What is Player Agency?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Pleh: I cleared out my inbox. Didn't know it HAD a capacity, lol.


Are you intellectually dishonest on purpose, or do you have the short-term memory of a goldfish?

I'd wager money that you're intentionally trolling at this point.

Intentionally trolling is my vote, which makes replying to him a violation of forum rules.

[Darth Ultron]

So these three example fit the "Player Agency is the Player being faced with Meaningful Choices" definition.

So your saying that unless the players get what they want to happen in the game, they have no player agency. Got it.



In Game D the Players were faced with a Meaningful Choice. If the Players decide to attempt to bribe the constable, the attempt does not work. The Players did not get what they wanted but they did interact with the game through a Meaningful Choice. Therefore there was Player Agency.

So wait...Game A is wrong as it is Always Wrong for the DM to make up things the players don't like ahead of time(like the DM making ''this guy can't be bribed''). But Game D does have Player Agency, but only if the DM makes up the NPC's decision on a whim?

That makes no sense. The only thing different is that in Game D, assuming the players could read the DMs mind, the players had a chance of getting what they want.

Like the A DM is ''Hummm ahahahhaa...lowly players just go ahead and waste your time doing whatever...I DM Awesome have all ready decided what will happen..ahahhahaha!"

And the D DM is like ''I'm a blank slate....oh, the players did something...hum, ok I'm just decided something on a whim...and decide this!"

So just the fact that DM D might on a whim decide to do something the players like makes the players have agency?


So, not only did you acknowledge that another person had defined the term, but you also explicitly referred to it as "The Truth".

Well....everyone just ignored this and the whole Everyone Collective is talking about ''something else''....but no one can really say what.

"Our definition'' (awww) is:

1.A Player's ability to make a choice within the parameters set by the DM, other players, and game setting(and I'd add Rules).

2.For that choice to have a noticeable effect on the campaign, whether large or small.

But see, the Everyone Collective is not talking about that. In the Darth Taffy way: if a player makes a choice and it has an effect, we have ''agency''.

But the Everyone Collective does not stop there....they rant and rave things like:

1.There MUST always be two or more choices for everything all the time.
2.One choice must ALWAYS be GOOD and What the Player Wants
3.ALL choices made by the player must be INFORMED and the game MUST be stopped to explain every single tiny detail of everything to the player so they can make the right choice(and there must be a right choice..see #2)
4.The DM MUST never pre make a decision...all decisions must be made in real time by a whim.

[RedMage125]

So your saying that unless the players get what they want to happen in the game, they have no player agency. Got it.
No one said that.

This is a Straw Man.

You are either trolling or intellectually defunct (I've given up on dishonest, even, at this point)



But the Everyone Collective does not stop there....they rant and rave things like:

1.There MUST always be two or more choices for everything all the time.
2.One choice must ALWAYS be GOOD and What the Player Wants
3.ALL choices made by the player must be INFORMED and the game MUST be stopped to explain every single tiny detail of everything to the player so they can make the right choice(and there must be a right choice..see #2)
4.The DM MUST never pre make a decision...all decisions must be made in real time by a whim.

No one said that. Any of it.

One choice must not "always be good" or "what the player wants". No one said ALL choices "must be informed", I even EXPLICITLY said that player agency doesn't enter into every single choice being made. And no one said DMs could not make decisions about anything in advance.

NOT ONE POSTER has said that, you're making it up wholesale, I declare that you, sirrah, are a liar, a villain and a coward.

You have spoken explicit falsehoods to misrepresent what others have said (liar).

You continue to malign other posters intentionally in order to troll them (villain).

You steadfastly refuse to respond to the genuine counterpoints to your claims and pretend they don't exist, so you can continue to falsely claim that the Straw Men you create are your opponents' stances (coward).

[Darth Ultron]

No one said that. Any of it.


Odd....scroll up a bit. Old Trees said if a DM makes up something before the game that would equal No Player Agency.

The example is: the DM makes NPC Cop Sim and writes down ''is a good guy and won't take a bribe''. This should be a perfectly reasonably thing for a Dm to make. So, later in the game the PC's try to bribe NC Cop Sim...and fail. Then the player cry ''no agency.

I've said several times over the pages ''some times a choice is between two bad ones'', and immediately people attack and say ''one choice must be good/what the players want''.

I say ''it is not allways possible for a player to know everything about the game in tiny detail'', and this is where people will attack with ''a good DM stops the game and holds the hands of all the players to make sure they know everything and understand."

So, it is not exactly no one.....

[Quertus]

Intentionally trolling is my vote, which makes replying to him a violation of forum rules.

I clearly need to re-read the forum rules.

I am thankful that the moderators are kind, and don't immediately ban everyone who breaks rules while acting in good faith.

[Tinkerer]

Odd....scroll up a bit. Old Trees said if a DM makes up something before the game that would equal No Player Agency.

The example is: the DM makes NPC Cop Sim and writes down ''is a good guy and won't take a bribe''. This should be a perfectly reasonably thing for a Dm to make. So, later in the game the PC's try to bribe NC Cop Sim...and fail. Then the player cry ''no agency.

I've said several times over the pages ''some times a choice is between two bad ones'', and immediately people attack and say ''one choice must be good/what the players want''.

I say ''it is not allways possible for a player to know everything about the game in tiny detail'', and this is where people will attack with ''a good DM stops the game and holds the hands of all the players to make sure they know everything and understand."

So, it is not exactly no one.....

Not quite what OldTrees said. Might want to go back and read the example again including example D where they explicitly state that agency is not compromised by pre-existing information. Of course they were operating from the assumption of that one decision being the entirety of the scenario, which is how it was laid out in your example. If the choice is bribe the guard or don't bribe the guard and both decisions lead to the same outcome then there is not a choice. So within your example option A has no choice.

[OldTrees1]

So your saying that unless the players get what they want to happen in the game, they have no player agency. Got it.



So wait...Game A is wrong as it is Always Wrong for the DM to make up things the players don't like ahead of time(like the DM making ''this guy can't be bribed''). But Game D does have Player Agency, but only if the DM makes up the NPC's decision on a whim?

That makes no sense. The only thing different is that in Game D, assuming the players could read the DMs mind, the players had a chance of getting what they want.

Like the A DM is ''Hummm ahahahhaa...lowly players just go ahead and waste your time doing whatever...I DM Awesome have all ready decided what will happen..ahahhahaha!"

And the D DM is like ''I'm a blank slate....oh, the players did something...hum, ok I'm just decided something on a whim...and decide this!"

So just the fact that DM D might on a whim decide to do something the players like makes the players have agency?


Odd....scroll up a bit. Old Trees said if a DM makes up something before the game that would equal No Player Agency.

The example is: the DM makes NPC Cop Sim and writes down ''is a good guy and won't take a bribe''. This should be a perfectly reasonably thing for a Dm to make. So, later in the game the PC's try to bribe NC Cop Sim...and fail. Then the player cry ''no agency.

I've said several times over the pages ''some times a choice is between two bad ones'', and immediately people attack and say ''one choice must be good/what the players want''.

I say ''it is not allways possible for a player to know everything about the game in tiny detail'', and this is where people will attack with ''a good DM stops the game and holds the hands of all the players to make sure they know everything and understand."

So, it is not exactly no one.....



Bwahahaha you can't even understand your own examples?

Was the difference the DM doing something on a whim? No. Game D was written as either a preplanning DM or an improv DM.

The DM has either made the constable ahead of time OR can derive that this constable is ...


So what was the difference? Let me explain it again for you.

In Game A you did not include any choice that the Players were faced with. Whether or not the PCs attempted a bribe, the outcome was going to be exactly the same. No choice -> No Meaningful Choice -> No Player Agency. It is not our fault you can't conceive of including choices in your examples.

In Game D I included a choice (fight, talk, or bribe the constable), the choice resulted in a different outcome depend on which option was chosen (called for reinforcements + fight vs talked and a slap on the wrist vs a couple days in jail and a new enemy). The Players were faced with a Meaningful Choice -> They had Player Agency


But that is the problem with you Darth, you cannot read the following sentence:

Player Agency is when Players interact with the game through Meaningful Choices the DM has created.

[Delicious Taffy]

Darth Taffy

Yeah, no. Not gonna do this anymore. I'm done.
https://i.imgur.com/ccP0lHd.gif

[Darth Ultron]

A normal game is a game with legitimate player agency --

Except that A normal game will have a lot of ''non player agency'', and it would seem that you and the rest of the Everyone Collective won't accept that.....SO, that puts us back to a Normal Game does not have player agency, and makes the Special Player Agency Game...an Other Game.


So within your example option A has no choice.

Right, No Choice equals No Player Agency and that is Badwrongfun Allways. Of course the so called ''no choice'' is just reality...or game reality. NPC Fred does not like silver, period. In a normal game this is an acceptable reality: Characters can like or not like something. But in the Special Agency Game, everything must be blank, so the DM can improve things exactly the way the players want it so the players can be happy and have fun and say ''we have Player Agency".

1.DM makes something up----> Players can not effect it---->Game is Badwrongfun and has no Player Agency

2.DM makes nothing up----> Players can not effect it------>Game is Badwrongfun and has no Player Agency

3.DM makes nothing up----> Players maybe can effect it, but still the DM decides on a whim something the players don't like------>Game is Badwrongfun and has no Player Agency

4.DM makes nothing up----> Players can effect it, and the DM decides on a whim to do things the players like------>Game is perfect and has and has Player Agency



See, the Normal Game, the Darth Taffy way, anything can happen no matter what the players do and that anything might be good or bad for the players and the players might like it or not....anything can happen.

Everyone else is playing some Other Game.

[Kyberwulf]

Player Agency is a myth created by some players to try railroad other players into playing in their book. It is the PC equivalent of "railroading".

I have heard the line before, if a DM want's people to listen to his story.. write a book. The same could be said about pcs.

See the problem with player agency, is it is a selfish concept. It is saying my enjoyment and fun is more important then every one else's at the table. You see the problem with "Player Agency" is that every other player could be having fun. But if the snowflake that isn't having fun because everyone isn't cowtowing to his concept of what should be done, then the game is bad.

I mean, life.. real life doesn't even give you infinite choices at every single moment at every single time. Yet for some reason, you expect that in a game. Especially a game with a limited set of choices. Made by a person that can't be reasonably expected to predict the outcome of every choice.

There is this unrealistic pressure on the gm to make a scenario for every single possible contingency.

Also, the GM is a player, in the game. Where is his agency? He doesn't get one, even though it's his world you are playing.

Player agency is the inability to say, "as a group of people, nay friends, lets get together and descend yonder rabbit hole for a bit a fun this weekend to see what adventures that can be had."

[Max_Killjoy]

Player Agency is a myth created by some players to try railroad other players into playing in their book. It is the PC equivalent of "railroading".

I have heard the line before, if a DM want's people to listen to his story.. write a book. The same could be said about pcs.

See the problem with player agency, is it is a selfish concept. It is saying my enjoyment and fun is more important then every one else's at the table. You see the problem with "Player Agency" is that every other player could be having fun. But if the snowflake that isn't having fun because everyone isn't cowtowing to his concept of what should be done, then the game is bad.

I mean, life.. real life doesn't even give you infinite choices at every single moment at every single time. Yet for some reason, you expect that in a game. Especially a game with a limited set of choices. Made by a person that can't be reasonably expected to predict the outcome of every choice.

There is this unrealistic pressure on the gm to make a scenario for every single possible contingency.

Also, the GM is a player, in the game. Where is his agency? He doesn't get one, even though it's his world you are playing.

Player agency is the inability to say, "as a group of people, nay friends, lets get together and descend yonder rabbit hole for a bit a fun this weekend to see what adventures that can be had."


Have you read the thread at all?

Let's start with the fact that legitimate player agency is not and never has been about infinite choices at one, some, or all moments -- that is a strawman.

