PDA

View Full Version : What is Player Agency?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Quertus
2017-10-25, 07:06 PM
So, we've all heard the term "Player Agency" bandied about, often in relation to the dreaded "railroad". But what does it really mean? What do you believe it means for players to have "agency"? Is it measurable? Is it something you can test for?

This thread is intended for us to express our ideas about the phrase, and for us to compare our understandings and examine our assumptions at a level of detail that may make some uncomfortable.

Viewer discretion is advised.

Anxe
2017-10-25, 07:14 PM
Player Agency is the degree to which each player feels that their decisions and input have an impact on the events, outcome, and tone of the game. High Player Agency games like Dungeon World allow the players to actually build the world that their PC resides in. Low Player Agency games like Paranoia are a mockery of what a proper roleplaying campaign should be, but that's kind of the point (And even this is an overgeneralization of what Paranoia is).

Psikerlord
2017-10-25, 07:32 PM
Isnt player agency mostly about the players getting to make meaningful decisions. It's a spectrum, more agency in a sandbox campaign, less in a linear adventure path, but both have some.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-25, 08:26 PM
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.

Nifft
2017-10-25, 08:39 PM
Player Agency = impact of player decisions on the game.


That can mean a lot of different things.

For example, one game might have players control powerful PCs whose in-game choices have consequences which resound through the setting.

Another game might have low-power PCs, but give players direct control over setting elements -- allowing players to declare truths which shape the setting, and which their PCs then leverage to some advantage.

A third game might be about low-power PCs without any special player control of the setting, but the player's in-character decisions matter a lot because the setting has no specific plotline, and the NPCs react in a reasonable way to the disruptive actions of the PCs -- some for, some against.


One way to think of Player Agency is to imagine the opposite of a Rail Road game.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-25, 09:00 PM
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.

.

Cluedrew
2017-10-25, 09:24 PM
To me, agency (player or otherwise) is the ability to make meaningful choices.I think you got it, between this and the follow-up. I've been trying to add something meaningful to it but besides weird corner case notes (for example, in a less challenge based game the ability to choose wrongly becomes less important) I have very little to say. Good description, you could probably apply it to non-role-playing games as well.

Anxe
2017-10-25, 11:40 PM
I'm curious whether people define Player Agency by actual events or just feelings. Using the ice cream example. Say a person has never had vanilla or chocolate and doesn't know the difference. They choose vanilla and are given chocolate. The person eats what they ordered and are satisfied.

Same thing occurs in roleplaying. DM designs an adventure for goblins and tells the players they can fight the kobolds or the goblins. The PCs choose the kobolds. The DM uses the same adventure and because kobolds and goblins are almost the same the DM doesn't change anything. The players are satisfied and feel like their choice mattered. They influenced the narrative (kobolds instead of goblins), if not the actual mechanics of what they interacted with in the game.

Nifft
2017-10-25, 11:59 PM
I'm curious whether people define Player Agency by actual events or just feelings. Actual events.

It should be possible for a disinterested 3rd party to read through a game later and determine the degree of player agency.


Same thing occurs in roleplaying. DM designs an adventure for goblins and tells the players they can fight the kobolds or the goblins. The PCs choose the kobolds. The DM uses the same adventure and because kobolds and goblins are almost the same the DM doesn't change anything. The players are satisfied and feel like their choice mattered. They influenced the narrative (kobolds instead of goblins), if not the actual mechanics of what they interacted with in the game.
That's just illusionism.

It's why multiple-choice questions are lower-agency indicators than free-form or open questions.

Scripten
2017-10-26, 12:01 AM
That's basically the idea of the Quantum Ogre, which is not nearly as sneaky as some DMs seem to think and is a violation of player trust. If you want to give your players choices, then those choices should matter.

GreatKaiserNui
2017-10-26, 02:24 AM
I can't wait for Darth Ultron to crash his way into this thread like Kool-aid man and then ramble his way through a subject he has no comprehension of.

/S

Glorthindel
2017-10-26, 03:50 AM
That's basically the idea of the Quantum Ogre, which is not nearly as sneaky as some DMs seem to think and is a violation of player trust.

Like anything, this is the point where the idea of agency jumps the shark and goes screaming off in to the woods with its underpants on its head.

Agency is a tool, not a goal.

The goal is to give the players a fun, exciting, and engaging game. No other goal matters. The role of "Agency" is to facilitate that, because players tend to have more fun, and be more engaged when their actions and ideas matter (and I say tend, because that is not an absolute rule, some players just want to watch a story unfold). Setting "Agency" as the goal is putting the cart before the horse - providing agency at all cost serves no benefit if the players are not having fun, and aren't engaged.


It should be possible for a disinterested 3rd party to read through a game later and determine the degree of player agency.

I am not interested in the opinions of third party campaign-monitors who are going to go through my DM notes and mark me out of 10 on "Agency" or any other false goal. The only people that matter to me are the people around the table. If they are happy, I have succeeded at what I aimed to do. If they have not, I have failed. If they leave the table beaming and chatting excitedly I do not care how much or how little agency I provided, because that is not the purpose of us sitting down together.

For that reason, I strongly dispute the collective sniffing being done at illusionary agency. It is just as an acceptable tool as real agency if it achieves the goal of helping the players enjoy the session. And the fact is, illusionary agency has its place. Barring the mythical "perfect DM" who can create intriguing fun plots and events on the fly (and they do exist, but expecting every DM to be that is setting yourself up for disappointment), a DM has a finite amount of time to create material for his session. I have no issue with invoking the quantum ogre if the parties decisions cause them to sidestep a fun, involved encounter that I know they would enjoy. Especially if they will never realise that their decision should have caused them to miss the encounter. To me giving the players that enjoyment is more important that slavishly adhering to the god of agency. Claiming it is "a violation of trust" is outlandishly hyperbolic - the players "trust" you to give them a fun gaming session, not to adhere to some carved-in-stone code of DM behavoir that places agency up on a pedestal above all other things. Yes, agency often does contribute to giving them that fun session, but there are times when it can form a straight-jacket that hinders giving them the very best session they could experience, and then, it should be sacrificed without hesitation.

Floret
2017-10-26, 04:07 AM
I'm curious whether people define Player Agency by actual events or just feelings.

Both, I think. Or rather, actual agency by events; percieved agency (Which is the more important one) by feelings, but... well. (Agency defined as "player control over what happens; ability for player decision to matter")

See, one of the things I personally highly value in RPGs, that makes me feel like I have agency, is rolling the dice. Not having dice rolled, but rolling them myself. One classic GM tactic (Rolling perception rolls and the like for the players) feels utterly bizzarre to me, and if done by a GM I at least feel uneasy. Heck, I even really, really dislike systems like DnD or L5R, where for an attack, the attacking faction rolls on a static value, and if the GM rolled well enough you are hit. (Though I have no problem with my players hitting me with their rolls; and also dislike the slug of active defense systems. Some problems I have.)

Technically, whether I roll or the GM does it for me, changes nothing. Nothing about the outcome is different. If I, as a player, rolled on a defense value instead of the GM on the same attack value, nothing would be different. But it feels differently. When the dice are in my hand, I feel like I am in control.

Does it violate player agency if the GMs planning or the Adventure Path or w/e writes in one possible solution (though others would theoretically be possible), and the players instinctively choose that one? I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone arguing it does; even though, looking through the results, they followed the "rails" exactly. So it can't be following a pre-planned path precisely that is the problem.*
The thing about the quantum ogre is: If it is done in a way the player's don't notice, they feel perfectly fine and like their agency is kept intact. The problem is, of course, players tend to be the creative sort and come up with all sorts of things - and you can't quantum ogre everything without someone noticing.

It's a difficult question. Everyone has their own preferences, and limits - I know I have (and have seen) weird ones. I've had players ask for input on what their characters think; I've consulted the dice for the question of "does my character give in to this temptation" and would do it again.
I also happen to believe that player agency is not the be-all and end-all that it is made out to be sometimes, and can be violated, if agreed upon by both sides (In session 0, by knowing GM styles beforehands, etc.). I think percieved agency is indeed the important part, to have it in the places you want it and agreed upon it being; but that percieved agency is nigh-impossible to uphold without actual agency being given.

(*One game of Shadowrun had me get a bit nervous, because the player's actions were diverging so far from the expected, I'd have to really, really think around if I wanted to keep what run should be next (Though in a pinch I would have changed my planning). Up until the last minutes of the run, where the mages' player suddenly comes up with the perfect follow-up - that lead directly into the original plans I had. Out of nowhere. I would never have suggested that myself, I didn't get the idea he came up with.
So... effectively the players re-joined the railroad, out of their own free will, without any prompting from myself. Player agency can be a weird creature sometimes.)

Also, Glorthindel's post comes pretty close to some of my own feelings on the matter.

NichG
2017-10-26, 05:03 AM
On the one hand, I'm all for keeping separate an understanding of what tools can be brought to bear to make a good campaign, versus particular philosophical preferences surrounding which of those things are intrinsically 'good'. On the other hand, there is a danger in going all-in on the illusionism path, which is that generally speaking DMs can easily overestimate how well their illusions will hold up. Experienced players will have at the very least a good subconscious sense about which choices they have to be careful about and which choices correspond to 'what color would you like your armor to be?' - and that can give away the game very easily.

The kobold/goblin example in particular is a really dangerous example for the DM, because even if they haven't specified anything about kobolds and goblins in their setting yet, its a sure thing that many of the players at the table will have encountered kobolds and goblins in fiction and in other campaigns, and will have some kind of mental image associated with what makes them different. So when the DM pulls a quantum ogre and makes goblins into crafty trappers who prefer to lure their prey into elaborate death-traps, at worst the jig is up and at best the DM has still introduced a small amount of dissonance that will make the players feel less confident that they get what's going on - something that can build up to the game as a whole feeling incoherent if it persists.

It's okay to use this device, but use it with care.

Anyhow, in the end this sort of thing has very little to do with real agency, because choices made without an understanding of their significance don't really constitute a form of agency. The feeling of agency comes from in essence seeing that one is able to shape the future according to one's will in the present. If there's a choice where you don't know what the futures you're choosing between will be like, that produces feelings of uncertainty or fear or unease rather than feelings of agency. It's like the difference between striving and succeeding - agency is looking back and seeing that indeed you were able to exert some measure of control successfully. The quantum ogre is an illusion that only works when you can't know the difference, so its basically got nothing to do with it.

