the other is a noun, but they are related.&nbsp; &nbsp; As a loose definition, I tend to define &quot;to railroad&quot; as &quot;To use any of a number of GMing techniques where by the GM transfers agency from the player to himself in order to take temporary control over the direction of the story.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; In my discussion of railroading, I noted that if the player's agency was already low, then use of a railroad technique could in some cases result in a net increase in player agency - for example by providing exposition that would allow a player to then make an informed choice.The inverse of railroading would be for the GM to transfer agency from himself to the player.&nbsp; I don't know that that has a name.Ok, I wouldn't.&nbsp; Control without the ability to achieve an outcome is a rather strange concept of control.&nbsp; A player rarely or never has full control over their character.&nbsp;&nbsp; As an obvious example, a player can declare the intention to attack and kill an orc, but they cannot normally declare that they do attack and kill an orc because normally such actions require a fortune check, and a fortune check will temporarily deprive the player over control of the character - for example, causing the player to swing and miss, something that they did not intend to do.So what you probably mean by &quot;full control&quot; is simply that another participant in the game cannot make propositions which assert how a player's character thinks, feels, or acts.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is somewhat verified because you assert that in 5e agency can be lost only through magic.&nbsp;&nbsp; But I would consider this a very limited understanding of what agency actually is, as a player may be the only participant that can make propositions which assert how their own character thinks, feels, or acts and yet still have no agency whatsoever - and I tend to think that as a practical matter a player that felt he was allowed to declare whatever he wanted with respect to his actions, but couldn't actually affect the outcomes, would feel that they didn't have much agency and that the game was on rails.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7624998, member: 4937"] I don't think I've ever settled on a "official" definition of player agency, but in general by player agency I mean tending to have the ability by your in game choices (propositions) to change both the direction and the outcome of the game. I think you'll find that defining "direction and outcome" tends to be difficult here. I've never defined railroading except in a Aristotelian manner either, but I would think that as close as I've come to defining "to railroad" it isn't an antonym of "agency" because one is a verb and the other is a noun, but they are related. As a loose definition, I tend to define "to railroad" as "To use any of a number of GMing techniques where by the GM transfers agency from the player to himself in order to take temporary control over the direction of the story." In my discussion of railroading, I noted that if the player's agency was already low, then use of a railroad technique could in some cases result in a net increase in player agency - for example by providing exposition that would allow a player to then make an informed choice. The inverse of railroading would be for the GM to transfer agency from himself to the player. I don't know that that has a name. Ok, I wouldn't. Control without the ability to achieve an outcome is a rather strange concept of control. A player rarely or never has full control over their character. As an obvious example, a player can declare the intention to attack and kill an orc, but they cannot normally declare that they do attack and kill an orc because normally such actions require a fortune check, and a fortune check will temporarily deprive the player over control of the character - for example, causing the player to swing and miss, something that they did not intend to do. So what you probably mean by "full control" is simply that another participant in the game cannot make propositions which assert how a player's character thinks, feels, or acts. This is somewhat verified because you assert that in 5e agency can be lost only through magic. But I would consider this a very limited understanding of what agency actually is, as a player may be the only participant that can make propositions which assert how their own character thinks, feels, or acts and yet still have no agency whatsoever - and I tend to think that as a practical matter a player that felt he was allowed to declare whatever he wanted with respect to his actions, but couldn't actually affect the outcomes, would feel that they didn't have much agency and that the game was on rails. [/QUOTE]

Verification