If someone has used "player agency" to justify selfish behavior, that's not an issue with the concept, that's a player who doesn't understand what it means or is just using it as an excuse.

[Future Sword]

Kyberwulf, you're just plain wrong. Nobody is calling for absolute player domination, at the DM's expense. Nobody. Agency isn't an illusion, and it isn't a method of bullying.

This thread already produced its desired result. We have a definition people agree works. Ignoring that to fight scarecrows is pathetic, and I'm sick of seeing it.

End of Line

[Quertus]

Player Agency is a myth created by some players to try railroad other players into playing in their book. It is the PC equivalent of "railroading".

I have heard the line before, if a DM want's people to listen to his story.. write a book. The same could be said about pcs.

See the problem with player agency, is it is a selfish concept. It is saying my enjoyment and fun is more important then every one else's at the table. You see the problem with "Player Agency" is that every other player could be having fun. But if the snowflake that isn't having fun because everyone isn't cowtowing to his concept of what should be done, then the game is bad.

I mean, life.. real life doesn't even give you infinite choices at every single moment at every single time. Yet for some reason, you expect that in a game. Especially a game with a limited set of choices. Made by a person that can't be reasonably expected to predict the outcome of every choice.

There is this unrealistic pressure on the gm to make a scenario for every single possible contingency.

Also, the GM is a player, in the game. Where is his agency? He doesn't get one, even though it's his world you are playing.

Player agency is the inability to say, "as a group of people, nay friends, lets get together and descend yonder rabbit hole for a bit a fun this weekend to see what adventures that can be had."

First off, let's drop the "one player bullying the other players" and selfishness bits. The party choosing what to do is healthy player Agency. Just like consent is required for most acts to be healthy (under most forms of ethics, at least).

Second, not all games require a GM. Look to those if you honestly can't get the concept.

Player Agency is the ability of a group of friends to agree, "oh, that thing over there looks cool - let's check it out!".

[OldTrees1]

Right, No Choice equals No Player Agency and that is Badwrongfun Always. Of course the so called ''no choice'' is just reality...or game reality. NPC Fred does not like silver, period. In a normal game this is an acceptable reality:

Since Player Agency is the Player interacting with the game through Meaningful Choices created by the DM, then yes a game that has no choices ever has no Player Agency ever, because it is not a game.

Challenge: Attempt to name a game where the Player never gets choices (besides your "narrate a novel to your captive audience" not-a-game).


Except that A normal game will have a lot of ''non player agency'', and it would seem that you and the rest of the Everyone Collective won't accept that.....SO, that puts us back to a Normal Game does not have player agency, and makes the Special Player Agency Game...an Other Game.

In a normal game this is an acceptable reality: Characters can like or not like something. But in the Special Agency Game, everything must be blank, so the DM can improve things exactly the way the players want it so the players can be happy and have fun and say ''we have Player Agency".

See, the Normal Game, the Darth Taffy way, anything can happen no matter what the players do and that anything might be good or bad for the players and the players might like it or not....anything can happen.


Stick to talking about Player Agency. "non player agency" is a term you have not defined and is either off topic or can be discussed by talking about Player Agency instead.

In a Normal Game, there is Player Agency. A Normal Game could use a prepared world(prep) or a derived world(improv). A Normal Game does not necessitate things happen the way the PCs want it. A Normal Game requires that there is Player Agency. This is why your own accounts of your games communicate that you run an abnormal not-a-game because you include literally 0 choices.

Of course a Meaningful Choice requires that the outcomes differ based upon the option chosen and that the PCs know enough information to choose between the options based upon the outcomes of those options. If the outcome (random, improvised, or prepared) is completely independent of the option chosen, then there was no choice and thus no Meaningful Choice.




1.DM makes something up----> Players can not effect it---->Game is Badwrongfun and has no Player Agency

2.DM makes nothing up----> Players can not effect it------>Game is Badwrongfun and has no Player Agency

3.DM makes nothing up----> Players maybe can effect it, but still the DM decides on a whim something the players don't like------>Game is Badwrongfun and has no Player Agency

4.DM makes nothing up----> Players can effect it, and the DM decides on a whim to do things the players like------>Game is perfect and has and has Player Agency
Bwahahaha you still can't understand your own examples?

If the example you choose to represent a game does not include a choice --> then there is no Player Agency in the example --> since the example had no Player Agency and you intended it to be representative of the game, then you communicate that the game had no Player Agency

Game 1. The DM has not included a choice --> There was no Player Agency --> If this is representative of the "game", then the "game" not only has no Player Agency, but since it lacks in choices it is not a game at all.

Game 2. Exactly the same as Game 1 in all relevant details. The details that did differ (prep vs improv) are neither good nor bad.

Game 3. Here you attempted to misrepresent your own example, so I refer to the source. Based on the source, this is exactly the same as Game 1 in all relevant details. The details that did differ (prep vs improv) are neither good nor bad.

Game 4. The DM did create a choice (fight, talk, or bribe), that choice had different outcomes depending on which option was chosen (more guards, a slap on the wrist, the failed bribe makes an enemy), and the PCs had enough information to choose their option based upon its outcome. --> Thus this example includes a Meaningful Choice and thus includes Player Agency.

Game 4 cont. Of particular note is that the outcomes actually differ from each other & are not always favorable to the PCs. This is especially evident when the PCs attempt the bribe only to have it fail, get thrown in jail for 2 days, and make an enemy out of the constable.


Player Agency is a myth created by some players to try railroad other players into playing in their book. It is the PC equivalent of "railroading".

I have heard the line before, if a DM want's people to listen to his story.. write a book. The same could be said about pcs.

See the problem with player agency, is it is a selfish concept. It is saying my enjoyment and fun is more important then every one else's at the table. You see the problem with "Player Agency" is that every other player could be having fun. But if the snowflake that isn't having fun because everyone isn't cowtowing to his concept of what should be done, then the game is bad.

I mean, life.. real life doesn't even give you infinite choices at every single moment at every single time. Yet for some reason, you expect that in a game. Especially a game with a limited set of choices. Made by a person that can't be reasonably expected to predict the outcome of every choice.

There is this unrealistic pressure on the gm to make a scenario for every single possible contingency.

Also, the GM is a player, in the game. Where is his agency? He doesn't get one, even though it's his world you are playing.

Player agency is the inability to say, "as a group of people, nay friends, lets get together and descend yonder rabbit hole for a bit a fun this weekend to see what adventures that can be had."

The definition of Player Agency, as it has been used in this thread, is: The Players interacting with the game through Meaningful Choices (Meaningful Choices are choices with different outcomes depending on which option is chosen and the PCs making the choice have enough information to choose an option based upon the outcomes) that the DM included in the game.

Please examine that definition and see if it matches any of your concerns. I did my best to go through your concerns myself to see if I could find any matches.
1) Is it a Myth? No, we can cite examples of it in games we have DMed.
2) Is it a way for Players to railroad other Players? I don't see how. The DM creates the Meaningful Choice.
3) Is it a way for a Player to cause other Players to get no choices? I don't see how. The DM creates the Meaningful Choices and can ensure every Player can interact with the game through those choices.
4) Is it saying that Player A's enjoyment is more important that everyone else's? Again I don't see how. The DM is the one creating the Meaningful Choices and the Players (plural or each individually) get to interact with the game through those choices.
5) Is it saying that every choice should have an infinite number of options and that Meaningful Choices should fill every instant of the game? No, A Meaningful Choice does not need anywhere near 20 options (much less infinity) and a game can have Meaningful Choices without having them every instant of the game.
6) The GM is a Player in the game, where is their agency? Usually the GM has the ability to create & run the world in addition to creating the choices (Meaningful, Blind, or False) that the Players will encounter. That is a lot of Meaningful Choices the GM is interacting with. Even the choices involved in creation of Meaningful Choices for the Players to interact with are full of Meaningful Choices for the GM.
7) Is it being unable to play as a group of friends? No, my friends enjoy their time playing as a group that interacts with the game through Meaningful Choices.

[Tinkerer]

Player Agency is a myth created by some players to try railroad other players into playing in their book. It is the PC equivalent of "railroading".

I have heard the line before, if a DM want's people to listen to his story.. write a book. The same could be said about pcs.

See the problem with player agency, is it is a selfish concept. It is saying my enjoyment and fun is more important then every one else's at the table. You see the problem with "Player Agency" is that every other player could be having fun. But if the snowflake that isn't having fun because everyone isn't cowtowing to his concept of what should be done, then the game is bad.

I mean, life.. real life doesn't even give you infinite choices at every single moment at every single time. Yet for some reason, you expect that in a game. Especially a game with a limited set of choices. Made by a person that can't be reasonably expected to predict the outcome of every choice.

There is this unrealistic pressure on the gm to make a scenario for every single possible contingency.

Also, the GM is a player, in the game. Where is his agency? He doesn't get one, even though it's his world you are playing.

Player agency is the inability to say, "as a group of people, nay friends, lets get together and descend yonder rabbit hole for a bit a fun this weekend to see what adventures that can be had."

Nevermind the others, they are suffering from exhaustion after pages upon pages of DU arguing. Let's start fresh by revisiting the basic definition which was laid out (paraphrased) "Player Agency is the ability of the players to make meaningful choices which impact the story." Now this is definitely something which operates upon a scale in the sense of the campaign rather than a binary yes/no response.

So in the example laid out by DU of bribing the guard within that example there was no Player Agency. The problem is that the example was flawed. It was entirely bribe the guard or don't bribe the guard, and both actions had the same result. What OldTrees was trying to point out is that in that situation the players have many, many, many choices of how to approach it other than bribe/don't bribe, and all of those choices have unique consequences.

In regards to the GM not having any agency could you possibly go into a bit more detail on what you mean there? The GM has tons of agency by default, near infinite in fact. What the GM doesn't have any direct agency on is the players actions, they only have agency on the consequences of those actions. With GM decisions the question is never "can they" it's "should they".

And you are definitely correct, it is impossible to create a unique scenario for every choice. Improvisation is important even in heavily scripted stories for exactly that reason, however improv doesn't mean wacky zany anything goes. It's not making stuff up on the fly, it's designing in the moment the same as you would design before hand. Things should make sense within the scenario.

NOTE: When I said never mind the others not all of the new posts had been added. I was mainly referring to the brief dismissive posts.

[Tinkerer]

Let's go back to the old school for a second with a bit of a palate cleanser. The PCs in this situation are a bunch of classic loot based adventurers out to seek their fortune. Along the way they learn of a dungeon which houses riches that they want... The Tomb of Horrors. There are two famous scenarios here which illustrate Player Agency and the dangers of trying too hard to railroad.

The first is the doors of the complex. In an attempt to make it so that the party had to pick the locks and deal with the possibility of traps they constructed them out of Adamant. So clever players would instead steal the doors since the doors wound up being worth more than the treasure in the dungeon. Then they could come back much better equipped.

For the second you have to understand that the dungeon is mainly trap based with very few encounters. Now they went all out with making sure that the party stayed within the dungeon. The walls were teleport proof, ethereal blocking, meld proof, etc... But they were still regular walls aside from that. So a tournament group hired a team of dwarven miners to burrow around the traps rather than trying to deal with them.

Both of these stories are classic old school gaming stories from some of the oldest school GMs. Both show the players using unexpected tactics to deal with their problems. And in both of those situations rather than arbitrarily blocking the players the GM rolled with the situation and thought about how they would play out. That is why it infuriates me when people say that players didn't use to worry about agency. They didn't worry about it because it was explicitly implied. It was only with the rise of the Dragonlance style of gaming in the late 80's/early 90's which involved heavier linear plots that GMs started thinking about blocking the player options to keep them on their narrow inflexible plot line.

[Kyberwulf]

First off, I don't have to agree with what you guys all agree with. Simple fact.

Secondly, you don't always get a choice, meaningful or not.