Frozen_Feet
2017-10-26, 06:13 AM
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'll get to how you can test for agency when I have more time.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-26, 06:27 AM
Like anything, this is the point where the idea of agency jumps the shark and goes screaming off in to the woods with its underpants on its head.

Agency is a tool, not a goal.

The goal is to give the players a fun, exciting, and engaging game. No other goal matters. The role of "Agency" is to facilitate that, because players tend to have more fun, and be more engaged when their actions and ideas matter (and I say tend, because that is not an absolute rule, some players just want to watch a story unfold). Setting "Agency" as the goal is putting the cart before the horse - providing agency at all cost serves no benefit if the players are not having fun, and aren't engaged.

Speak for yourself.

I want my choices as a player to actually matter, not just appear to matter, even if the outcome is less "fun".

And if nothing my character does can avoid that pre-planned encounter with that ogre, then the game isn't fun anyway.

Cluedrew
2017-10-26, 06:46 AM
Agency is a tool, not a goal.

The goal is to give the players a fun, exciting, and engaging game. No other goal matters.I don't disagree but at the same time: name me a game that is fun, exciting and engaging game that does not involve meaningful choices.

Just yesterday I was reading about Chess 2, which was designed to introduce more agency into Chess, because at the grandmaster level there was not enough agency in the early and late game. It was too much pattern memorization and simple execution at that level. Apparently, I'm not a chess grandmaster and I avoided studying it to avoid that problem. Now I don't actually know if Chess 2 is any more or less fun than Chess, I haven't played it yet. But I thought it was an interesting example of a very different game that illustrates my point. Also I'm trying to figure out which if I'm supposed to capitalize Chess or not.

As for creating an illusion, you can do it for a time. But maintaining it always hits the same problem. The players are as about as intelligent as the GM and soon the illusion will break. Which is not to say every choice made in a game has to have deep & meaningful consequences, I think the have to be scattered in for the game to be fun. Or at least fun as a game, it could be fun as a movie otherwise but viewer agency is not the same thing, if it is a thing at all.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-26, 06:54 AM
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.

.

That part goes to knowledge--being able to predict in character what will happen. Now of course agency is not unlimited (no more so than it is in real life). You can give away your agency. If your character takes actions that have consequences such as dying, you don't get to say "Nope, that didn't happen" or "you're railroading me." If mind control is a thing in the setting, it can happen to PCs. I'm the nice type who tends to spare feelings, so I don't use it much, but it's still a thing that could happen, potentially.


I think you got it, between this and the follow-up. I've been trying to add something meaningful to it but besides weird corner case notes (for example, in a less challenge based game the ability to choose wrongly becomes less important) I have very little to say. Good description, you could probably apply it to non-role-playing games as well.

It's actually almost directly pulled from a discussion of moral agency (what's often called free will) in real life. Agency is agency. Same prerequisites, slightly different expressions.


I'm curious whether people define Player Agency by actual events or just feelings. Using the ice cream example. Say a person has never had vanilla or chocolate and doesn't know the difference. They choose vanilla and are given chocolate. The person eats what they ordered and are satisfied.

Same thing occurs in roleplaying. DM designs an adventure for goblins and tells the players they can fight the kobolds or the goblins. The PCs choose the kobolds. The DM uses the same adventure and because kobolds and goblins are almost the same the DM doesn't change anything. The players are satisfied and feel like their choice mattered. They influenced the narrative (kobolds instead of goblins), if not the actual mechanics of what they interacted with in the game.

This speaks to knowledge and consequences. If the consequences of the two choices are the same (down to the details), then it's a false choice. Making a choice without knowing the difference between the two is the same as flipping a coin. Either explain the difference (or, in the goblin/kobold case, the lack of difference) or don't give a choice at all.


Speak for yourself.

I want my choices as a player to actually matter, not just appear to matter, even if the outcome is less "fun".

And if nothing my character does can avoid that pre-planned encounter with that ogre, then the game isn't fun anyway.

I mostly agree, but sometimes, due to previous choices and their consequences, your character may have given up the agency required to avoid the ogre. That is, the consequences of previous actions have locked you into a path that bottlenecks on that ogre, and that's not a bad thing. Now if they're wildly different paths (going south through the forest or north through the mountains) and have the same encounter (not just with generic ogres who could have easily been on both paths, but with the exact same ogre in the exact same map, and you chose one path because there wasn't an ogre on it, then you have a problem.

For me, the problem with quantum ogres is the denial of consequences. If the party made other choices that are unconnected to said ogres, the presence or absence is irrelevant as to agency. If, however, they made choices specifically designed to avoid those ogres, and made them well, then dropping the ogres in regardless better have a darn good explanation (like teleporting ogres with a grudge, maybe. And that's still pushing it.).

Cozzer
2017-10-26, 07:04 AM
+ 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.

This, with an emphasis on "knowledge" since it's the part that's often left out. If you put two identical paths, I follow the first one and something bad happens, you can't say "well you could have avoided that by taking the other identical path, so it's not true that you had no agency!".

I think one of the most common problems of GMs is how they believe that giving more informations to the players would make the game less interesting. In 99% of cases, a hard choice where the characters have most of the facts is way more fun and more interesting than a plot twist where the facts change choices already taken. This is, I believe, one of the biggest differences between standard narratives and RPGs.

Actana
2017-10-26, 07:20 AM
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.

Going to second, third or whatever-th this post. To me, putting the idea of player agency concisely more or less results in the definition of "the ability of the players to make informed, meaningful choices".

If the players don't have the ability to make choices, there's no agency: the players are being told what they're doing.

If the choices aren't meaningful; if the results are the same whatever the players do, there's no agency: the players are simply making choices that don't matter at all, and everything is based on the whims of the GM.

If the players aren't able to make informed choices; if they have no idea what happens with any choice, there's no real meaningful choice to be had: the players need to be able to have some manner of discerning what choice they should take. It's okay to present the players with a situation where they have no knowledge of what might happen, mind you. It's just that you should at the same time always have some ways of acquiring that knowledge, even if those ways might fail. But at the same time if you force a choice where they can't predict the results, you can't blame them for anything bad that happens - indeed, you are to blame as the GM for that bad happening.


Whether these choices are in-character or out-of-character depends on the situation, as both can contribute towards having agency but in different circumstances. Character building choices are almost always out-of-character. Taking actions in-game is usually both. I don't really think there are many examples where you can take a purely in-character action, as the game's structure bleeds both of them into it. Not because metagaming or anything, but simply because players cannot 100% immerse themselves into their characters. There's always a part of the player driving actions as the player, which is perfectly fine. Some people prefer higher OOC activity, others higher IC. Same with games. But in all of those situations, the ability to make informed meaningful choices is what defines player agency for me at least.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-26, 07:26 AM
This, with an emphasis on "knowledge" since it's the part that's often left out. If you put two identical paths, I follow the first one and something bad happens, you can't say "well you could have avoided that by taking the other identical path, so it's not true that you had no agency!".

I think one of the most common problems of GMs is how they believe that giving more informations to the players would make the game less interesting. In 99% of cases, a hard choice where the characters have most of the facts is way more fun and more interesting than a plot twist where the facts change choices already taken. This is, I believe, one of the biggest differences between standard narratives and RPGs.

This I 100% agree with. I tend to err on the side of giving more information. For example, I had two campaign arc options planned for a group. They're pretty much exclusive--either you go there and deal with those, or you go the other place and deal with the other things. So I talked to them OOC and gave them a brief rundown on the types of things they'd encounter and the basic terrain:

1) You'll be in the jungle, mainly facing beasts and wild tribes, leading up to dragons and ancient technology.

OR

2) You'll be in the forest/ancient ruins, dealing with orcs leading to undead leading to demons.

That way, they can make informed choices that are based on their character and on their own personal desires. After all, the point is to have fun.

Cozzer
2017-10-26, 07:31 AM
Yeah, in most cases you don't even need to go OOC, I think. It's usually enough if the GM doesn't try to replicate these cool "everything you thought you knew was wrong!" moments they saw in their favorite books, movies or videogames. It's a pitfall even pretty good GMs tend to fall into, in my experience, because these moments are actually pretty cool and it would be great to replicate them. It's just that the RPG medium has very different strengths.

NichG
2017-10-26, 07:37 AM
The neat thing with information is that it can be presented in a way that makes the player feel as if they're actually seizing agency rather than being given agency - associated with those moments of figuring out what the levers are which can move the world. This is something that works best alongside very open-ended situations, otherwise it risks being a 'guess the puzzle to advance' type of thing which has very little actual agency.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-26, 07:44 AM
The neat thing with information is that it can be presented in a way that makes the player feel as if they're actually seizing agency rather than being given agency - associated with those moments of figuring out what the levers are which can move the world. This is something that works best alongside very open-ended situations, otherwise it risks being a 'guess the puzzle to advance' type of thing which has very little actual agency.

Agreed. My main group is very good with this, and the format allows them to decide to make sweeping changes. For them, I don't really plan campaign arcs much in advance. I know what their short-term goals are (because they've told me) and what they'll need (or are planning to do) to accomplish them. Beyond that? Depends on where they are.

They've done lots of things that totally surprised me, both session-to-session and more large-scale. I didn't expect them to try to found a fantasy UN, for example. That shaped a huge chunk of the campaign.

Scripten
2017-10-26, 08:51 AM
Like anything, this is the point where the idea of agency jumps the shark and goes screaming off in to the woods with its underpants on its head.


Is it, though?

Keep in mind that the post I was replying to (in retrospect I should have quoted it) was talking about the players choosing between an adventure with goblins and an adventure with kobolds. The players have no knowledge of what either of these creatures are, which means that their agency is limited by lack of knowledge. Once they have done their kobold adventure, perhaps they later decide to go on a goblin adventure or they otherwise find out that goblins are the exact same as kobolds. Don't you think they would feel cheated?

At best, the DM could present goblins as something different during that later encounter, but in that case the choice actually affected how goblins exist in that DM's setting.



I am not interested in the opinions of third party campaign-monitors who are going to go through my DM notes and mark me out of 10 on "Agency" or any other false goal.

The point is that playing a smoke and mirrors game with your players only works for so long. If the players make choices that should give them one experience, then giving them a different experience, in spite of the confines of the setting's internal logic, breaks the consistency of that setting. PheonixPyre already broke this down quite well.

If you have two hallways and the players have seen that one leads to an ogre and another leads to a dragon, then they should encounter an ogre down one hall and a dragon down another, essentially. If you only prepared an ogre and can't come up with a dragon encounter on the fly, then don't present that illusory choice.



Claiming it is "a violation of trust" is outlandishly hyperbolic - the players "trust" you to give them a fun gaming session, not to adhere to some carved-in-stone code of DM behavoir that places agency up on a pedestal above all other things. Yes, agency often does contribute to giving them that fun session, but there are times when it can form a straight-jacket that hinders giving them the very best session they could experience, and then, it should be sacrificed without hesitation.

Can you present me with an example of where limiting agency leads to a situation that is more fun than allowing for it? Remember that providing players agency is more than just giving the players two identical doors and pretending there is an actual choice being made.

Lord Torath
2017-10-26, 09:02 AM
Speak for yourself.

I want my choices as a player to actually matter, not just appear to matter, even if the outcome is less "fun".

And if nothing my character does can avoid that pre-planned encounter with that ogre, then the game isn't fun anyway.This comes into the different definitions of "fun." In games you play in, it's very important for you to have a large amount of agency. If denied that, you're not going to have fun, and you're not going to go home talking about what a great session you just had. Anyone DMing for you needs to keep that in mind. In other groups, "fun" might not hinge so much on agency, but perhaps on having an exciting encounter. In both cases, a "fun" session is the goal, but the players may have different definitions of "fun".

As for the last part, I find the quantum ogre* works fairly well, as long as once the ogre waveform has collapsed, it stays there (where "wave form collapse" occurs the first time the party discovers information - first-hand or otherwise - that fixes its location). The ruins are in whatever direction the PCs start out in, until they talk to a scout who tells them the ruins lie to the south.

* For ogres of various species, quantities, and geological arrangements.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-26, 09:53 AM
As for the last part, I find the quantum ogre* works fairly well, as long as once the ogre waveform has collapsed, it stays there (where "wave form collapse" occurs the first time the party discovers information - first-hand or otherwise - that fixes its location). The ruins are in whatever direction the PCs start out in, until they talk to a scout who tells them the ruins lie to the south.

* For ogres of various species, quantities, and geological arrangements.

Possibly rephrase this as "nothing is fixed until the information comes out in play?"

I tend to know that (say) there are ogres and dragons out there. I then reveal (if the players ask about local threats) that fact. When they take steps to avoid one of the two (and thereby accept the other), then the waveform collapses. I may not have fixed which one was north and which one was south, but once they decide "we're going south to avoid the ogres which we believe (based on information gathered) are to the north," then putting the ogres to the south would be a breach of agency in the absence of external forces such as a) a lying informant, b) ogres that are hunting the party explicitly and know of their movements, or something else like that. And any such thing would have had to have been telegraphed way in advance and very clearly.

Lord Torath
2017-10-26, 10:24 AM
Possibly rephrase this as "nothing is fixed until the information comes out in play?"

I tend to know that (say) there are ogres and dragons out there. I then reveal (if the players ask about local threats) that fact. When they take steps to avoid one of the two (and thereby accept the other), then the waveform collapses. I may not have fixed which one was north and which one was south, but once they decide "we're going south to avoid the ogres which we believe (based on information gathered) are to the north," then putting the ogres to the south would be a breach of agency in the absence of external forces such as a) a lying informant, b) ogres that are hunting the party explicitly and know of their movements, or something else like that. And any such thing would have had to have been telegraphed way in advance and very clearly.That sums it up very nicely! That's also the idea I always got from the Quantum Ogre article.

Cozzer
2017-10-26, 10:42 AM
I don't know, I think it works for the "first act" of an adventure, where the characters are still more or less aimingless and you need to throw a few interesting things their way. But after that, every important thing that happens needs to be at least in part the consequence of something that has happened before, so the chances to use the quantum ogre strategy become fewer and fewer.

I mean, if you compare the campaign to a TV series, the quantum ogre is appliable only in the first three/four minutes of each episode (and, I don't know, maybe during the whole first episode of a season... you get the idea). You can say that whatever city the party travelled to is the city where they learn of the existence of a certain villain by happening to find one of his victims, but after that you can't say whatever city they travel to is the city where the villain's lair is located.

All of this is all IMO, of course, but the quantum ogre used more than halfway through a plot makes the whole thing feel like very railroady.

Segev
2017-10-26, 11:01 AM
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.

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.

Thinker
2017-10-26, 11:22 AM
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.

.

My outlook is in-line with your interface-point idea. Just about any information that a player should know should be accessible through their character sheet in some way. This extends beyond mechanics and to the world itself - character backgrounds, goals, alignment, etc. is all an attempt to help bring the player into line with the world around it.

Frozen_Feet
2017-10-26, 11:31 AM
I hold that "Quantum Ogre" is a misnomer and the form that peeves people ought to be called "the Inevitable Ogre", because that captures the crux of the problem much better than the extended quantum mechanics metaphor.

---

So back to "how do you measure agency? How do you test it?"

As mentioned, you measure agency in number of possible actions, or game moves. There are a couple of problems in counting these, however. First is that RPGs are typically games of incomplete information. While playing the game, you do not usually know how many valid game moves you have before trying. This is different from, say, Chess, where after the basic rules have been explained, you always know how many valid moves you have at each turn.

Second, a typical RPG adventure is only played once. So there's no cross-comparison between playthroughs which would allow for objective measuring of impact of player actions. This is different from, say, a typical video game, where a save game function or multiple playthroughs allow a player to gauge impact of different actions.

Third, there is an alluring bad faith trap that must be dodged. That is, due to the above two things, whenever a living person runs the game and claims you have a choice, you can always accuse them of lying or setting you up. To get around this, you must start with assumption that choices presented are honest and only withdraw this assumption in face of actual proof. (How to prove another person is lying is, of course, a problem of its own.)

Given these, how can you test for agency? Well, during the game, you can gauge it based on causality of game events. If X leads to Y, and Y is important, and it's not plausible for the GM to have invented either X or Y beforehand, that's evidence of agency. Example: your character is a local duke's prisoner and the GM asks you, "why are you imprisoned?" If your answer is "because I'm the duke's no-good alcoholic father" and this later leads to the duke chewing your character out for being a poor dad, it's pretty evident that you both had a choice and that your choice had an impact. The opposite hypothesis, that you had no agency regarding this, would've required the GM to know beforehand what you were going to do, and is implausible.

Outside the game, you can of course try to get hands on the GM's notes and try to analyze structure of the game scenario. For example, if your character gets arrested and put into jail because of a criminal thing you chose to do, but you can find no mention of player characters needing to be jailed from the game notes, the most plausible explanation is that it was the GM's spontaneous reaction to your action. Again, evidence that you had agency, this time you just used it to screw yourself over. (Of course, here it would be most tempting to pull out the bad faith accusation and claim that the GM really always wanted your character jailed and just didn't write it down to maintain plausible deniability.)

Finally, there is metagame consistency. If you play multiple adventures and multiple different characters under the same GM, or observe others do this, you can compare how the GM reacts to different player decisions from similar initial positions. The most revealing case would be watching how a GM runs the same adventure to different players, or how the GM runs the same adventure to the same players with different characters.

Aotrs Commander
2017-10-26, 12:06 PM
I am a preparation-heavy DM, who typically runs a hybrid 3.x and a hybrid Rolemaster. As such, I am always running adventue paths or modules (be they actual or just essentially modules). So, in order for the game to exist, to me, player agency in my games is more about the fine details than the broad strokes. (As a rule, my players are well-used and good at meeting me halfway to th point eh one and only time i experimented with something vaguely freeform the total lack of input meant it was pointless). Thus, the PCs will be set up (for example), for example, to inflitrate a convoy, investigate a mystery, explore a location etc. The how they do that is up to them. Now, I can and have improvised a bit if the players go WAY off-base (which only happened seriously once in... twenty-eight years last Tuesday 1), but basically just to get them back on track.

at the end of the day, there comes a point when you have to decide between living with some reduced agency (i.e. not being to be able to go off and do anything as mood strikes you) and having no game at all. Since, at least for me, in the case the players basically say "we don't want to do this adventure, we want to do something else" I would have to go "whelp, that's the end of the campaign/session then chaps." Which benefits no-one.

(In such a hypothetical situation, it is also quite possible that such an occurance would reseult from a player-DM disconnect, in which the adventure the players want to play is not one the DM wants to run.)

(Qualifier: I have never had such an occurance - even the failed free-from was more just abandoned when I ran out of the little material I prepared.)

So, I think illusionism as a tool to be used as necessary - WHEN necessary - to ensure the game flows. (Though sometimes, yes, you just have to mark something up as a loss.) And if you do your craft right, the players will eithe never know and better, not care, because they are enjoying themselves too much.



Edit: On the other side of the screen, I probably should add, I am generally quite happy to go along with whatever the DM is running (even if I joke otherwise2) and generally try and show the same curtosy to my DM as I expect from my own players. (Heck, at one point, in a more free-form (evil) campaign run by a DM, I went out and swapped out my CE character for a LE anti-paladin for the explicit purpose of trying to keep the group more together and on task, something the Black Dagger was the antithesis of. (His crowning achievement was entirely unsupported idea was, in the given the arctic environments of the campaign world, to change the economy to be based on snow, so he would be rich.) I was having a little bit too much fun with him, and after an (in-character) confrontation with one of the other players (who was a bit touchy, but in my defence, was playing a succubus (in a level 6 party, the DM not really getting the whole LA thing), subtly mind-controlling everyone and just got rid of his favorutie magical doofer) led to said player storming out (the one and only time that has ever happened), I decided that he was not helping the game. (So I talked to the DM and swapped him out. the DM, who liked the character quite a lot, was a bit put out, I think, but agreed.)

(I smoother things over with the player, by-the-by who was feeling a bit guilty she'd overreacted, by the by; while I don't like to have to exercise it for choice, I actually am pretty good at the communications thing...)



1Since my roleplaying career started when I got HeroQuest for my 10th birthday.

2There was a campiagn one of our group ran that he'd gotten from the web, set of Faerun, whereby the partyt were cursed with some sort of doofer than pulled us along in a particular direction. So we made a running gag about wanting to go off to the Bay of Dancing Dolphins (we have NO idea what is actually there, is just sounded jolly), but at no point did we ever do more than cheerfully grumble at what amounts to probably most people, fairly unsubtle railroading on the camapign's part.