"Player Agency" Is just your ability to come play a game. Sometimes, in the game, you get a choice sometimes you don't simple as that.

No I didn't really read that thread, somewheres along the second page I stopped. The post that stated this thread was made pretty much with the intent to mock one person. After that? ... I just sorta skimmed. Especially after I skipped to the last page at the time that showed people mocking that certain person.

Pardon me if I treat most of the posters in this thread with the same arrogance and disdain I see them put forth. From what I skimmed I haven't really seen anything that makes me think otherwise about what I think of "player agency"

A Dm doesn't have any agency really. His job requires him to come up with a game that is limited by both his abilities, and what he thinks his players will do. His agency is limited to the same choice the "Players" have, to come to the game, sometimes the choices you have is limited by what the other players do,.. or don't do.

[Pleh]

First off, I don't have to agree with what you guys all agree with. Simple fact.

If you want to participate in an ongoing discussion, your comments should relate to what people are actually talking about and not something you've mistakenly claimed they were talking about.

That's why people are correcting your definitions of Player Agency.

If this were a thread about Vanilla Ice Cream and you came in saying you were allergic to Chocolate Ice Cream, it can be all kinds of true, but no more relevant because of the truthfulness.

We're not asking you to agree, just to recognize that you're having a totally different conversation.


Secondly, you don't always get a choice, meaningful or not.

No one is proposing Player Agency in an absolute sense. In every single iteration, it's been advocated as a Spectrum that can be adjusted by degrees and isn't even necessary to core gameplay. Games with low Agency describe heroes in desperate circumstances while games with high Agency reflect open world sandboxes (loosely speaking).

Only in abstract and purely improvised roleplay do you really have limitless choice. Even in those exercises certain self imposed limits are usually chosen.

You really are talking about something completely different, which is fine enough, if a bit crude and inefficient for actually participating in the discussion.


"Player Agency" Is just your ability to come play a game. Sometimes, in the game, you get a choice sometimes you don't simple as that.

Sure, but we can give a more descriptive and functional definition than that. "Player Agency is your ability to come play a game" is a rather circular definition that doesn't really say much.

"Player Agency is the ability to make Meaningful Choices in a game" with an associated set of parameters for what makes Choices Meaningful helps describe a hypothetical model that can be used to portray elements of gameplay that act upon a game session.

Perhaps your point was to criticize the whole concept of attempting to define Player Agency by demonstrating its futility. If so, what could you hope to contribute by demonstrating no good faith or understanding of the subject of the thread you are posting into?

[Max_Killjoy]

"Player Agency" Is just your ability to come play a game. Sometimes, in the game, you get a choice sometimes you don't simple as that.

No I didn't really read that thread, somewheres along the second page I stopped.


Then you should have seen the posts in the spoiler below -- but evidently you didn't, from the way you're arguing against strawmen.

We don't demand that you agree with us, on the nuance/detail level we have a lot of disagreements with each other on this subject... but we do demand that you respond to our actual positions, and not to things that no one here ever said.




To me, agency (player or otherwise) is the ability to make meaningful choices.

That requires
+ Freedom: There have to be choices to be made. While watching a movie, you have no freedom to change the events. No agency. Rare that this happens in an RPG though.
+ Consequences: different choices have to have different effects. If a parent asks "do you want vanilla or chocolate ice cream" but, no matter what the child chooses, gives them vanilla, there was no agency. Only a false choice. As a corollary, you have to have the ability to choose wrongly. If every choice goes the right way, no matter what you chose, were you really making meaningful choices?
+ Knowledge: You must be able to (at least with some level of surety) be able to predict the possible consequences of actions. If every action involves a roll on a d1000 table ranging from success to "and the world explodes," there's no real agency.



That's very close to how I'd describe it... and I'd include a tie-in to verisimilitude. That is, player agency is both in part and part of the "fictional reality" (the settings, the NPCs, etc) reacting to the PCs' actions as if it and they were real.


And more controversially, my personal definition goes on to assert that the PC is the player's "interface point" with the fictional reality, the one part of that fictional reality that the player controls. This makes the player the "soul" of the player character, and it makes the PC's inner feelings, desires, thoughts, and choices sacrosanct and inviolate, with other players (GM or otherwise) only able to intrude with the individual player's explicit permission to do so. Don't mind control or mechanically social control or otherwise hijack the PC of a player who does not enjoy that aspect of the gaming endeavor.




This is a pretty good definition.

Agency is all about your ability to meaningfully impact the setting based on your character's capabilities. It's what separates a tabletop game with a GM from a cRPG: whatever the players can think of to have their characters do within their conceptual capabilities, they can attempt. No waist-high invisible walls, no "but thou must!" interactions, no only-two-choices-when-the-player-sees-a-third-option... they just try things. And the world reacts sensibly.

Lack of agency arises when the world is constructed to deny it (there is only one path forward and everything else is pre-designed to have literally no way through), the world alters to deny it (no matter what you try other than the approved track, it fails, or the world retcons to make it have failed), or you lack information to make meaningful choices. That last can happen in a game with agency, too, but you have to exercise your agency first to identify the ways to get information to make meaningful choices about other actions.




Player agency straightforwardly refers to the number of influential actions a player can take in the game.

In a roleplaying game where the player is focused on a single character, this is primarily a matter of scenario design: place the character in a scenario where the character has few possible actions, and you have low player agency. Place the character in a scenario where it has more possible actions, and you have more player agency.

If a player can control multiple characters or directly change the scenario, those up the number of possible actions and hence increase player agency. But it's wrong to think that games which allow such things are automatically higher agency. For determining agency, you are interested in quantity and impact of possible actions, not their abstract typing. For example, a player being allowed to decide whether it's day or night is not a sign of great player agency if that decision 1) does not impact the game or 2) is one of few, or only, possible action(s) available.

Player feelings have nothing to do with this. Player perception of agency is a separate issue and may differ wildly from what it actually is. The perception of agency may be influenced by player's lack of intelligence, player's lack of imagination, biases and pressures from other players, and other metagame concerns. On the extreme end, we can have players who are rules-wise omnipotent (infinite agency), such as a GM, being made to feel they only have one possible route of action due to peer pressure from other players.




I think that choice being real is important for games. Players can be convinced to buy-in to the idea that a particular DM prepares a lot, if they enjoy the benefits of such, like interesting characters, good description, and challenging encounters. Players might try to adjust their behavior as needed if there is plenty of communication regarding the needs of the game. But I doubt any player would willingly join a game where there is NO choice.

Players can probably figure out if a DM is yanking their chain a lot. Players aren't stupid, and even newbies are crafty little things. I greatly suspect that if a player feels like there's no real agency, no risk, no tension...Their immersion is ruined, the plot is meaningless, and they start making fun for themselves in different ways. Usually very violent and burning ways.




You have to ask, though, how much agency is it reasonable to expect in a given campaign? If the DM is running a free-form campaign is basically expecting you to pretty much make all the decisions about the direction and have a very character-driven game, that's one thing, since a lot of player agency will be REQUIRED for the game to function (as I found the one time I tried and failed!); but if the DM says "I'm going to run Rise of the Runelords," I think it is reasonable to say that you probably shouldn't expect to be able to naff off to Nex or Arcadia or Osirion or something (at least not without the campaign abruptly ending).




I can't answer that, because that's like asking how much combat is needed for a RPG game. It's just going to vary wildly between players. Some really like empire building and want to forge their own path to greatness. Others want a good, strong plot with interesting allies and foes.

I think the DM's own preferences matter as well. One should expect a DM to run a game according to their own strengths...So it's like asking your friend who is a massive fan of barbequing meat to make you a garden burger. You're probably not going to get the best results.

Before you get the wrong idea, I don't think your approach is wrong, just wrong for some people. And I assume that given your emphasis on preparation, you have some interesting encounters planned for the players that I feel are the strength of a much more directed game.

I would just consider informing the players ahead of time you are doing an adventure path, and if they are new, informing them that you need them to stick to it. Players can usually adjust their character's actions when needed. While herding them so they don't realize anything is going on is quite a feat, there shouldn't be any reason to nudge them out of character to stick to something you can actually DM!




That's the sort of discussion that has to be had before even Session Zero. The players exercise their agency in this case before the campaign even starts, by deciding whether they want to take part in that sort of campaign. Those who sit down at the table to play have agreed shape/restrict their characters' decisions such that they do not "naff off", to play characters who won't "naff off", etc.

Even within that stricture, however, there may be a tremendous amount of room for choice, and a functional cause-effect cycle. I'm not that familiar with Rise of the Runelords. Are the PCs able to affect the course of events through their (in-setting-functional) actions? Can they prevent or ensure the rise of said runelords? Can they shape the effects of the rise or the runelords in some way? Can they benefit from the situation? If they have people or places they care about, can they protect them from what's going on?




Exactly.

I'm a high-agency kinda dude. And nothing will piss me off more than telling me there's actually agency and then leading me down a linear game. Nothing. If you want to play a linear game? Great! Go for it! But be honest about it and give me the choice of joining or not. I may decide to anyway.

The fact that agency isn't important to you, or to some players, does not mean that it is irrelevant or not important to other players.




Player Agency exists on three levels.

The first level is about as "Objective" as this sort of thing can get, which is to say, it's not objective at all, but there is theoretically a universally applied standard that can be used.

The central conceit of most RPGs is that the players control their characters within the world. The most basic level of player agency is: Do the Players have the same ability to influence events that their characters would reasonably have.

It's not really Objective, because different people will have different ideas about what "Reasonable" means, and sometimes game mechanics get in the way of what is or is not a "reasonable" action (For example, D&D doesn't model "Slit their throat while they sleep" particularly well against high-level characters. Meanwhile, anybody with access to a knife and a sleeping human should "Reasonably" be able to kill them, no matter how many dragons they've slain in the past). But, if a Character could do something, and the Player Cannot Make That Thing Happen, then this test has been failed.

This is easy with simple, physical actions, but it can get fuzzier with stuff like "I've got a Noble background, I should be able to get an Audience with the King".

The Second Level is about how much ability the characters, and therefore the players, have to influence the story.

I could run a campaign where all the PC's are locked in an inescapable prison cell for the entire campaign, and easily pass Test 1, but I can't think of anybody who would enjoy that.
Different players have different ideas about how much they want their characters to be making decisions that guide the story, but generally speaking most players want to feel that their characters are the central cast of the Epic.

This is what Railroading comes down to. You can respect all the first level of player agency, and still deny the players the ability to feel like they're influencing the story being told, simply by keeping the PCs removed from the critical events.


The third, and final level, is about the role the Players are playing beyond simply controlling their character. Once again, different people have different ideas about how much "Agency" is allowed at this level. Stuff like how much the Players can help shape the world of the game or the style of game being played. Stuff like a player inventing an evil Duke (with, presumably, a corresponding Duchy) in their Backstory, or asking to play some courtly intrigue rather than a Dungeon Crawl.




Player agency is a scale of the players' actions impact on the game. With no agency, their success or failure is irrelevant. The game will continue until it reaches its conclusion and the players are little more than spectators. They might get to decide which orc to hit or which door to go through, but in the end, it's all going in the same direction. At the opposite end of the spectrum, their choices can add aspects to the game or even the current adventure; players might describe what it is they are searching for and even some of its weaknesses.

I think an important aspect of player agency is for the players to be able to fail without it ending the game. In most games, a character or two can die, but what happens when the party fails as a whole? Is retreat an option? What happens when the players choose poorly or execute poorly? Does the game just end? Does the situation continue evolving? What happens to the characters?