Nifft
2017-10-26, 12:06 PM
Like anything, this is the point where the idea of agency jumps the shark and goes screaming off in to the woods with its underpants on its head. Hyperbole; unhelpful mockery.


Agency is a tool, not a goal.

The goal is to give the players a fun, exciting, and engaging game. No other goal matters. The role of "Agency" is to facilitate that, because players tend to have more fun, and be more engaged when their actions and ideas matter (and I say tend, because that is not an absolute rule, some players just want to watch a story unfold). Accurate in parts, but with some very misleading text in the middle.

The goal is not to give the players a good game. The goal is to enjoy a good game with the players.

The DM is not selling a book, the DM is not selling a video-game, the DM is not selling an interactive dining experience. The DM is playing the game with the PCs.

That said, it's accurate that agency is one tool with which a DM can improve a game.


Setting "Agency" as the goal is putting the cart before the horse - providing agency at all cost serves no benefit if the players are not having fun, and aren't engaged. The thread is about one aspect of fun.

If you fail at this aspect, there will be less fun.

Improving the Agency aspect of a game is not somehow in competition with improving the fun. It's one part of how to improve the fun.


I am not interested in the opinions of third party campaign-monitors who are going to go through my DM notes and mark me out of 10 on "Agency" or any other false goal. The only people that matter to me are the people around the table. If they are happy, I have succeeded at what I aimed to do. If they have not, I have failed. When you fail, would you prefer to be able to improve your game?

Or would you prefer to have no options for improvement?

It sounds like you're saying: "I don't need that tool right now, therefore there's no point in anybody ever using that tool."

Gotta say, that's about the least-constructive attitude I've seen here.


For that reason, I strongly dispute the collective sniffing being done at illusionary agency. It is just as an acceptable tool as real agency if it achieves the goal of helping the players enjoy the session. And the fact is, illusionary agency has its place. "Because illusionism sometimes works, therefore real agency is not important."

You're saying something very strange here.


Overall, it seems like you have one specific truth which is accurate ("Agency is a tool") but you don't understand the value nor the limitations of that truth.

Anonymouswizard
2017-10-26, 12:13 PM
Speak for yourself.

I want my choices as a player to actually matter, not just appear to matter, even if the outcome is less "fun".

And if nothing my character does can avoid that pre-planned encounter with that ogre, then the game isn't fun anyway.

What if I admit I'm quantum ogreing? I have previously called a ten minute break to rework my plot because I've for nothing else prepared (before that I used to use plot armour, now I just give important NPCs backups and successors). I might not run the exact same encounter, but I need a reason for you to run across the scenario start (I'm a believer in providing PCs with a plot hook then giving no guidance).

I also run quantum settings. Generally there is a city (or potentially an interstellar federation/commonwealth/empire), some NPCs, and a whole lot of uncollapsed waveform. Is there a wizard's guild? If it improves the plot. Do orcs exist? Does the king have a son? This are all up in the air until a player asks or answers the question. Sometimes this is worked out in session zero, sometimes a question isn't asked until the penultimate session.

kivzirrum
2017-10-26, 12:21 PM
Speak for yourself.

I want my choices as a player to actually matter, not just appear to matter, even if the outcome is less "fun".

And if nothing my character does can avoid that pre-planned encounter with that ogre, then the game isn't fun anyway.

How can you say this for sure? In theory, couldn't the DM do it in such a way that you do not know that the ogre battle would have occurred no matter your decisions?

I also like my choices to actually matter when I'm playing a character, because that's what I find to be fun. But if the game was fun and I didn't realize I was following the DM's pre-planned path... eh? I guess I couldn't really complain, not if I'm having a good time :smalltongue:

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-26, 12:23 PM
What if I admit I'm quantum ogreing? I have previously called a ten minute break to rework my plot because I've for nothing else prepared (before that I used to use plot armour, now I just give important NPCs backups and successors). I might not run the exact same encounter, but I need a reason for you to run across the scenario start (I'm a believer in providing PCs with a plot hook then giving no guidance).

I also run quantum settings. Generally there is a city (or potentially an interstellar federation/commonwealth/empire), some NPCs, and a whole lot of uncollapsed waveform. Is there a wizard's guild? If it improves the plot. Do orcs exist? Does the king have a son? This are all up in the air until a player asks or answers the question. Sometimes this is worked out in session zero, sometimes a question isn't asked until the penultimate session.

I do quite a bit of the quantum setting--I'll only build things at a high level until the players approach the area, then dig deeper on things they are likely to encounter.

For example, one city had the following entry in my notes (before the players went there):

+ Ruins of old Iron Dominions capital. Underground tunnels with dwarves and gnome survivors. Isolated. Magitech.

Once the players said they were going there (at the end of a session), I expanded it based on a session's worth of things around the possible entry points. I knew they would be using the (already established) portal network to get there, and that a city that size would have had several portal entries. From there, based on their choices I built the rest of the city, leaving things vague where they didn't interact. And their interaction shaped how the city was built (within reason). They didn't demand things--but if they naturally assumed something was there, then it makes sense that it was (unless there was a reason for it not to be there). Everything grew from there--I'd ask myself: "I know (fact X). Why would it be like that?" Once I had an answer for that, the question became "so what other things are a consequence of that?" but only as far as they were going to get in a session or so. My initial idea of what was there changed pretty drastically by the time they were done with that area.

Now if they go back to that city, the basic facts on the ground are set and won't change. The politics will (they took a wrecking ball to the status quo, after all), but the locations of the portal entries and the districts around them won't have significantly altered unless the NPCs did so.

Honest Tiefling
2017-10-26, 12:24 PM
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.

Aotrs Commander
2017-10-26, 12:36 PM
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).

Quertus
2017-10-26, 12:38 PM
There is no way I'm going to be able to keep up with this thread! But I'm loving it so far. A few things I saw while skimming the responses:


I can't wait for Darth Ultron to crash his way into this thread like Kool-aid man and then ramble his way through a subject he has no comprehension of.

/S

Well, I created this thread largely for him. I mean... Hmmm... Actually, I'm quite interested in whether we, the playground, are able to explore an idea without DU's help. The best experiment, IMO, would be for him not to jump in until the thread dies down, and then we see how much more we uncover after his involvement.

Ok, Playground, you've been challenged: can you discuss and dissect ideas without DU, at the same level that you do when you are explaining things to him?


+ 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.

I missed this in my own personal definition of Player Agency. As an extremist of anti-railroading & pro-agency, it's not surprising that I care extremely much about knowledge (Quertus, my signature charter for whom this account is named, had invented more custom intimation-gathering spells than there are published spells in core, for example), yet I still hadn't realized how integral to agency Knowledge is.


Like anything, this is the point where the idea of agency jumps the shark and goes screaming off in to the woods with its underpants on its head.

Agency is a tool, not a goal.

The goal is to give the players a fun, exciting, and engaging game. No other goal matters. The role of "Agency" is to facilitate that, because players tend to have more fun, and be more engaged when their actions and ideas matter (and I say tend, because that is not an absolute rule, some players just want to watch a story unfold). Setting "Agency" as the goal is putting the cart before the horse - providing agency at all cost serves no benefit if the players are not having fun, and aren't engaged.



I am not interested in the opinions of third party campaign-monitors who are going to go through my DM notes and mark me out of 10 on "Agency" or any other false goal. The only people that matter to me are the people around the table. If they are happy, I have succeeded at what I aimed to do. If they have not, I have failed. If they leave the table beaming and chatting excitedly I do not care how much or how little agency I provided, because that is not the purpose of us sitting down together.


That said, it's accurate that agency is one tool with which a DM can improve a game.

The thread is about one aspect of fun.

If you fail at this aspect, there will be less fun.

Improving the Agency aspect of a game is not somehow in competition with improving the fun. It's one part of how to improve the fun.

When you fail, would you prefer to be able to improve your game?

Or would you prefer to have no options for improvement?

As stated above, I am am extremist, being very anti-railroading and very pro-agency. But opinions on how good or bad railroading or agency are should be irrelevant to this thread. We're not here to discuss whether Blue is a pretty color, were here to discuss how to define - and, if possible, measure -blue.

Now, yes, if your game didn't rate at least a 9.5 for Agency, we're gonna have some issues, and if it isn't at least an 8.7, I'm not playing at all. :smalltongue:

So, if it is possible to measure such things, it could be handy for making sure you have matching expectations. Evaluating what Player Agency even means is the purpose of this thread. Uses of this knowledge to improve your game, or match games and players, while a logical application of such knowledge, are technically beyond the scope of this thread.

Honest Tiefling
2017-10-26, 12:44 PM
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!

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-26, 12:53 PM
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).

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?

kyoryu
2017-10-26, 01:05 PM
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.

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.

Honest Tiefling
2017-10-26, 01:11 PM
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?

Even events on a smaller scale can be entertaining for those who don't need as much of a free-form game. Can they become heroes to a small town? Can they save certain NPCs? Can they convert NPCs?

I think there needs to be a distinction between a free-form game and a game with no agency. In a free-form game, the structure, the plot and the encounters are far more up to the player. But while the agency of a more directed game might be smaller events and less about the nature of the game, it's still there.

BRC
2017-10-26, 01:14 PM
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.

Thinker
2017-10-26, 01:16 PM
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.

Aotrs Commander
2017-10-26, 01:36 PM
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.

Well, let's put it this way... The person most familiar with the mechanics of the game is me, and I like to (within a mid-high level of reasonableness) optimise and I believe combined arms, so yeah... (Not-Atypical boss encounter As Done By Bleakbane: BBEG, BBEG's arcane caster support, BBEG's divine caster support, BBEG's melee screen, BBEG's ranged troops, BBEG's skirmishers... (etc!))



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.

Oh, being a prep-heavy DM, my players know well in advance what's going to be run next! (Years, sometimes, given the length of an AP verses the time it takes to play one; I mentioned RotRL specifically, since it's the first one we played - we're doing the first bit of Shackled City before we do the latter half1... And, for various reasons, it took us four years to even get started on it (by the time we'd started the anniversay edtion had come out...)) So there is virtually no chance unless you;re new of turning up at one of my games without a good idea of what's coming.

Occasionally, one or two players will not be bothered about playing something I'm going to run, but as those sort of more atypical things tend to be more annual day-quests than weekly ones (where I have Even More players who might come), that's not an issue. (One player does not like Undead, so passed on playing the Aotrs- party conistsing of Liches

(Granted, "session zero" tends to be less of a discussion, in our group, and more of me going "right, I'm going to do this next, unless anyone else wants to do something? No? Okay, then?1" But the principal is the same.)

I keep my players updated on stuff from The Plan (i.e. what we're going to be doing next - or rather, what I plan to do next, discounting when/if anyone else wants to run something between) and mechanics tweaks (most of which is treated with more of a "nod and smile" fashion by the players most of the time...! Woe betide the poor unfortunate that does daft things like ask for all the hybrid rules. for they shall be supplied in all their extensive hybrid-aring glory and all the lists and lists of spells and feats for Stuff What Is In Use3 and such...!)




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?

Without spoilers, it's more of a save-the-things (town/country/world/civilisation as we know it) sort of campaign, so respectively: qualified yes where milage varies (i.e. whether you would think that completing AP goals of "Saving the Things" constitutes agency or not, since while the PCs could fail, its sort of assumed that the PCs will be intended to succeed and that's where the focus of the stuff provided lies), ditto, not really, yes and yes. (At least as I am run it; as always, variance depends on how much work the DM is prepared (or has the time/energy) to put in to expand/modify etc and so on, where any or all of the above could be changed to "yes" (or "no...!"))



1Given the levels involved, the hybrid system and mid-high optimisation levels and larger-than-typical party size (about seven characters), is wasn't practical to prepare to run a whole AP in one go, so my plan is to be preparing and running APs in alternating chunks. (Told you it was "years!")

2I'm being slightly hyperbolic here. One other chap sometimes runs 4E (from modules) - usually between me running for a break - and one other chap ran a wild west game for a few weeks, and I can usually cadge someone to run one or two of our four annual day-quest sessions (as opposed to the weekly games).

3There is not frequently a question of what is allowed and what isn't in my games, since for most things, There Is A List. (Okay, PrCs I deal with on an indivdiual basis, but most other stuff, any question is largely pre-answered.)

OldTrees1
2017-10-26, 01:44 PM
Well, I created this thread largely for him. I mean... Hmmm... Actually, I'm quite interested in whether we, the playground, are able to explore an idea without DU's help. The best experiment, IMO, would be for him not to jump in until the thread dies down, and then we see how much more we uncover after his involvement.

Ok, Playground, you've been challenged: can you discuss and dissect ideas without DU, at the same level that you do when you are explaining things to him?


Challenge accepted. There are many nuances that we cannot really touch upon with Darth Ultron but can with each other. Let's be comprehensive in our definition here.

First: I think we all agree that a necessary condition for a person to be a player in a game is for them to be capable of interaction with the game. If nothing the person does has any impact at all, then we should consider the person and "game" in question as independent and unrelated. I, a person, can be described as playing a game of chess with a normal board and pieces. I cannot be described as playing a game of chess if the pieces are all glued in place (no interaction possible --> no playing possible).

Second: Even in games with only 1 kind of interaction (cite one-button games here), the player is faced with choices of which of their interactions to use or to abstain from interacting at that time.

Third: Now that we have the background covered. It is time to discuss Meaningful Choices. I will note that the meaning of Meaningful can be subjective, especially as it applies to a specific case. So this is a good place for us to dissect further (both in the minimum case and in the ideal case).

To my understanding a choice needs the following characteristics for it to qualify as a Meaningful Choice in the context of enabling the possibility of Player Agency:
A: The Players need to be aware of the choice they face and be sufficiently informed about the choice. This does not require they know everything or even understand a majority of the situation. Sufficiently informed is defined by the following criteria.
B: The choice needs to have multiple outcomes and those outcomes need to be the result of differences between the options. To be sufficiently informed, the players need to know enough of those relevant differences that their limited information could be used to map the differences between the options to the difference outcomes.*

*Obviously there can be relevant differences that the players are not exposed to and those differences will also impact the outcome. However that is merely reminding us that many meaningful choices are contained within the context of a larger choice (the knowable and unknowable details of the choice).

Fourth. Now we have the concept of meaningful choices. In practice, meaningful choices are how a player is able to intentionally impact the shape of the game. This can range from really small scale (choosing to save person A vs person B) to large scale (reshaping the socio-economic structure of the material plane through a long chain of actions and interactions). It can range from infrequent to frequent. This is Player Agency.

Different campaigns will choose different shapes and sizes of Player Agency. It makes little sense to allow plane warping player agency in a campaign with the lovecraftian horror motif of insignificant & depowered. But such a game would still have Player Agency in the shape of the investigations made and the attempted plans to survive/stay sane.

This is also why it is so important to include player agency in a RPG. Without player agency, the people are not actually interacting with the game.

kyoryu
2017-10-26, 02:07 PM
Player Agency exists on three levels.

This is a very good framework. Most of the issue is really about allowing/preventing agency on the 2nd level, while the 3rd is then tossed about as a strawman.

Frozen_Feet
2017-10-26, 02:37 PM
What if I admit I'm quantum ogreing? I have previously called a ten minute break to rework my plot because I've for nothing else prepared (before that I used to use plot armour, now I just give important NPCs backups and successors). I might not run the exact same encounter, but I need a reason for you to run across the scenario start (I'm a believer in providing PCs with a plot hook then giving no guidance).

I also run quantum settings. Generally there is a city (or potentially an interstellar federation/commonwealth/empire), some NPCs, and a whole lot of uncollapsed waveform. Is there a wizard's guild? If it improves the plot. Do orcs exist? Does the king have a son? This are all up in the air until a player asks or answers the question. Sometimes this is worked out in session zero, sometimes a question isn't asked until the penultimate session.

Your latter paragraph is pretty far removed from what the usual complaint about "Quantum Ogres" is about. Again, if you ask me, a better name would be "Inevitable Ogre", as the key issue is that there will be an ogre no matter what.

By contrast, your "quantum setting" talks about details which haven't even been decided yet, so can't be inevitable. Your examples are closer to randomly generating the setting, than the Inevitable Ogre.

You can do random and improvized setting building in ways that reduces or removes player agency, but in other respects it's pretty much on the opposite end of the spectrum from the Inevitable Ogre.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-26, 02:50 PM
Your latter paragraph is pretty far removed from what the usual complaint about "Quantum Ogres" is about. Again, if you ask me, a better name would be "Inevitable Ogre", as the key issue is that there will be an ogre no matter what.

By contrast, your "quantum setting" talks about details which haven't even been decided yet, so can't be inevitable. Your examples are closer to randomly generating the setting, than the Inevitable Ogre.

You can do random and improvized setting building in ways that reduces or removes player agency, but in other respects it's pretty much on the opposite end of the spectrum from the Inevitable Ogre.

"Inevitable Ogre" is a probably better term, both because it's more accurate to the situation, and because "quantum ogre" pulls in a lot of pop-science ideas about "uncertainty" and "observer" and such into the conversation unnecessarily.

Segev
2017-10-26, 03:21 PM
I still like "quantum ogre" as it's a more fun term, and I think "inevitable ogre" is a little ... no, I take that back. In every case quantum ogre comes up, the inevitability is present.

So "inevitable ogre" works.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-26, 03:24 PM
"Inevitable Ogre" is a probably better term, both because it's more accurate to the situation, and because "quantum ogre" pulls in a lot of pop-science ideas about "uncertainty" and "observer" and such into the conversation unnecessarily.


I still like "quantum ogre" as it's a more fun term, and I think "inevitable ogre" is a little ... no, I take that back. In every case quantum ogre comes up, the inevitability is present.

So "inevitable ogre" works.

I agree. I have a knee-jerk reaction to anyone using "quantum" in any non-sub-atomic physics context. But that's a personal problem. Inevitable ogre works better for me as well.

wumpus
2017-10-26, 03:29 PM
Actual events.

It should be possible for a disinterested 3rd party to read through a game later and determine the degree of player agency.

That's just illusionism.

It's why multiple-choice questions are lower-agency indicators than free-form or open questions.

The real question here is if this 3rd party needs to see the DM's notes or not to determine player agency.

Note that "free form" and "open question" depend a lot from the player. If a DM gives them the choice between "city A" and "city B", it isn't clear if the DM should reward a player for metagaming the source of the names with a slightly better city. It should be clear that if they are looking for a specific thing and did some sort of research (divination, bardic lore, gather information, hire a sage) to determine the better city they should wind up in the "better city" (assuming they got a good roll on the information source).

Should a DM have an answer to all possible outcomes? Should a metagaming player be rewarded for guessing many of those outcomes? And how much should a DM railroad to avoid forcing the players to make choices without information (that would still require them to have "agency").

Frozen_Feet
2017-10-26, 03:47 PM
1) Should a DM have an answer to all possible outcomes? 2) Should a metagaming player be rewarded for guessing many of those outcomes? 3) And how much should a DM railroad to avoid forcing the players to make choices without information (that would still require them to have "agency")?

In order:

1) No because it's too much of work. The whole point of using a living human as a GM is that no-one needs to think of all possible answers beforehand.

2) You're essentially asking "should a player be rewarded for guessing their GM's thoughts?" The answer is "no, because a player who can do that will already do better in the game".

3) I don't understand the question. Please replace "railroad" with a functional verb.

Nifft
2017-10-26, 03:55 PM
The real question here is if this 3rd party needs to see the DM's notes or not to determine player agency. The Agents of the Agency Agency are bound by law and duty to evaluate the notes of every DM, which is why I for one support our new ubiquitous corporate surveillance state.

But seriously: No.

IMHO you should be able to read a thread of a PbP, or sit in on a couple of game sessions, and you'd probably have enough data to determine the objective status of Player Agency in that game. You'd be able to point to the sorts of decisions which players are making and characterize the decisions, and the results.



Note that "free form" and "open question" depend a lot from the player. If a DM gives them the choice between "city A" and "city B", it isn't clear if the DM should reward a player for metagaming the source of the names with a slightly better city. It should be clear that if they are looking for a specific thing and did some sort of research (divination, bardic lore, gather information, hire a sage) to determine the better city they should wind up in the "better city" (assuming they got a good roll on the information source).

Should a DM have an answer to all possible outcomes? Should a metagaming player be rewarded for guessing many of those outcomes? And how much should a DM railroad to avoid forcing the players to make choices without information (that would still require them to have "agency").