This is related to the larger aspect of the players' choices mattering. Their success should mean that the central problem is handled or is handled more easily. Let's say that there's a scenario where orcs have infiltrated the government of Rohalla under a powerful disguise spell. They might be able to uncover their identities through a long series of investigations, but there's also a powerful sword in the king's vault that can pierce the spell. The characters can take any number of actions to try to get to the sword - beg the king for it, try to buy it from the king, steal it, try to get its maker to forge another one, and plenty more. The players choose to try to steal the sword after begging didn't work. The ramifications of their choice must be dealt with. On a success (meaning everything went perfectly), the sword is stolen and no one has noticed it has gone missing. The players are free to use it on the government officials (though, getting to them to use the sword might be difficult in itself). On the other hand, a failure (meaning everything went terribly) might mean that the party is now fleeing the kingdom and the matter of the orc infiltration is seemingly a minor footnote to what the characters are involved in.

This means that to enable player agency, the GM must ensure that there are multiple viable solutions to the overarching problem and those other solutions must be apparent to the players along with possible outcomes. My example looked at events that could affect an entire campaign, but the same principle applies even in a smaller scale - there are three exits from the dungeon room and growls can be heard coming from one of them.




I think there are several different scales of player agency being conflated here, much to the detriment of the discussion.

Large-scale agency is the ability of players to determine what the (next part of the) campaign is about. This includes deciding on a game system. In most games I've been in, this is strongest either at session 0 or between story arcs. It's also a collective agency--no single player (including the DM) should have full control over this. This is the strategy analogue--do we handle problem X or do we pursue goal Y. Once that has been decided, the players and the DM must deal with the consequences, which include more limited agency in this regard. Unilateral changes (e.g. DM deciding that the dungeon-crawling campaign they all agreed on would be better as a high-intrigue political campaign) are a violation of agency, specifically the consequences part. The consequences no longer follow from the choice. Choosing to run a module or a game like 12 candles is a use of agency that has consequences that limit further uses of large-scale agency. As long as this choice is not coerced or made under false pretenses ("This 12 candles game is a total sandbox!"), no violation of agency occurs because the later limits are the consequences of an earlier choice. In fact, this is a great example of agency in action. People knowingly made a choice that had meaningful consequences.

Small-scale agency is what is most commonly dealt with in-game, on-camera. Can my character make a knowing, meaningful choice at time T that affects the situation at time T'? Examples where a violation of this short-term agency makes anything better for anyone are much more rare. OOC lying (knowledge violation, whether by omission or commission) and tactical railroading (choice violation) have never worked in my experience. Fudging or ret-coning (consequences violation) has been needed, but only as the lesser of two evils due to a mistake on the DM or player's part whose consequences were unsupportable within the game's framework.

Note that voluntarily surrendered agency is not an agency violation. A player can choose to hand off the choice to someone or something else (the DM, another player, or the dice). However, they must do so knowingly, willingly, and most importantly be willing to accept the consequences of doing so. Actions (uses of agency) can also limit further agency without being a violation of agency. If you get yourself (in real life) arrested and imprisoned, you don't have as much agency as before. But that's a consequence of your actions.

Agency is also not unbounded. A person (character or not) can't claim agency to make choices that are outside his or her sphere of rightful influence. This includes the actions of others, setting details once play begins (unless that authority has been granted by the DM or by a system rule), etc. While playing D&D, I can't claim that rolling a 1 is a hit unless I have an ability/feat/etc that grants that power. That's a consequence of the choice of system. And so forth. Not being able to jump to the moon is not a violation of agency.




Well said.

Player agency includes the informed choice to sit down at the table and take part in the game that players (including the GM) choose to play, including the setting, rules, and campaign guidelines.


Yes -- having agreed to a set of boundaries at the large scale on one's agency does not remove all agency, and one's character being bound by the fictional reality or by the consequences of said character's prior choices and actions does not remove all agency.

We see quite a bit of a false dichotomy, however, asserting that player agency can only be total or non-existent, so that players are either allowed to do anything they want, or have no agency at all -- and oddly enough, we see it on opposite fringes of the gaming community, espoused both by those who insist that players are along for a ride completely controlled by the GM, and those who insist that everything in the game must come from (and only from) the players during the course of play.

Or we see a bit of rhetorical trickery that goes something like this: "If player agency is a good thing, then more of it is obviously better, and absolute agency is absolutely the best... right?" This is either done to "prove" that unbound player agency is the "best" form of game, or to "prove" that player agency isn't a good thing. Which is cute, but ignores the basic fact that it's possible to have too much of a good thing. Water is good, but too much will drown you. Air is good, but too much in too small a space is dangerous. Food is good, but too much will make you sick. Etc.


Why would we want to remove the positive connotations?

Player agency is a core part of what makes an RPG an RPG.


Etc.


The Threadcrapatron didn't come along until page 5 or so.

What you should ask yourself is... do you want to have an honest discussion, or do you want to tilt against strawmen?


.

[Tinkerer]

First off, I don't have to agree with what you guys all agree with. Simple fact.

Secondly, you don't always get a choice, meaningful or not.

"Player Agency" Is just your ability to come play a game. Sometimes, in the game, you get a choice sometimes you don't simple as that.

No I didn't really read that thread, somewheres along the second page I stopped. The post that stated this thread was made pretty much with the intent to mock one person. After that? ... I just sorta skimmed. Especially after I skipped to the last page at the time that showed people mocking that certain person.

Pardon me if I treat most of the posters in this thread with the same arrogance and disdain I see them put forth. From what I skimmed I haven't really seen anything that makes me think otherwise about what I think of "player agency"

A Dm doesn't have any agency really. His job requires him to come up with a game that is limited by both his abilities, and what he thinks his players will do. His agency is limited to the same choice the "Players" have, to come to the game, sometimes the choices you have is limited by what the other players do,.. or don't do.

Oh by all means, apparently this thread is the toxic swamp of this board. Hence why I tend to stay quiet on it aside from when I think that two people are saying the same thing to each other, and maybe the odd interjection. Although I can definitely say that I don't understand where you are coming from if you say that the GM doesn't have any agency. Agency is not defined as an absolute value, that's the same strawman position that DU seems to be operating from. Nobody here is saying that a player gets unlimited agency, merely that they get a reasonable amount. And I bolded that statement to make it pop from the text for anyone scanning the page, not as shouting since I know some people use it that way.

Now agency can be defined as an absolute value if you simplify it down to one binary choice such as DU did in that example. However things are pretty much never a binary choice. You would never run across a situation where your only choices are bribe/don't bribe the guard which is why I stated that it seemed like a poor example.

EDIT: Sorry, from paragraph 1 that is only a strawman position if you have read the thread. One could easily make that statement without knowing the meaning of the word as well in which case it would be a miscommunication. Agency refers to the capacity for choice in a given environment NOT the inherent ability. That is why Player Agency is a better term for what is being discussed rather than say... Player Freedom.

[kyoryu]

Player Agency is a myth created by some players to try railroad other players into playing in their book. It is the PC equivalent of "railroading".

I have no doubt that you have run into players who have used the term this way. It is not how we are using it. So, let's call what you're talking about "K-Agency" for clarity, and we can all agree that "K-Agency" sucks.


I have heard the line before, if a DM want's people to listen to his story.. write a book. The same could be said about pcs.

I agree.

I play RPGs to find out what happens. If I know what's going to happen because THAT'S MY STORY AND THIS IS HOW IT MUST BE, either as a player or a GM, I should write a book instead.

Player Agency, as we've defined it in this thread (call it T-Agency if you want) basically says that the result of what happens should be dependent on the actions of the players. GM agency is presumed, because they set up the situation.


See the problem with player agency, is it is a selfish concept. It is saying my enjoyment and fun is more important then every one else's at the table. You see the problem with "Player Agency" is that every other player could be having fun. But if the snowflake that isn't having fun because everyone isn't cowtowing to his concept of what should be done, then the game is bad.

This is true of K-Agency. It is untrue of T-Agency, where the actions of all players help determine the outcome. Arguing for K-Agency necessarily removes the T-Agency of everyone else, which is, as you've pointed out, selfish and generally crappy behavior and makes for bad games.


I mean, life.. real life doesn't even give you infinite choices at every single moment at every single time. Yet for some reason, you expect that in a game. Especially a game with a limited set of choices. Made by a person that can't be reasonably expected to predict the outcome of every choice.

Of course, sometimes your choices are limited. They should be limited by the situation, not by the desire of the GM to enforce a particular outcome.

And no, you can't know the outcome of every choice, but you should have a reasonable idea of the likely outcomes of most actions. If I ask a girl out to coffee, I might suspect she'd say yes, or no, or laugh in my face, or slap me. Fallout from this could include going on a date and forming a relationship or her and her friends shunning me. I wouldn't expect her to sprout cyborg arms with machine guns and start a robot revolution because I asked her out to coffee.

K-Agency would say that if the PC asks the girl out, she should go out with him because that's what he wants AND DAMNIT I'M SPECIAL.

T-Agency says that if the PC asks the girl out, she may or may not go out with him, and there may be other side effects of this.


There is this unrealistic pressure on the gm to make a scenario for every single possible contingency.

It's called improvisation.


Also, the GM is a player, in the game. Where is his agency? He doesn't get one, even though it's his world you are playing.

With K-Agency, none. With T-Agency, by virtue of setting up the world, the GM creates the scenarios and questions. Or, to put it differently, with high T-Agency, the GM determines the questions, and the actions of the players drive the answers.

K-Agency sucks. T-Agency is quite different.


Player agency is the inability to say, "as a group of people, nay friends, lets get together and descend yonder rabbit hole for a bit a fun this weekend to see what adventures that can be had."

I'm not sure how to interpret this.

EDIT: Oh, I get it. If you're dealing with someone with K-Agency issues, you can't do that because the K-Agency person will demand "no! That's what I want! This is terrible otherwise!"

Yeah, K-Agency sucks.

[Darth Ultron]

Player Agency is a myth...

So refreshing to see another person speak the truth.


First off, let's drop the "one player bullying the other players" and selfishness bits. The party choosing what to do is healthy player Agency. Just like consent is required for most acts to be healthy (under most forms of ethics, at least).

Second, not all games require a GM. Look to those if you honestly can't get the concept.

Player Agency is the ability of a group of friends to agree, "oh, that thing over there looks cool - let's check it out!".

Well...Player Agency is singular...Player is one person. So Player is all about the whim and wishes of a single player...as I have pointed out before. Otherwise it would be Players Agencies.....

And now your just saying Player Agency is just whatever the player think is cool?


Since Player Agency is the Player interacting with the game through Meaningful Choices created by the DM, then yes a game that has no choices ever has no Player Agency ever, because it is not a game.

Challenge: Attempt to name a game where the Player never gets choices (besides your "narrate a novel to your captive audience" not-a-game).


Setting the bar really low at just ''no choice'' and dropping the whole pointless and meaningless feel good ''meaningful choice'?



Game 1. The DM has not included a choice --> There was no Player Agency --> If this is representative of the "game", then the "game" not only has no Player Agency, but since it lacks in choices it is not a game at all.

I don't get this, your saying if a game has no choices then it is not a game. But an RPG is based on Reality...and in Reality then is often ''no choice''...so then your saying Your type of RPG is a random mess that makes no sense. I do agree that it is ''sad'' when a Super Special Player can't make a choice...but, sorry, Reality is like that sometimes. Mature Adults can just take a breath and live with it, baby brats whine and cry about ''agency''.




Game 4. The DM did create a choice (fight, talk, or bribe), that choice had different outcomes depending on which option was chosen (more guards, a slap on the wrist, the failed bribe makes an enemy), and the PCs had enough information to choose their option based upon its outcome. --> Thus this example includes a Meaningful Choice and thus includes Player Agency.

Game 4 is the one where the DM rolls over and does exactly what the players want...the player controlled game. So your saying only a Player Controlled game has agency.





.