Giving players too little info can be a type of illusionist railroading.

IMHO it's very much preferable to tell the players enough about the setting that they can make at least a partially informed decisions about City A vs. City B, and not rely on metagaming.

jayem
2017-10-26, 04:55 PM
Should a DM have an answer to all possible outcomes? Should a metagaming player be rewarded for guessing many of those outcomes? And how much should a DM railroad to avoid forcing the players to make choices without information (that would still require them to have "agency").

if the DM has an explicit prepared answer to all possible actions, that's a worrying sign. It's not a game with only a few good options like chess or draughts, if you've enumerated them all in detail to a depth of five choices then you've probably got most of them as reducing to trivial outcomes.
If you have an explicit prepared answer to only one of the possible actions that's also a worry.

On the whole, to stick with the chess metaphor. You know the immediate situation, and can quickly work out the general shape of (most) of the immediate possible options. You can probably guess a few lines of least resistance, and put more effort there (if they deviate to a slower path, then by definition their giving you time to sort things out, if the path they choose is sufficiently similar to one you've considered you can use some of that working, it's only if they find a short cut you're in trouble).
You can have some general principles that makes sensible answers to a lot of the questions a bit simpler, in the big city, big city stuff can be expected (can I find a tesco, probably, can I find a tractor, maybe not). Some elements may be mostly independent.

Pleh
2017-10-26, 05:04 PM
Possibly rephrase this as "nothing is fixed until the information comes out in play?"

I tend to know that (say) there are ogres and dragons out there. I then reveal (if the players ask about local threats) that fact. When they take steps to avoid one of the two (and thereby accept the other), then the waveform collapses. I may not have fixed which one was north and which one was south, but once they decide "we're going south to avoid the ogres which we believe (based on information gathered) are to the north," then putting the ogres to the south would be a breach of agency in the absence of external forces such as a) a lying informant, b) ogres that are hunting the party explicitly and know of their movements, or something else like that. And any such thing would have had to have been telegraphed way in advance and very clearly.

I believe this last part to be critical.

Player Agency really functions as a form of currency. By choosing to take action, you forsake alternatives. You make an investment by sacrificing resources strategically seeking the greatest reward for acceptable risk.

When in live play session, a DM is like a banker in monopoly. The have their own set of agency currency, but they also manage the total available pool of resources ("the bank").

The DM is in a precarious position not to conflate the game resource bank with their own moderator pool of resources. It devalues the spending power of the players for the DM to unfairly subsidize their own agency.

It is completely fair, however, for a DM to expend their own resources otherwise. Going back to your examples, in A) the lying informant, the informant has essentially been exhausted for this purpose. They are at best no longer reliable and at worst have just made some very dangerous enemies. Odds are good that this informant will receive uppance for this betrayal, thus they will not be a resource available to the DM anymore. Even if the character survives, they will no longer be trusted as a quest giver. If the DM decides to rez the slain informant, they are dumping game resources into a sink. This becomes an illusion breaking problem if the DM gets over focused on maintaining their lost investment and tries to fill the hole from the community resources, they can make the players feel that their limited resources can't compete with the whole bank.

In scenario B) the hunting Ogres, it also expends resources, because now the DM has cut off all Quantum Ogre waveforms that don't include the hunting ogres. They can't be ahead of the heroes, waiting to ambush them, unless they have an overland advantage (like geographical shortcuts, mounts, or teleportation). Even if the DM does this, it's fine if they use their own personal limits. If the DM keeps dumping these agency expenditures directly out of the bank, never taking into account that they themselves as a player aren't justified to treat the bank as their own bank account, this means the DM is putting all their chips in on one bet. If the players call the bet and come out with the better hand, it should not be easy for the DM's investments to recover. The players won a battle of escalation with luck and keen tactical investments of action.

TL;DR: any NPCs/monsters the DM plays as need to be adequately limited by their agency, just as the players are. Even "environmental hazards" such as "rocks fall" should not be considered a threat possessing omnipotent agency. Every actor in the game must be restricted to a finite amount of agency.

Coming at it from the other end, a scene in which the actors have zero agency is a "cutscene" and it isn't a game, just a prop to set up a game.

Psikerlord
2017-10-26, 06:31 PM
Agency is a tool, not a goal.

The goal is to give the players a fun, exciting, and engaging game. No other goal matters. The role of "Agency" is to facilitate that, because players tend to have more fun, and be more engaged when their actions and ideas matter (and I say tend, because that is not an absolute rule, some players just want to watch a story unfold). Setting "Agency" as the goal is putting the cart before the horse - providing agency at all cost serves no benefit if the players are not having fun, and aren't engaged.

For that reason, I strongly dispute the collective sniffing being done at illusionary agency. It is just as an acceptable tool as real agency if it achieves the goal of helping the players enjoy the session. And the fact is, illusionary agency has its place. Barring the mythical "perfect DM" who can create intriguing fun plots and events on the fly (and they do exist, but expecting every DM to be that is setting yourself up for disappointment), a DM has a finite amount of time to create material for his session. I have no issue with invoking the quantum ogre if the parties decisions cause them to sidestep a fun, involved encounter that I know they would enjoy. Especially if they will never realise that their decision should have caused them to miss the encounter. To me giving the players that enjoyment is more important that slavishly adhering to the god of agency. Claiming it is "a violation of trust" is outlandishly hyperbolic - the players "trust" you to give them a fun gaming session, not to adhere to some carved-in-stone code of DM behavoir that places agency up on a pedestal above all other things. Yes, agency often does contribute to giving them that fun session, but there are times when it can form a straight-jacket that hinders giving them the very best session they could experience, and then, it should be sacrificed without hesitation.

100% agree.

And once you introduce a few random tables etc, it can be said that even the GM didnt know what was going to unfold originally anyway. So you end up with a kind of half baked quantum ogre.

Psikerlord
2017-10-26, 06:47 PM
What if I admit I'm quantum ogreing? I have previously called a ten minute break to rework my plot because I've for nothing else prepared (before that I used to use plot armour, now I just give important NPCs backups and successors). I might not run the exact same encounter, but I need a reason for you to run across the scenario start (I'm a believer in providing PCs with a plot hook then giving no guidance).

I also run quantum settings. Generally there is a city (or potentially an interstellar federation/commonwealth/empire), some NPCs, and a whole lot of uncollapsed waveform. Is there a wizard's guild? If it improves the plot. Do orcs exist? Does the king have a son? This are all up in the air until a player asks or answers the question. Sometimes this is worked out in session zero, sometimes a question isn't asked until the penultimate session.

I'm totally on board with this and imagine this is how most GMs run their games.

Indeed, I am a big fan of getting players to detail parts of the world too - esp parts arising from their PC history. So you say your character was a slave in a mountain fortress. Who lived there, how did he escape, are there secret ways into the mountain your PC has heard about - happy for the player to make all this up on the spot mid session, and help build up the world with the GM/other players.

Psikerlord
2017-10-26, 06:50 PM
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).
Yes true if you agree to an adventure path, then everyone ought to stick with it (pending fun)

pwykersotz
2017-10-26, 07:46 PM
Can you present me with an example of where limiting agency leads to a situation that is more fun than allowing for it? Remember that providing players agency is more than just giving the players two identical doors and pretending there is an actual choice being made.

There are several times in my gaming experience (as a player) where my actions up to a certain point have led to an epic conclusion. Upon reaching the final moments, I have had control taken away as the GM narrates what I do based on what I have done up until this point, and triggers the epic ending, even though that is not what my character would have done. I was much happier with agency being taken from me in those cases. Or, in short, I like agency to be sacrificed on a micro scale for greater agency on a macro scale, and such a thing is usually a conversation between the GM and player.

To me, agency is about the ability to pursue the goals I want to pursue more than worrying about individual actions. Goals which have an impact on the story. If I'm the last Paladin of an order and I want to rebuild that order, a poor DM might tell me that I can do such a thing while knowing in the back of his mind that it's impossible and confusing me when every move I make gets stomped on. That is false agency, and I hate that. In such a case, I have been deceived into thinking I have the ability to accomplish something when I really don't.

That's not the limit of agency to me by any stretch, but it's the first thing that came to my mind.

georgie_leech
2017-10-26, 07:59 PM
Yes true if you agree to an adventure path, then everyone ought to stick with it (pending fun)

Bearing in mind that this criteria is flexible still. Like, Curse of Strahd is Semi-infamous for being relatively railroad heavy, but that didn't stop my players from causing a demon-scare in Valaki and causing no small amount of ensuing chaos.

That is, while the overall gist of adventure path can be followed, the DM isn't (or shouldn't be) straightjacketed to the sequence of events laid outany more than the players are.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-26, 08:22 PM
There are several times in my gaming experience (as a player) where my actions up to a certain point have led to an epic conclusion. Upon reaching the final moments, I have had control taken away as the GM narrates what I do based on what I have done up until this point, and triggers the epic ending, even though that is not what my character would have done. I was much happier with agency being taken from me in those cases. Or, in short, I like agency to be sacrificed on a micro scale for greater agency on a macro scale, and such a thing is usually a conversation between the GM and player.


I would never do that as a GM, and I would never tolerate that as a player.

Ever.

E: and I can't think of anyone I've played with who'd view it as a positive move by a GM.

OldTrees1
2017-10-26, 08:42 PM
I would never do that as a GM, and I would never tolerate that as a player.

Ever.

But a subgroup of other people would enjoy it as a player and would consider doing it as a GM if they knew their players would enjoy it.

Players need some Player Agency in order to even count as Players. However beyond that there are a multitude of factors for finding the right amount of Agency to grant to the Players. The theme/genre of the campaign might necessitate a greater/lesser baseline of agency. Different people have different points where they find Quantum/Inevitable Ogres to be a problem, so the GM might raise the amount of Agency to accommodate those preferences.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-26, 08:49 PM
On the term "Meaningful Choices":
It has been motioned by posters outside this thread that the term "meaningful choice" is a term devoid of, ironically, meaning. So I want to jump in on that momentarily.

To break it down to its bare building blocks, it refers to two things: Choices and Meaning.