Please examine that definition and see if it matches any of your concerns. I did my best to go through your concerns myself to see if I could find any matches.
1) Is it a Myth? No, we can cite examples of it in games we have DMed.
2) Is it a way for Players to railroad other Players? I don't see how. The DM creates the Meaningful Choice.
3) Is it a way for a Player to cause other Players to get no choices? I don't see how. The DM creates the Meaningful Choices and can ensure every Player can interact with the game through those choices.
4) Is it saying that Player A's enjoyment is more important that everyone else's? Again I don't see how. The DM is the one creating the Meaningful Choices and the Players (plural or each individually) get to interact with the game through those choices.
5) Is it saying that every choice should have an infinite number of options and that Meaningful Choices should fill every instant of the game? No, A Meaningful Choice does not need anywhere near 20 options (much less infinity) and a game can have Meaningful Choices without having them every instant of the game.
6) The GM is a Player in the game, where is their agency? Usually the GM has the ability to create & run the world in addition to creating the choices (Meaningful, Blind, or False) that the Players will encounter. That is a lot of Meaningful Choices the GM is interacting with. Even the choices involved in creation of Meaningful Choices for the Players to interact with are full of Meaningful Choices for the GM.
7) Is it being unable to play as a group of friends? No, my friends enjoy their time playing as a group that interacts with the game through Meaningful Choices. [/QUOTE]

1)Just as you believe in a myth, does not make it real.
2)The single player using their Railroad Agency to Take Control of the game then forces the DM and other players to do what they, want...simple.
3)Any time one Player Dominates the game, other players will be pushed aside and bullied.
4)Player Agency by it's very definition is one player taking control of the game and changing things for their own selfish reasons or benefits.
5)Odd, this sounds all most reasonable..but then it is vague. And I'm sure you'd be the first to cry at even a hint of your ''no Agency Illusion''.
6)Your using ''choices'' to mean anything here...the DM creates and Controls the world..they are not making choices from a set of given things.
7)Ok?


Let's go back to the old school for a second with a bit of a palate cleanser.

Your example make no sense....ok, so some players did some stuff? And?

See the Modern Bratty Player Agency people would be whining and crying that the dungeon even has just ''one entrance''...as by Player Agency Illusion is must have five...and one of the five must make their characters immortal and the DM has to give them all the information they need to pick that right door.

That is the problem.


If you want to participate in an ongoing discussion, your comments should relate to what people are actually talking about and not something you've mistakenly claimed they were talking about.

I'm talking about it..welcome to the thread.

[Pleh]

I'm talking about it..welcome to the thread.

Contrary to what you might believe, yours is not the only voice in the thread.

Kyberwolf didn't seem to be replying to your end of the discussion anyway.

If you two want to have more discussion affirming your own One Way that you two share, I don't care.

But when Kyber replies to contradict the rest of the conversation, they should try to understand it first.

[Future Sword]

Fun fact: Darth Ultron is allowed to say whatever the hell he wants, argue things nobody said, and talk down to anyone and everyone. Other people aren't allowed to tell him to go away and stop deliberately polluting reasonable discussions. If they do, they're the bullies.

Yeah, alright.

[Max_Killjoy]

Fun fact: Darth Ultron is allowed to say whatever the hell he wants, argue things nobody said, and talk down to anyone and everyone. Other people aren't allowed to tell him to go away and stop deliberately polluting reasonable discussions. If they do, they're the bullies.

Yeah, alright.

Sadly, the "barge into a thread, act like an absolute and complete jerk, blow up the conversation... and then play the victim card when people tell you to knock it off" move has been around since at least the days of Usenet.

[Future Sword]

Sadly, the "barge into a thread, act like an absolute and complete jerk, blow up the conversation... and then play the victim card when people tell you to knock it off" move has been around since at least the days of Usenet.

Plenty of time for people to pull their heads out of their asses and stop tolerating it, then.

I'd really love a forum that would at least try to combat this crap.

[RazorChain]

Actually, I would posit that the appropriate response to Pineapple Railroad chat is to not respond to it (not responding can include a simple dismissal, "no, you are not talking about the same thing as us"). Mockery and derision will only establish a victim/martyr complex.

The better solution is to just put a halt to everything by not engaging with it.

At this point, I'm only picking the few points in this thread that I see my response presenting potential positive value for myself or others.

You see, trying to have a discussion with the person who has the opinion of the pineapple railroad is like hitting your head against a brick wall trying to break it down. Numerous persons on these forums have tried it and none have been successful. Now this doesn't stop people from trying.

Those who continue, I do not know if I should applaud your perseverance or......

[OldTrees1]

Setting the bar really low at just ''no choice'' and dropping the whole pointless and meaningless feel good ''meaningful choice'?
You said "no choice" was the game reality. Either you accept games have choices or you provide me with an example of a game with 0 choices.

If you accept games have choices, then you will learn to include choices in your examples. Or else your examples will all lack Player Agency (No Choices -> No Meaningful Choices -> No Player Agency).


I don't get this, your saying if a game has no choices then it is not a game. But an RPG is based on Reality...and in Reality then is often ''no choice''...so then your saying Your type of RPG is a random mess that makes no sense. I do agree that it is ''sad'' when a Super Special Player can't make a choice...but, sorry, Reality is like that sometimes. Mature Adults can just take a breath and live with it, baby brats whine and cry about ''agency''.

Unless you can provide an example of a game with 0 choices, then you must accept that all games have choices. Once you accept all games have choices, you will start to include choices in your examples and thus contribute to the discussion.

Not every moment of a game will have a choice and not all choices are meaningful choices, but if you can't even talk about choices then you can't talk about Player Agency.


Game 4 is the one where the DM rolls over and does exactly what the players want...the player controlled game. So your saying only a Player Controlled game has agency.
Uh huh, the example was where the Players choose to attempt a bribe (out of the choice: fight, talk, or bribe) and the bribe fails. That is your example of a Player Controlled Game? The DM running the consequences of the failed bribe is the DM rolling over? The PCs being arrested and gaining a new enemy is the DM rolling over?

No. Quite clearly no. Even you know it is not a case of the DM rolling over. You are just desperately spouting gibberish.


First off, I don't have to agree with what you guys all agree with. Simple fact.
Fair enough but what are your concerns with the concept we have been talking about. What are your concerns with "X is when Players interact with the game through Meaningful Choices the DM created"?


Secondly, you don't always get a choice, meaningful or not.
This is not a concern with our definition. You don't always get a choice. Of the choices you do get, not all of them are Meaningful Choices (have outcomes that differ based upon the options and the PCs are informed enough to choose options based upon the outcomes). We just call it Player Agency when you do get a Meaningful Choice and say the game has Player Agency if it contains times when you do get a Meaningful Choice.

I see no disagreement here (other than using Player Agency to talk about different concepts) so there is no concern you have with our concept here either.


"Player Agency" Is just your ability to come play a game. Sometimes, in the game, you get a choice sometimes you don't simple as that.
How is this a concern with our definition? It does not require every instant include a choice. We are using our definition to describe if the game includes any Meaningful Choices and to what extent. A game can have Meaningful Choices without having a choice every instant or having every choice be a Meaningful Choice. We just call it Player Agency when you do get a Meaningful Choice and say the game has Player Agency if it contains times when you do get a Meaningful Choice.


A Dm doesn't have any agency really. His job requires him to come up with a game that is limited by both his abilities, and what he thinks his players will do. His agency is limited to the same choice the "Players" have, to come to the game, sometimes the choices you have is limited by what the other players do,.. or don't do.

A DM has plenty of creative freedom while creating and running their campaign. I would hardly call that "doesn't have any agency really", but could you enlighten us further on how the DM does not have Meaningful Choices?

[Max_Killjoy]

Plenty of time for people to pull their heads out of their asses and stop tolerating it, then.

I'd really love a forum that would at least try to combat this crap.

It's my experience that people who pull that trick are the sort of people who are really good at skirting along the edge of the rules because they're doing it deliberately, and the eventual enforcement actions come down on the people who get sick of the threadcrapper and tell them to bugger off.

[Segev]

Plenty of time for people to pull their heads out of their asses and stop tolerating it, then.

I'd really love a forum that would at least try to combat this crap.

It's harder to do than you might think. Rules that can be used to come down on somebody deliberately trolling a thread with nonsensical opinions are not far off from rules that can be used to come down on somebody speaking out in a thread with unpopular opinions.

Imagine if this board were somehow overrun with people who, if you got them onto the topic, held political opinions with which you staunchly disagreed. So much so that it wasn't uncommon for politics of their stripe to be accepted without question as normal, apolitical things to use as analogies. You see these come up, and the analogies are awful from your perspective because their underlying political beliefs are totally out of phase with your own. And worse, they're insulting people who believe as you do as morons and everything wrong with the world and outright evil, ascribing hate-filled motives like wanting to see people executed for being part of [disapproved group].

Now, this board is otherwise just like it is now. Great discussion of games and such. But you can't stand by and not say, "Hey, guys, [people who hold your position] aren't utter *******s who deserve to be shot. We actually believe [something more nuanced and not at all hate-filled]."

There are those who will spring up in adamant vitriol to tell you that you're a hate-monger, and treat anything you say as if it were nonsense and lies. IF there are rules about not being the poster who comes in to "disrupt" a thread with "nonsense" opinions, it is quite possible they'll be turned on you, despite you not having brought up the politics in the first place and only been saying, "Hey, don't insult me and people like me by calling us Commie Mutant Traitors."


That's not to say there never are jerks who just like to disrupt. But rules can't prevent that in all cases without also shaping an "approved opinions only" style of forum.

[pwykersotz]

It's harder to do than you might think. Rules that can be used to come down on somebody deliberately trolling a thread with nonsensical opinions are not far off from rules that can be used to come down on somebody speaking out in a thread with unpopular opinions.

Imagine if this board were somehow overrun with people who, if you got them onto the topic, held political opinions with which you staunchly disagreed. So much so that it wasn't uncommon for politics of their stripe to be accepted without question as normal, apolitical things to use as analogies. You see these come up, and the analogies are awful from your perspective because their underlying political beliefs are totally out of phase with your own. And worse, they're insulting people who believe as you do as morons and everything wrong with the world and outright evil, ascribing hate-filled motives like wanting to see people executed for being part of [disapproved group].

Now, this board is otherwise just like it is now. Great discussion of games and such. But you can't stand by and not say, "Hey, guys, [people who hold your position] aren't utter *******s who deserve to be shot. We actually believe [something more nuanced and not at all hate-filled]."

There are those who will spring up in adamant vitriol to tell you that you're a hate-monger, and treat anything you say as if it were nonsense and lies. IF there are rules about not being the poster who comes in to "disrupt" a thread with "nonsense" opinions, it is quite possible they'll be turned on you, despite you not having brought up the politics in the first place and only been saying, "Hey, don't insult me and people like me by calling us Commie Mutant Traitors."


That's not to say there never are jerks who just like to disrupt. But rules can't prevent that in all cases without also shaping an "approved opinions only" style of forum.

If upvotes were a thing here, I'd upvote this. And many of your other comments in this thread.

[kyoryu]

Imagine if this board were somehow overrun with....

There's a reason I frequent this board primarily, and not several others.

[Quertus]

The post that stated this thread was made pretty much with the intent to mock one person.

Hi, OP here. Now, I know my meaning can be obfuscated by my word choice, lack of tone in this media, etc, but really? That's how you took my creation of this thread?

There were a lot of off-topic conversations going on in DU's thread, and I asked him which one he'd most like to see discussed. He picked this one. So I made this thread.

Yeah, I'm a dreamer, I suppose. I still hope that, some day, he'll understand what we're saying, we'll understand what he's saying, and we'll get to have an honest, open conversation about gaming.

As it stands, his... debating style... puts people off so much, they often miss even when he's hit on a good point, because they're so used to disagreeing with him.

I didn't create this thread to mock him, but to educate us all (in part in the ongoing hopes of one day figuring out where the disconnect between DU & most of the Playground is, but also directly on the stated topic). Somewhere in here, I learned a bit about my personal biases, and how they were influencing my definition of Player Agency. So I consider it a win in that regard.

Playground: do the rest of y'all feel that this comment about my intent is merited? Did I really come off like I made this thread just to mock DU?


First off, I don't have to agree with what you guys all agree with. Simple fact.

Secondly, you don't always get a choice, meaningful or not.

"Player Agency" Is just your ability to come play a game. Sometimes, in the game, you get a choice sometimes you don't simple as that.

No I didn't really read that thread, somewheres along the second page I stopped. The post that stated this thread was made pretty much with the intent to mock one person. After that? ... I just sorta skimmed. Especially after I skipped to the last page at the time that showed people mocking that certain person.

Pardon me if I treat most of the posters in this thread with the same arrogance and disdain I see them put forth. From what I skimmed I haven't really seen anything that makes me think otherwise about what I think of "player agency"

A Dm doesn't have any agency really. His job requires him to come up with a game that is limited by both his abilities, and what he thinks his players will do. His agency is limited to the same choice the "Players" have, to come to the game, sometimes the choices you have is limited by what the other players do,.. or don't do.

You hold a surprisingly large number of similar opinions to DU. Any hope of you bridging the gap between our stance (which is seemingly incomprehensible to DU) and his stance (which is largely incomprehensible to the rest of us)?

[Darth Ultron]

You said "no choice" was the game reality. Either you accept games have choices or you provide me with an example of a game with 0 choices.

I did. Like I said, any RPG based on reality as we know it. If you did not know, that ''g'' in RPG stands for games.



Not every moment of a game will have a choice and not all choices are meaningful choices, but if you can't even talk about choices then you can't talk about Player Agency.

But your taking my side, here?

The Everyone Collective says- ''Players must have control of the game to do whatever they want on a whim or the game has No Player Agency and is Badwrongfun!"

I say, some times...at least 50% of the time...players will have no choices.

And then you get the pages of cries of ''Players must have Agency all the time..!"

First, I'd like the thank my research assistant Max_Killjoy

Actual things said by actual people in this actual thread...

1.Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre:

To me, agency (player or otherwise) is the ability to make meaningful choices.

That requires
+ Freedom: There have to be choices to be made. While watching a movie, you have no freedom to change the events. No agency. Rare that this happens in an RPG though.
+ Consequences: different choices have to have different effects. If a parent asks "do you want vanilla or chocolate ice cream" but, no matter what the child chooses, gives them vanilla, there was no agency. Only a false choice. As a corollary, you have to have the ability to choose wrongly. If every choice goes the right way, no matter what you chose, were you really making meaningful choices?
+ Knowledge: You must be able to (at least with some level of surety) be able to predict the possible consequences of actions. If every action involves a roll on a d1000 table ranging from success to "and the world explodes," there's no real agency.

*So PhoenixPhyre is just saying Player Agency is a normal game and is not special here, but he does not note anything about when the player whine and cry about not having it.

Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy V
That's very close to how I'd describe it... and I'd include a tie-in to verisimilitude. That is, player agency is both in part and part of the "fictional reality" (the settings, the NPCs, etc) reacting to the PCs' actions as if it and they were real.


And more controversially, my personal definition goes on to assert that the PC is the player's "interface point" with the fictional reality, the one part of that fictional reality that the player controls. This makes the player the "soul" of the player character, and it makes the PC's inner feelings, desires, thoughts, and choices sacrosanct and inviolate, with other players (GM or otherwise) only able to intrude with the individual player's explicit permission to do so. Don't mind control or mechanically social control or otherwise hijack the PC of a player who does not enjoy that aspect of the gaming endeavor.

*Well, Max here is talking all about the Lazy Reacting Dm that can't wait to ''gotcha'' the players...then he goes off on some tangent about character being alive and having souls and talking to him in his head or whatever. He kind of skipped the Whole Player Agency bit, other to say he agrees with PhoenixPhyre and is a member of the Everyone Collective.

Originally Posted by Segev
This is a pretty good definition.

Agency is all about your ability to meaningfully impact the setting based on your character's capabilities. It's what separates a tabletop game with a GM from a cRPG: whatever the players can think of to have their characters do within their conceptual capabilities, they can attempt. No waist-high invisible walls, no "but thou must!" interactions, no only-two-choices-when-the-player-sees-a-third-option... they just try things. And the world reacts sensibly.

Lack of agency arises when the world is constructed to deny it (there is only one path forward and everything else is pre-designed to have literally no way through), the world alters to deny it (no matter what you try other than the approved track, it fails, or the world retcons to make it have failed), or you lack information to make meaningful choices. That last can happen in a game with agency, too, but you have to exercise your agency first to identify the ways to get information to make meaningful choices about other actions.

*At first Segev talks about a normal game....but then just goes into the crazy realm of ''everything must always workout for the best for the players in exactly the way they want''.

Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet
Player agency straightforwardly refers to the number of influential actions a player can take in the game.

*Humm, Frozen Feet here seems to just talk about a normal game and not make Player Agency the Super Special Thing everyone else does...but he avoids what is not it.

Originally Posted by Honest Tiefling
I think that choice being real is important for games. Players can be convinced to buy-in to the idea that a particular DM prepares a lot, if they enjoy the benefits of such, like interesting characters, good description, and challenging encounters. Players might try to adjust their behavior as needed if there is plenty of communication regarding the needs of the game. But I doubt any player would willingly join a game where there is NO choice.

Players can probably figure out if a DM is yanking their chain a lot. Players aren't stupid, and even newbies are crafty little things. I greatly suspect that if a player feels like there's no real agency, no risk, no tension...Their immersion is ruined, the plot is meaningless, and they start making fun for themselves in different ways. Usually very violent and burning ways.

*Well, Honest Tiefling is on the ''games must have lots and lots of choices always'' bandwagon. Then he just gets ....weird.

Originally Posted by Aotrs Commander
You have to ask, though, how much agency is it reasonable to expect in a given campaign? If the DM is running a free-form campaign is basically expecting you to pretty much make all the decisions about the direction and have a very character-driven game, that's one thing, since a lot of player agency will be REQUIRED for the game to function (as I found the one time I tried and failed!); but if the DM says "I'm going to run Rise of the Runelords," I think it is reasonable to say that you probably shouldn't expect to be able to naff off to Nex or Arcadia or Osirion or something (at least not without the campaign abruptly ending).

*For Aotrs Commander, Player Agency is a straight up Player Controlled game.

Originally Posted by kyoryu
Exactly.

I'm a high-agency kinda dude. And nothing will piss me off more than telling me there's actually agency and then leading me down a linear game. Nothing. If you want to play a linear game? Great! Go for it! But be honest about it and give me the choice of joining or not. I may decide to anyway.

The fact that agency isn't important to you, or to some players, does not mean that it is irrelevant or not important to other players.

*kyoryu, is again Player Agency is a straight up Player Controlled game.

Originally Posted by BRC
Player Agency exists on three levels.

*Well, BRC is first level is a normal enough game....but quickly descends into the Player Controled game with levels two and three.

Originally Posted by Thinker
Player agency is a scale of the players' actions impact on the game. With no agency, their success or failure is irrelevant. The game will continue until it reaches its conclusion and the players are little more than spectators. They might get to decide which orc to hit or which door to go through, but in the end, it's all going in the same direction. At the opposite end of the spectrum, their choices can add aspects to the game or even the current adventure; players might describe what it is they are searching for and even some of its weaknesses.

I think an important aspect of player agency is for the players to be able to fail without it ending the game. In most games, a character or two can die, but what happens when the party fails as a whole? Is retreat an option? What happens when the players choose poorly or execute poorly? Does the game just end? Does the situation continue evolving? What happens to the characters?


*Poor Thinker here is just lost in some other reality. Like he thinks the ''game'' is ''alive'' and can continue if all the player characters die?

Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy
Well said.

Player agency includes the informed choice to sit down at the table and take part in the game that players (including the GM) choose to play, including the setting, rules, and campaign guidelines.

*And here is Max_Killjoy tells us the only way to play the game is the Player Controlled game.

[kyoryu]

Originally Posted by kyoryu
Exactly.

I'm a high-agency kinda dude. And nothing will piss me off more than telling me there's actually agency and then leading me down a linear game. Nothing. If you want to play a linear game? Great! Go for it! But be honest about it and give me the choice of joining or not. I may decide to anyway.

The fact that agency isn't important to you, or to some players, does not mean that it is irrelevant or not important to other players.

*kyoryu, is again Player Agency is a straight up Player Controlled game.


I really don't know how you get from point A to point B in that one. That's an incredible leap, especially given:


Of course, sometimes your choices are limited. They should be limited by the situation, not by the desire of the GM to enforce a particular outcome.

And no, you can't know the outcome of every choice, but you should have a reasonable idea of the likely outcomes of most actions. If I ask a girl out to coffee, I might suspect she'd say yes, or no, or laugh in my face, or slap me. Fallout from this could include going on a date and forming a relationship or her and her friends shunning me. I wouldn't expect her to sprout cyborg arms with machine guns and start a robot revolution because I asked her out to coffee.

K-Agency would say that if the PC asks the girl out, she should go out with him because that's what he wants AND DAMNIT I'M SPECIAL.

T-Agency says that if the PC asks the girl out, she may or may not go out with him, and there may be other side effects of this.

Since I've explicitly said that I'm in favor of "T-Agency", claiming that I'm arguing in favor of "K-Agency" (which i've repeatedly said sucks) is a flat out lie. Please stop lying.

[Segev]

Agency is all about your ability to meaningfully impact the setting based on your character's capabilities. It's what separates a tabletop game with a GM from a cRPG: whatever the players can think of to have their characters do within their conceptual capabilities, they can attempt. No waist-high invisible walls, no "but thou must!" interactions, no only-two-choices-when-the-player-sees-a-third-option... they just try things. And the world reacts sensibly.

Lack of agency arises when the world is constructed to deny it (there is only one path forward and everything else is pre-designed to have literally no way through), the world alters to deny it (no matter what you try other than the approved track, it fails, or the world retcons to make it have failed), or you lack information to make meaningful choices. That last can happen in a game with agency, too, but you have to exercise your agency first to identify the ways to get information to make meaningful choices about other actions.

*At first Segev talks about a normal game....but then just goes into the crazy realm of ''everything must always workout for the best for the players in exactly the way they want''.

It's sad that Darth Ultron defines "good games" as those where players are miserable and aren't allowed to have any fun.

[OldTrees1]

I did. Like I said, any RPG based on reality as we know it. If you did not know, that ''g'' in RPG stands for games.

Which I ignored because it is not an example of a game with 0 choices. Reality has many choices per day and any RPG based on reality will likewise be based in part on those choices per day.

If you did not know, that "g" in RPG stands for games, as in recreational activities with agents that make choices.

So try again. Can you show me a game with 0 choices?



But your taking my side, here?
My position has not changed. You have just decided to read it for once. The Everyone Collective does not believe in the strawman you ascribe to them. We have clearly stated that:

"Player Agency is when Players interact with the game through Meaningful Choices created by the DM"

So duh it is also true that "Not every moment of a game will have a choice and not all choices are Meaningful Choices", only your strawmen would say otherwise.


-snip for being gribberish-

The rest of your post goes into deliberately misreading and misrepresenting the posts of others.

PhoenixPhyre does not mention when Players perceive a lack of Player Agency because the Existence/Lack of Player Agency is independant from the Perception of Existence/Lack of Player Agency. As you ought to know by now.

Max_Killjoy was talking about how Characters are interfaces via which the Players interact with the world and then agreed with the standard definition. Nothing about your pet strawmen.

Segev only talked about a Normal game vs a game constructed to lack Agency. There was no crazy world talk. (Have you checked your eyes recently?)

Frozen Feet says the exact same thing as everyone else has been saying.

Honest Tiefling is saying that communication between Players and DMs can result in Players understanding some railroading. Then they go into saying that Players are not stupid and will notice overt railroading.