Choice, in its barest definition, is the action which is selected when faced with two or more possibilities. By this, the only way to have false or illusory choice is if there is not really two options or greater, but rather only one possibility wearing two costumes.
I think we can all agree that when we say "false choice," we mean a choice between option A and option A but worded different. (As opposed to, perhaps, a choice made within a fictionalized context. Which has for realsies been posited as a possible definition and is in the running for the least sensical explanation I've ever seen. And I work with literally delusional people.)

Meaning: the second definition of Meaning in most dictionaries I can find points to things of Significance or Consequence. The choice must have consequences to count as being Meaningful.
So, therefore, different choices must lead to different outcomes for meaningful choice to be present.

So having meaningful choices in your game means, specifically:

There are multiple options, where each option chosen will have different outcomes.
Going to the Green Castle must produce something different from going to the Red Fortress beyond pallate.


At one point someone brought up Mechanical Differentiation vs. Narrative Differentiation.

As someone who plays a variety of games, I will put forward that of the two, Narrative Differentiation is the more important, but the Mechanical layer should support the Narrative layer as much as possible.

It may be the case that both Kobolds and Goblins have 10 hp and have an attack that deals 1d6+1 damage, and that the swap between the skin the statbox is wearing will not change much. If this is the case, AT LEAST give each something unique to make the experiences different. Perhaps the Kobold arena is littered with simple traps, while the Goblins have suicide bombers who run into battle with explosive barrels on their backs. This makes the experiences different in a meaningful way (there are observable differences.) And while, no, nobody would know that they were secretly the same math blocks running around in different narrative costumes, it can easily be assumed when they are nothing but bitey hitpoint sacks to whack that not much thought, creativity, or heart went into this encounter. And if there was no real meat to THIS version, the other was probably no better.

As far as I'm concerned, the consequences of a choice should be so obviously born from the choice itself, that the players wonder "what if we had done Y instead of X?" Because they see consequences that obviously stemmed from their choices, be they for good or ill or both. (Both is my favorite.)

kyoryu
2017-10-26, 09:06 PM
On the term "Meaningful Choices":
It has been motioned by posters outside this thread that the term "meaningful choice" is a term devoid of, ironically, meaning. So I want to jump in on that momentarily.

Choices that impact the "big question" that the game is about.

If your game is about defeating the BBEG, and your choices don't change how or if that happens, that's an issue. The fact that they change the personal relationships in a town on the way is irrelevant.

However, if your game is "about" the personal relationships in that town, then the ability to impact those is a meaningful choice.

pwykersotz
2017-10-26, 09:14 PM
I would never do that as a GM, and I would never tolerate that as a player.

Ever.

E: and I can't think of anyone I've played with who'd view it as a positive move by a GM.

I didn't particularly expect it to be a popular opinion. :smalltongue:

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-26, 09:20 PM
Choices that impact the "big question" that the game is about.

If your game is about defeating the BBEG, and your choices don't change how or if that happens, that's an issue. The fact that they change the personal relationships in a town on the way is irrelevant.

However, if your game is "about" the personal relationships in that town, then the ability to impact those is a meaningful choice.

You can certainly have choices with more significant consequences than others, which I'm not arguing for or against. I'm just talking about the baseline of what a Meaningful Choice entails. You can have Meaningful choices that don't have massive, long-term ripples, ie the Kobold/Goblin choice. The choice is still meaningful, even if it is not necessarily going to make the narrative take a whole new direction henceforth.

Glorthindel
2017-10-27, 03:32 AM
Can you present me with an example of where limiting agency leads to a situation that is more fun than allowing for it? Remember that providing players agency is more than just giving the players two identical doors and pretending there is an actual choice being made.

Easy. My current (well, almost, we finished a three year campaign last weekend) Dark Heresy group loves a fight. If a couple of hours go by without a chance to roll a damage dice or two, you can see them starting to get twitchy. But that is the players, not the characters, who quite reasonably, want to avoid bullets and gobs of plasma flying at their heads if it can be avoided. So this creates an occasional dissonance where the players (when acting in character) make a decision which is "good" for their characters, but bad for their own personal enjoyment. The players wanted the fight, but the characters didn't, so they took action to avoid the fight.

When that situation occurs, I tend to give them the fight anyway, but slightly adjust the scenario so that it looks like their characters actions have adjusted the fight in some way in their benefit (by drawing away or blocking reinforcements, or disabling some heavy weapon, both of which were never in the original fight as I planned it). They get the fight they wanted as players (so are happy), whilst believing their actions had some effect (even though they didn't). Had I slavishly adhered to the god of agency, I would have allowed ther actions to stand, not given them the fight the really wanted, and they would have gone away less happy.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-27, 06:33 AM
Easy. My current (well, almost, we finished a three year campaign last weekend) Dark Heresy group loves a fight. If a couple of hours go by without a chance to roll a damage dice or two, you can see them starting to get twitchy. But that is the players, not the characters, who quite reasonably, want to avoid bullets and gobs of plasma flying at their heads if it can be avoided. So this creates an occasional dissonance where the players (when acting in character) make a decision which is "good" for their characters, but bad for their own personal enjoyment. The players wanted the fight, but the characters didn't, so they took action to avoid the fight.

When that situation occurs, I tend to give them the fight anyway, but slightly adjust the scenario so that it looks like their characters actions have adjusted the fight in some way in their benefit (by drawing away or blocking reinforcements, or disabling some heavy weapon, both of which were never in the original fight as I planned it). They get the fight they wanted as players (so are happy), whilst believing their actions had some effect (even though they didn't). Had I slavishly adhered to the god of agency, I would have allowed ther actions to stand, not given them the fight the really wanted, and they would have gone away less happy.

So you ignored their stated in-character choices, and then lied to them, to "make them happy".

Of course, part of the problem here is that the players (or at least the players as you describe them) want combat to be a regular feature of the gameplay, but the game (specifically the setting) that's being run is one in which reasonable people (the characters) try to avoid combat if they can.

Anonymouswizard
2017-10-27, 07:42 AM
Your latter paragraph is pretty far removed from what the usual complaint about "Quantum Ogres" is about. Again, if you ask me, a better name would be "Inevitable Ogre", as the key issue is that there will be an ogre no matter what.

By contrast, your "quantum setting" talks about details which haven't even been decided yet, so can't be inevitable. Your examples are closer to randomly generating the setting, than the Inevitable Ogre.

You can do random and improvized setting building in ways that reduces or removes player agency, but in other respects it's pretty much on the opposite end of the spectrum from the Inevitable Ogre.

Oh sure, the latter part was in a separate paragraph because it was a separate thing. Should have used an extra line break.

But yeah, I use quantum/improvised settings to increase player agency (to a certain extent, the GM is a player too), not reduce it. This is why I answer yes more than no, I try to only answer no if it clashes with an established plot point (not perfect though).


I'm totally on board with this and imagine this is how most GMs run their games.

Indeed, I am a big fan of getting players to detail parts of the world too - esp parts arising from their PC history. So you say your character was a slave in a mountain fortress. Who lived there, how did he escape, are there secret ways into the mountain your PC has heard about - happy for the player to make all this up on the spot mid session, and help build up the world with the GM/other players.

Sure, although I've known people who've generated 90% of the setting the PCs can interact with before the campaign begins. It's not a problem, especially as they won't improvise many setting details to reduce agency. I do it because I don't like to say no to characters (beyond nonhuman races, I will compromise but I tend to run human only these days) or ideas that the player has, instead I'll try to run with them.

Glorthindel
2017-10-27, 08:06 AM
So you ignored their stated in-character choices, and then lied to them, to "make them happy".

Of course, part of the problem here is that the players (or at least the players as you describe them) want combat to be a regular feature of the gameplay, but the game (specifically the setting) that's being run is one in which reasonable people (the characters) try to avoid combat if they can.

Yep, and I would do again.

Which actually comes to the core of the issue of why generally (but not always) agency is a good thing - usually when we talk about "players not having agency" we are talking about a situation where the players want one thing, but the DM disregards their desires, and gives them something they specifically don't because he is too inflexible to react to the players actions. And this is universally, unequivocally a bad thing (as the players aren't happy, and unhappy players make an unengaged game, so the DM ends up unhappy - everyone loses).

Why I am argueing that the illusion of agency is a valid and worthy tool in a DMs arsenal, is because sometimes a situation occurs where the players actions push away from the things that they really want. It is not due to inflexibility or stubbornness that the DM chooses the approach - in fact, it might require more flexibility (since the situation has got to be altered to explain how the players choice achieved this result) and more willingness to bend (since a stubborn DM is more likely to go "its your fault things ended this way, deal with it). In such a situation giving them what they want (if it doesn't break the credibility of the setting and scenario) is worth sacrificing "true agency".

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-27, 08:14 AM
Illusionism is always suspect.

When it involves distorting the player's choices to give them what you think they want instead of what they say they want... it's doubly so.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-27, 08:26 AM
Illusionism is always suspect.

When it involves distorting the player's choices to give them what you think they want instead of what they say they want... it's doubly so.

Gulp...I agree with Max here.

Of course, I'm of the "more communication is always good" school of DMing--if I think I see a mismatch (or a player states that they'll do something that would have obvious negative consequences) I'll flat out ask if that's what they intended to do. In this case, I'd probably ask the players if they want more fights and talk about how their choices are making that harder for me to justify. If we end up changing some actions or changing some setting issues, either way, I'm going to figure out an explicit, up front compromise. Explicitly stated desires are more useful than implicitly assumed desires.

If they want to do something that the character would know is [suicidal/out-of-character/odd/etc] I'll verbalize the consequences and require them to confirm that they really want to do that. If it's a habit for them (playing a self-destructive or "chaotic" character, for example), I'll leave it at one check near the beginning. For out of character things (the peaceful cleric intentionally angering someone, or the meek guy saying something horribly offensive, or the fight-loving character intentionally avoiding fights), I'll straight up ask about it each time until either the character signals that they've changed or the player figures out what's going on. Often it's a miscommunication--how I've described the scene and how they're picturing it differ in important ways. They can still choose to do that strange thing, but they know the consequences going in. No "gotcha" here.

This goes back to the knowledge part of agency. The players aren't in the scene--the characters are. There are many things the characters would know, perceive, or feel, that the players can't (because they're not there). It's kind of inverse meta-gaming. Being clear and direct mollifies that knowledge gap and allows the players to make better choices while preserving agency.

Floret
2017-10-27, 08:40 AM
If all is as described, I would agree that taking the agency to avoid fights might be justified.