Aotrs Commander is not talking about your strawman "Player Controlled Game". They are talking about how the DM presents the campaign can affect how much Player Agency the players expect to have.

kyoryu is not talking about your strawman "Player Controlled Game".

BRC is not talking about your strawman "Player Controlled Game". Have you noticed a trend? Your strawman is blinding you (and making you deaf & dumb in the process).

Thinker is not talking about a game being alive (another strawman) or even about verisimilitude (the closest real term to your strawman). Thinker is saying that if the PCs have 0 choices, then the game will still reach the same ending even if the Players left (since they are not making any choices).

And finally back to Max_Killjoy, who is not saying all games must be your strawman "Player Controlled Game". Instead Max_Killjoy is saying that Player Agency includes the choice the Player makes to either join or leave the game.

[Floret]

*So PhoenixPhyre is just saying Player Agency is a normal game and is not special here[...].

Okay. Let me try an analogy. Maybe that will work, noone has tried to explain this yet - maybe because it just seems so self-evident for most of us, but it might not actually be self-evident.

Yes, Player Agency is part of a normal game. An RPG, as it usually functions, includes player agency, and we are talking about one specific part of the normal gaming experience. Have been the entire time.
You may ask "But why discuss it, if it is just normal", be confused, and think that we think it as something special, otherwise we would see no need to debate it. But that isn't true.

Breathing is part of a normal human day. (So is eating, or sleeping). As a human being lives, it will breathe, or die. But some people will find value in talking about breathing, analysing what goes into breathing and describing the process in detail. Even researching it. And... for the better. If we understand how breathing works, we can combat the cases where it fails - Asthma, maybe. We can notice the pitfalls it has - breathing in dangerous chemicals. We can notice the good it does - supplying our brains and bodys with stuff they desperately need to function, and when it no longer does it as efficiently, we can know why it doesn't, and look to combat these factors. For most people, this discussion is probably irrelevant, and they can get on with their lives without it. For a person with Asthma, it might be life-saving that it was had.
Take, conversely, a walk in the park. Surely nice for some people, but others might not see what the fuzz is about, or even be averse to it. Something optional for the human experience. Someone who'd say they are essential would clearly be mad.

That is what we're doing. We're not talking about going through a walk in the park, we are talking about breathing - something innate to a regular experience, without which is stops being that. (In case of a human no longer breathing, dies. In case of a game fully devoid of agency, becomes a story.)
Your posts read as if you thought we were talking about a walk in the park as if it were breathing - we are not. We are actually talking about something normal, innate; because we, like the Asthma patient, see value in the discussion of breathing.

[Darth Ultron]

I really don't know how you get from point A to point B in that one. That's an incredible leap, especially given:
Since I've explicitly said that I'm in favor of "T-Agency", claiming that I'm arguing in favor of "K-Agency" (which i've repeatedly said sucks) is a flat out lie. Please stop lying.

Well, the type ''T'' does put you more for a normal game...but then you still have everything else you said about agency....


It's sad that Darth Ultron defines "good games" as those where players are miserable and aren't allowed to have any fun.

Well, as I've said, I like more Hard Fun.



Which I ignored because it is not an example of a game with 0 choices. Reality has many choices per day and any RPG based on reality will likewise be based in part on those choices per day.

If you did not know, that "g" in RPG stands for games, as in recreational activities with agents that make choices.

So try again. Can you show me a game with 0 choices?

Yes, again, like I have said: any RPG based of reality. I see you can't grasp the concept so I will give you an example:

In the game of D&D in the setting there is the town of GoldHaven and that town has ONE bank:The First Gold Bank. So if the characters walk into Goldhaven and want to rob a bank they have NO CHOICE except to rob The First Gold Bank. See how simple that is?



"Player Agency is when Players interact with the game through Meaningful Choices created by the DM"

So duh it is also true that "Not every moment of a game will have a choice and not all choices are Meaningful Choices", only your strawmen would say otherwise.

Well, it is nice to see you come around to my way...as my Sith mentor would say: "Welcome to the Dark Side."



The rest of your post goes into deliberately misreading and misrepresenting the posts of others.

I agree they were all over the place and not even talking about the illusion of player agency...but it was what they said.



And finally back to Max_Killjoy, who is not saying all games must be your strawman "Player Controlled Game". Instead Max_Killjoy is saying that Player Agency includes the choice the Player makes to either join or leave the game.

I'm a big fan of this one myself. After a character encounters, say three locked doors, and the immature brat of a player whines and cries that the game is giving him no player agency to be special, I'm more then willing to have this person leave and never come back.





You may ask "But why discuss it, if it is just normal", be confused, and think that we think it as something special, otherwise we would see no need to debate it. But that isn't true.


Well, yes, this is what I think. It would be like some players making up ''Dice Tossing'' and then saying they ''must meaningfully roll dice'' in an game for it to be fun. And I'd be like, um, so that is any game where you roll dice, right?



Breathing

I don't think this example works. Sure some scientist types study breathing, but the common folk (or even the scientist's when not at work) don't talk about breathing very much. And only a group of insane idiots, hopefully locked away in a padded room somewhere, would talk endlessly about how ''they would never travel to a country that did not give them Breathing Agency!"


Any RPG that is not run by a jerk monster DM will have freedom, choices, and freedom of choices...at least some of the time. So what is the point of taking something that is a normal part of the game, giving it a special name and then sort of acting like it is special...but then just saying it is a normal game?


It does seem like the Everyone Collective is only talking about positive things that happen to the characters that the players would like and that they can not accept even one tiny bit of negative things in their game ever. They don't seem to be able to accept that there are roughly a trillion trillion things in the game world reality that their special character can never ever effect. Now, at the same time, there are a trillion things the character can effect....but you do have to accept your character can not effect everything all ways.

Then they say they can accept anything happening...yet if I give a single example of something in a game not going exactly the way the players want, they immediacy regress to the whine and cry of ''the game has no player agency''. Never do I get the mature adult response of accepting a bad or negative thing happening and agreeing that it is OK.

[Max_Killjoy]

Okay. Let me try an analogy. Maybe that will work, noone has tried to explain this yet - maybe because it just seems so self-evident for most of us, but it might not actually be self-evident.

Yes, Player Agency is part of a normal game. An RPG, as it usually functions, includes player agency, and we are talking about one specific part of the normal gaming experience. Have been the entire time.

You may ask "But why discuss it, if it is just normal", be confused, and think that we think it as something special, otherwise we would see no need to debate it. But that isn't true.

Breathing is part of a normal human day. (So is eating, or sleeping). As a human being lives, it will breathe, or die. But some people will find value in talking about breathing, analysing what goes into breathing and describing the process in detail. Even researching it. And... for the better. If we understand how breathing works, we can combat the cases where it fails - Asthma, maybe. We can notice the pitfalls it has - breathing in dangerous chemicals. We can notice the good it does - supplying our brains and bodys with stuff they desperately need to function, and when it no longer does it as efficiently, we can know why it doesn't, and look to combat these factors. For most people, this discussion is probably irrelevant, and they can get on with their lives without it. For a person with Asthma, it might be life-saving that it was had.

Take, conversely, a walk in the park. Surely nice for some people, but others might not see what the fuzz is about, or even be averse to it. Something optional for the human experience. Someone who'd say they are essential would clearly be mad.

That is what we're doing. We're not talking about going through a walk in the park, we are talking about breathing - something innate to a regular experience, without which is stops being that. (In case of a human no longer breathing, dies. In case of a game fully devoid of agency, becomes a story.)

Your posts read as if you thought we were talking about a walk in the park as if it were breathing - we are not. We are actually talking about something normal, innate; because we, like the Asthma patient, see value in the discussion of breathing.


The part I bolded -- that's pretty much it.

Player agency is literally what separates playing an RPG from being told a story, or being directed in acting through a story, by someone else.

[Segev]

Well, as I've said, I like more Hard Fun.


It does seem like the Everyone Collective is only talking about positive things that happen to the characters that the players would like and that they can not accept even one tiny bit of negative things in their game ever. They don't seem to be able to accept that there are roughly a trillion trillion things in the game world reality that their special character can never ever effect. Now, at the same time, there are a trillion things the character can effect....but you do have to accept your character can not effect everything all ways.

Then they say they can accept anything happening...yet if I give a single example of something in a game not going exactly the way the players want, they immediacy regress to the whine and cry of ''the game has no player agency''. Never do I get the mature adult response of accepting a bad or negative thing happening and agreeing that it is OK.

I'm sorry that everyone having fun means you can't have fun, but that probably means you shouldn't be running a game. If you hate it when everybody has fun and find it hard to enjoy a game where anybody else is enjoying it, you're not going to enjoy running games that anybody wants to play.

[Lorsa]

Yes, again, like I have said: any RPG based of reality. I see you can't grasp the concept so I will give you an example:

In the game of D&D in the setting there is the town of GoldHaven and that town has ONE bank:The First Gold Bank. So if the characters walk into Goldhaven and want to rob a bank they have NO CHOICE except to rob The First Gold Bank. See how simple that is?

And, in a normal game they should get A CHOICE whether or not they want to rob A bank in the first place.

The players should be able to say "we want to rob a bank in GoldHaven" or "we don't want to rob a bank in GoldHaven". This is making a choice.

If they DO want to rob a bank in GoldHaven, in a normal game they would have to rob The First Gold Bank just as you say.

The alternative would be to first set up their own bank and then rob that, but I doubt many players will go for that idea.

See how simple it is to include player agency in a game?



Well, yes, this is what I think. It would be like some players making up ''Dice Tossing'' and then saying they ''must meaningfully roll dice'' in an game for it to be fun. And I'd be like, um, so that is any game where you roll dice, right?

And this becomes relevant when the DM wants to take away the dice from the players. Say, the DM says "in my game, ALL rolls will be made by ME". Then, despite a NORMAL GAME involving dice, this particular game will not. Thus, a player will say "uhm, I like Dice Tossing, and if I can't meaningfully roll dice I won't have fun".

We talk about Player Agency for the very reason that some DMs DO take it away. We also discuss it because, while we don't require it to be constantly present, we are interested in the difference in amounts that we want it, and whether or not some instances of agency are more important than others.

For example, if a player that likes Dice Tossing thinks that rolling attack rolls is more important than rolling skill rolls, they might be less upset if the DM steals their dice for skill rolls.



Any RPG that is not run by a jerk monster DM will have freedom, choices, and freedom of choices...at least some of the time. So what is the point of taking something that is a normal part of the game, giving it a special name and then sort of acting like it is special...but then just saying it is a normal game?

The more things that are given names in a normal RPG activity, the better we can understand, analyze and discuss it. That's what academic discussion is all about.

Then, as I said, some DMs ARE jerk monster DMs, and we find it very important to be able to tell them exactly what is wrong with what they are doing, as they might not understand it themselves.

To us, it is more useful to say "you are not running a game with Player Agency" rather than "you are not running a normal game". Simply saying to a jerk DM "you are not running a normal game" is not very specific. What, exactly, is it that they are doing that makes the game not-normal? There could, in theory, be many different things, so we have these terms to help discussion and point to specific things.



It does seem like the Everyone Collective is only talking about positive things that happen to the characters that the players would like and that they can not accept even one tiny bit of negative things in their game ever. They don't seem to be able to accept that there are roughly a trillion trillion things in the game world reality that their special character can never ever effect. Now, at the same time, there are a trillion things the character can effect....but you do have to accept your character can not effect everything all ways.

Then they say they can accept anything happening...yet if I give a single example of something in a game not going exactly the way the players want, they immediacy regress to the whine and cry of ''the game has no player agency''. Never do I get the mature adult response of accepting a bad or negative thing happening and agreeing that it is OK.

If I wanted to rob a bank in GoldHaven and you said "ok, there is only The First Gold Bank, and it's being guarded by five well-trained guards" I would be completely fine with that. Furthermore, if these guards are well paid and thus not bribe-able, I still would be okay with that.

All that is OK. All I ask is that I get to decide whether or not to actually rob the bank in the first place. Or, if the "rob the bank in GoldHaven" is given as a quest or mission by an NPC questgiver, that I get to make a plan for how to actually do it (attack at night or at day, use distractions or not etc). Secondly, I would prefer if those secondary decisions made a difference, even if it is a small difference. Maybe at night, the guards are more tired, but also more suspicious of potential distractions as nights are usually quiet (or whatever the nightlife looks like in GoldHaven, that's up to the DM to decide). Maybe if I try to bribe them and fails, they will tell their employer that will send thugs to imprison me before I even get to rob the bank. That could happen, and it's OK.

[OldTrees1]

Yes, again, like I have said: any RPG based of reality. I see you can't grasp the concept so I will give you an example:

In the game of D&D in the setting there is the town of GoldHaven and that town has ONE bank:The First Gold Bank. So if the characters walk into Goldhaven and want to rob a bank they have NO CHOICE except to rob The First Gold Bank. See how simple that is?

1) They had a choice whether to try to rob a bank or to do something else.
2) The process of actually robbing a bank has a variety of choices within itself including the basic: Guns in the lobby vs Ocean 11 style robbery.
3) If they succeed, they have choices about what to do with the money
4) If they are failing, they have choices about when and how to bail

So once again you fail to show me a game with 0 choices.



Well, it is nice to see you come around to my way...as my Sith mentor would say: "Welcome to the Dark Side."

Again, my position has not changed since 20 threads ago.

So you are finally changing your mind and agreeing in full with "Player Agency is when Players interact with the game through Meaningful Choices created by the DM"? Then I believe it is I who should be welcoming you to the Everyone Collective. Which I would, if I believed you.

[Floret]

Well, yes, this is what I think. It would be like some players making up ''Dice Tossing'' and then saying they ''must meaningfully roll dice'' in an game for it to be fun. And I'd be like, um, so that is any game where you roll dice, right?

Ah, so I am onto something. Good to know, glad to be able to help out.
And, no, not quite - more like saying you must roll dice for a game to be a dice-rolling game. Just like you need the thing we call agency for it to be a game (In contrast to a story told).
And, sure, if you care about dice rolling; indeed any game where you roll dice would qualify that desire.

But here's the fun part: You can still discuss dicerolling. Discuss what a die needs to be fair; discuss what exactly you find interesting about dicerolling - the uncertainty? Just having something in your hand you can toss about and play with? Or discuss which kinds of dice would be best suited to representing certain things. Dicerolling is an excellent comparison, because, sure, you can just roll and not think about it - but a theorycrafter, someone interested in why RPGs work? Will think a whole lot about dice, and how, why and if to include them.


I don't think this example works. Sure some scientist types study breathing, but the common folk (or even the scientist's when not at work) don't talk about breathing very much. And only a group of insane idiots, hopefully locked away in a padded room somewhere, would talk endlessly about how ''they would never travel to a country that did not give them Breathing Agency!"


Any RPG that is not run by a jerk monster DM will have freedom, choices, and freedom of choices...at least some of the time. So what is the point of taking something that is a normal part of the game, giving it a special name and then sort of acting like it is special...but then just saying it is a normal game?

Well, the thing is, though - we're the scientists. We aren't the common folk, just playing RPGs for the fun we have, we are on an online message board spending our time discussing how they work. I mean, I sure as hell don't constantly talk about player agency in my day to day life - maybe sometimes, with friends as interested in the topic. Fellow GMs. But here, on a message board, in a thread to discuss it? Here, we are in the lab. This is the time and place to discuss the natural, ubiquitous thing, just to understand it better.
(And, WOULD you travel to a country that didn't let you breathe? I sure as hell wouldn't, and would love to be warned about places like that...)

The point of taking something that is a normal part of the game, and to name it, is exactly what I said: The same point as taking a normal part of being human, and naming it. To understand the different components that make up a game, and how to tweak them, how to play around with them, hell, how to make sure they are there. Breathing might be an instinct for humans; but many other things essential for life are not - and sometimes, it's good to have someone or something that is able to explain things to you that aren't. I, and I suppose many other people, don't like going through life being accidentally wrong about something. Checking our perception and opinions against others is all we can to to notice or correct that.
If you don't find that discussion worthwhile... Feel free to leave. But understand that this is the discussion we are having.

(I will say one thing about the cut out part, lest I work myself up: If it seems to you like that is what people are talking about, please go reread the thread. And what people have said. Maybe with the perspective of "yeah, they know they are talking about something natural and innate to games". Because it is not.)


The part I bolded -- that's pretty much it.

Player agency is literally what separates playing an RPG from being told a story, or being directed in acting through a story, by someone else.

I'd think there is a bit more to it than that; especially taking the more colloquially understood definition of RPG, but it certainly is a very important aspect.

[kyoryu]

Well, the type ''T'' does put you more for a normal game...but then you still have everything else you said about agency....

I have said nothing about agency that would put me in favor of "K-Agency". If you have read that, you have misinterpreted it.

The closest thing is that the GM should be honest about what type of game you're running... and I don't see how that's controversial at all. I mean, I wouldn't invite people over for a steak dinner and then turn around and serve them lasagna, either.

If your idea of Agency matches up with Kyberwulf's (he's done a better job of explaining it), then say so, and we can all agree that that thing sucks, and that nobody really wants it, and it's an argument used by crappy players who don't actually want to play a game.

And then you can understand that when the rest of us talk about agency, that's not what we're talking about. What Kyberwulf describes is immature people latching onto a term that they've heard without understanding that, and using it to bully their way into getting what they want.

[RedMage125]

Odd....scroll up a bit. Old Trees said if a DM makes up something before the game that would equal No Player Agency.
That's not what he said, so you're either a liar, or you have reading comprehension problems. That is, you chose to misinterpret what OldTrees was saying to line up with your pre-existing conceptions.

But my money's on you're lying intentionally.


The example is: the DM makes NPC Cop Sim and writes down ''is a good guy and won't take a bribe''. This should be a perfectly reasonably thing for a Dm to make. So, later in the game the PC's try to bribe NC Cop Sim...and fail. Then the player cry ''no agency.
That has nothing to do with ANY definition of "player agency" that any of us have been discussing. What you are describing is your STRAW MAN of "player agency". Because you are an intellectually dishonest and deceitful person.


I've said several times over the pages ''some times a choice is between two bad ones'', and immediately people attack and say ''one choice must be good/what the players want''.
Who said this? Provide an EXACT QUOTE. because I think that you're a lying cretin.


I say ''it is not allways possible for a player to know everything about the game in tiny detail'', and this is where people will attack with ''a good DM stops the game and holds the hands of all the players to make sure they know everything and understand."
Yet again, EXACT QUOTE. Provide the quote of someone saying these EXACT WORDS, or admit that you're wrong. Not find a quote that you can twist into saying this. Find the EXACT WORDS.



See, the Normal Game, the Darth Taffy way...
Taffy was so disgusted at you comparing him to yourself that this statement made him LEAVE THE THREAD.

Have you considered that maybe, just MAYBE you might be the one with the problem?

Just...academically, what is more likely?
A) That YOU are the only person with insight to some higher truth about what we are ALL saying that ONLY YOU understand, while we all don't even understand the words that we are typing?
or
B) You have, at some point several pages back, misinterpreted what was said, and are not using the same definition of "player agency" as everyone else, and are therefore trying to compare apples to oranges?
or
C) You know exactly that you've been misrepresenting people, and are a troll.


So refreshing to see another person speak the truth.
You type this AFTER seeing how everyone told Kyber that nothing about what he said was what we meant by "agency"? So you ACKNOWLEDGE that the only person who thinks like you is ALSO wrong? What does that say about yourself?

Probably that you're intentionally being a troll.


See the Modern Bratty Player Agency people would be whining and crying that the dungeon even has just ''one entrance''...as by Player Agency Illusion is must have five...and one of the five must make their characters immortal and the DM has to give them all the information they need to pick that right door.

That is the problem.

That is a Straw Man. None of us favor such a scenario.

So you are, once again, a cowardly liar who cannot respond honestly, check.





Well, it is nice to see you come around to my way...as my Sith mentor would say: "Welcome to the Dark Side."
OldTrees just pointed out how you INTENTIONALLY lied and misrepresented everything that's been said to you, and-for once-you FINALLY got it through your thick skull that we have NOT been advocating "player agency" as some kind of "give players what they want all the time" GARBAGE, and you think he's on your side?

I emphasize again...
COWARD.
LIAR.
CRETIN.




I agree they were all over the place and not even talking about the illusion of player agency...but it was what they said.
They weren't talking about YOUR definition of "player agency", because your definition was a twisted Straw Man of what others were talking about before you even joined the thread. And you were twisting what they said to fit YOUR preconceptions of what their point MEANT.



I'm a big fan of this one myself. After a character encounters, say three locked doors, and the immature brat of a player whines and cries that the game is giving him no player agency to be special, I'm more then willing to have this person leave and never come back.
No one wants that player at their table. And none of us advocate for a player like that.



It does seem like the Everyone Collective is only talking about positive things that happen to the characters that the players would like and that they can not accept even one tiny bit of negative things in their game ever. They don't seem to be able to accept that there are roughly a trillion trillion things in the game world reality that their special character can never ever effect. Now, at the same time, there are a trillion things the character can effect....but you do have to accept your character can not effect everything all ways.
No one ever advocated "only positive things happening". In fact, a DM who does that, even when players make self-destructive choices can ALSO be taking away Player Agency, because if there are no Negative Consequences, then choice still doesn't matter.

You just NEED this lie to be true to be right, and now your shriveled, mewling, pathetic ego is so wrapped up in being "right" about this issue, that you can only construct Straw Men of others' points, because you fear to address that they aren't setting up the easy targets that you know you can take down. So instead, you twist their words, claim they say ASININE things, and when you shoot down such an obviously asinine argument, you impotently claim victory over "their position". And you act smugly superior, as if everyone else are "sheeple" and you're the only one who thinks independently.

All right. We get it. You are very special and unique and different, you play D&D in a better way that everyone else (who only thinks in a giant "collective") and everyone is very impressed. Is that what you need to hear to placate your feeble need to feel superior?


Then they say they can accept anything happening...yet if I give a single example of something in a game not going exactly the way the players want, they immediacy regress to the whine and cry of ''the game has no player agency''. Never do I get the mature adult response of accepting a bad or negative thing happening and agreeing that it is OK.
Your examples didn't involve the players having a meaningful choice that had an impact, positive or negative. There ARE going to be situations where the players' choices are not going to significantly impact the game. That's a given. Storms are going to hit when the DM decides they do, some NPCs are unfailingly loyal and un-bribable. This is not a conflict of interest for Agency. Players having Agency doesn't mean their choices affect "all things at all times". That would be asinine. You have ONLY given examples of players making choices where they had no chance to even HAVE an effect. Which is a "no agency situation". But "no agency situation" is not the same as "no agency game".

But you're probably going to lie about this anyway, so I'm starting to wonder why I bother.

[Tinkerer]

You type this AFTER seeing how everyone told Kyber that nothing about what he said was what we meant by "agency"? So you ACKNOWLEDGE that the only person who thinks like you is ALSO wrong? What does that say about yourself?


Kyber didn't really seem to be agreeing with Darth, bear in mind that they said that the GM also had no agency. I am still curious as to what they were getting at but it sounded like either an understanding of agency as an absolute or a very nihilistic worldview. Although I could quite easily be wrong on either of those accounts. Pity that I haven't seen a response from them however as I said this thread is a bit of a swamp that only a fool would spend any amount of time in.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Participants in this thread would be well-advised to review the Forum Rules on Flaming/Trolling.