But... if your players find themselves making In-character decisions that go against their out-of character fun, that sounds like there is a deeper problem at work. You talk about "realism" and characters "Realistically" wanting to evade combat - but if you want combat, you should probably gear your character towards combat. It sounds like percieved "realism" of character motivation is put in front of the access to most fun (aka. combat) in this case. Maybe that should be adressed, instead of playing weird mindgames of "you say you want one thing, but actually want another" that can certainly work with enough and clear communication*; but can all too easily lead to miscommunication, weirdness, and frustration. "I disregard your statement of decision for your own good" can be justified in specific instances, but is a very, very dangerous path to go down.
Likewise, subjecting characters to things they do not want to happen to them can produce immensely intense and satisfying (for the player) gameplay/roleplay, but generally that also involves the characters' choices having (negative) consequences, or the characters having no choice at all. And, as in all cases where player and character goals diverge, needs to be clear. At least for me, having no choice instead of a false choice feels better. (Once, a GM had us play out or capture scene. We were always gonna end up captured. I felt insanely frustrated, nothing we did or tried mattered, in the end, we were captured. If that's necessary to happen, don't pretend it's possible to fight our way out.
Just have us start captured or sth, I don't care. Not ideal; but certainly better than dangling some pretense in front of us.)

If it works for you and your players, Glorthindel, it's fine, but I can't help but wonder if there wasn't a better way to deal with this situation.

(*Maybe setting a codeword, that when uttered in the character's attempt to get out of a combat scenario lets the GM know "no, we the players actually wanna fight, just our characters don't"?)

Scripten
2017-10-27, 09:23 AM
@ Glorthindel: If the players actively want combat and have told you so, then you're not taking away player agency by initiating a combat encounter via working alongside them. If you just believe that they want a combat encounter and use that belief to justify negating their choices, then you definitely have a deeper game problem than you think, as has been stated by several posters before.

Why do you feel that you need to add elements to an encounter to justify denying player agency? Why not affect the parts of the encounter that were already stated to be there instead? It seems reasonable that they would not take every effort to avoid combat if they want those kinds of encounters. In the case in which that is true, then perhaps you need a different setting or system.

BRC
2017-10-27, 10:17 AM
You know what, I'm going to go with Glorthindel here, maybe not in whole, but at least in spirit.


The illusion of agency is no replacement for ACTUAL Agency, but sprinkled in after the fact it can enhance the experience for your players.


Like, let's say you sketched up a Cult hideout, with some Guards on the perimeter, and the Cult Leader in the central sanctum. The PC's come up with a multi-part plan, cause a diversion, then sneak in and assassinate the Leader.

Initially, you didn't give the Cult Leader any extra guards around his Sanctum. Either the Stealth or the Diversion would have been enough to bypass the perimeter guards, so the players have already done that.

At this point, it's harmless to imply or improvise in some extra guards near the Sanctum that get drawn away by the Diversion, reward the players for some good thinking even if it was, strictly speaking, unnecessary.


Mind you, this is no replacement for ACTUALLY respecting player agency. You shouldn't hit them with an Inevitable Ogre, and then say "Good thing you did X Y and Z, because otherwise there would have been FOUR Ogres!"

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-27, 10:24 AM
You know what, I'm going to go with Glorthindel here, maybe not in whole, but at least in spirit.


The illusion of agency is no replacement for ACTUAL Agency, but sprinkled in after the fact it can enhance the experience for your players.


Like, let's say you sketched up a Cult hideout, with some Guards on the perimeter, and the Cult Leader in the central sanctum. The PC's come up with a multi-part plan, cause a diversion, then sneak in and assassinate the Leader.

Initially, you didn't give the Cult Leader any extra guards around his Sanctum. Either the Stealth or the Diversion would have been enough to bypass the perimeter guards, so the players have already done that.

At this point, it's harmless to imply or improvise in some extra guards near the Sanctum that get drawn away by the Diversion.

I wouldn't classify that as a violation of agency at all--the extra guards weren't real until they were mentioned in game. That's rewarding clever strategy with an extra consequence--that's a good thing! Planning can be vague (and only firmed up once it's actually a table truth) without violating agency.

1) Did the players have a choice? Sure. They could have done this in a bunch of different ways, including a frontal assault.
2) Did the players have knowledge? Sure. They knew about some of the guards, and made a reasonable guess about others. Everything is in line with what has been stated.
3) Did the players actions have consequences? Absolutely. In fact, there were extra consequences--the previously uncertain (in the pseudo-quantum meaning) guards are now established to exist and to have been distracted. If they hadn't have done this, it would have been plausible for the sound of the fight in the Sanctum to have drawn new guards. That's now blocked off.

Player agency--supported, not violated.

Scripten
2017-10-27, 10:29 AM
You know what, I'm going to go with Glorthindel here, maybe not in whole, but at least in spirit.


The illusion of agency is no replacement for ACTUAL Agency, but sprinkled in after the fact it can enhance the experience for your players.


Like, let's say you sketched up a Cult hideout, with some Guards on the perimeter, and the Cult Leader in the central sanctum. The PC's come up with a multi-part plan, cause a diversion, then sneak in and assassinate the Leader.

Initially, you didn't give the Cult Leader any extra guards around his Sanctum. Either the Stealth or the Diversion would have been enough to bypass the perimeter guards, so the players have already done that.

At this point, it's harmless to imply or improvise in some extra guards near the Sanctum that get drawn away by the Diversion, reward the players for some good thinking even if it was, strictly speaking, unnecessary.

I'm less bothered by this because in this case the plan had mechanical benefits and changed the experience for the players. What I object to is, by and large, the addition of elements to provide an illusory effect based on the players' actions. If those elements are added in addition to changing the context of the encounter, then I don't think there's anything wrong with it from a player agency perspective. I don't expect any DM to have the entire world mapped out to a creature and I certainly don't do it myself.

EDIT: Darn it, PP ninja'd me with a better post again. :smallyuk:

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-27, 10:32 AM
I'm less bothered by this because in this case the plan had mechanical benefits and changed the experience for the players. What I object to is, by and large, the addition of elements to provide an illusory effect based on the players' actions. If those elements are added in addition to changing the context of the encounter, then I don't think there's anything wrong with it from a player agency perspective. I don't expect any DM to have the entire world mapped out to a creature and I certainly don't do it myself.

EDIT: Darn it, PP ninja'd me with a better post again. :smallyuk:

:smalltongue: Glad to finally be on the shadowmonk side of the table, not the one being shadowmonked due to my verbosity.

wumpus
2017-10-27, 10:43 AM
[COLOR="#0000FF"]
Giving players too little info can be a type of illusionist railroading.

IMHO it's very much preferable to tell the players enough about the setting that they can make at least a partially informed decisions about City A vs. City B, and not rely on metagaming.

While this is certainly true, I have to question why a DM is expected to "give the players info". Assuming that the game is D&D (and not something like shadowrun where the players can google arbitrary amounts of public information, or even D&D in Eberron that is wildly more worldly than a medieval stereotype) you can assume that a vague idea of the location is all the players will know about a distant city. They certainly won't have a clue between different dungeons.

If the players can find such information (and I suggested multiple means: divination, bardic lore, gather information, hiring sages), then they can assume that they should have (assuming their methods worked) a better destination (and presumably the DM may have to modify the "default arrival city").

Taking the ability of the players to gather information is taking away agency. If they simply get on a train without checking where it is going, you can hardly claim "railroading" when you get there.

I will caution a DM against overdoing this: the end result is likely the "one day turn" and the "ideally prepared caster" who has *exactly* the right spell load out for each encounter because ve's spent the last few months casting nothing but divination spells (better have an all-elf party so aging doesn't catch up to you).

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-27, 10:47 AM
While this is certainly true, I have to question why a DM is expected to "give the players info". Assuming that the game is D&D (and not something like shadowrun where the players can google arbitrary amounts of public information, or even D&D in Eberron that is wildly more worldly than a medieval stereotype) you can assume that a vague idea of the location is all the players will know about a distant city. They certainly won't have a clue between different dungeons.

If the players can find such information (and I suggested multiple means: divination, bardic lore, gather information, hiring sages), then they can assume that they should have (assuming their methods worked) a better destination (and presumably the DM may have to modify the "default arrival city").

Taking the ability of the players to gather information is taking away agency. If they simply get on a train without checking where it is going, you can hardly claim "railroading" when you get there.

I will caution a DM against overdoing this: the end result is likely the "one day turn" and the "ideally prepared caster" who has *exactly* the right spell load out for each encounter because ve's spent the last few months casting nothing but divination spells (better have an all-elf party so aging doesn't catch up to you).

I read "tell the players enough" as being through such in-character efforts. I also tend to give out more information (the sort of thing that the characters would know just from having grown up, like "there are two moons, one red and one white") without any kind of check (and anytime it's remotely relevant to the situation at hand or implied by a question). More obscure things (what's the layout of this city no one you know of has been to in 200 years?) will take in-character, on-camera research.

Thinker
2017-10-27, 12:44 PM
While this is certainly true, I have to question why a DM is expected to "give the players info". Assuming that the game is D&D (and not something like shadowrun where the players can google arbitrary amounts of public information, or even D&D in Eberron that is wildly more worldly than a medieval stereotype) you can assume that a vague idea of the location is all the players will know about a distant city. They certainly won't have a clue between different dungeons.

If the players can find such information (and I suggested multiple means: divination, bardic lore, gather information, hiring sages), then they can assume that they should have (assuming their methods worked) a better destination (and presumably the DM may have to modify the "default arrival city").

Taking the ability of the players to gather information is taking away agency. If they simply get on a train without checking where it is going, you can hardly claim "railroading" when you get there.

I will caution a DM against overdoing this: the end result is likely the "one day turn" and the "ideally prepared caster" who has *exactly* the right spell load out for each encounter because ve's spent the last few months casting nothing but divination spells (better have an all-elf party so aging doesn't catch up to you).

Good description goes a long way to providing information: "As Mercutio approaches the door, he can hear a heavy breathing, followed by a snarl. Suddenly, the door shakes as something violently claws at the door." This would let the player(s) decide what to do with the door. They know something is in there and they know it is aggressive. Is there another way around? Maybe it's worth a look. Maybe they can get into a formation in case whatever it is rushes through when the door is opened. The same philosophy can be applied to larger-scale places: "The stories say that the Enchanted Forest was once the home of a queen who could twist the strands of the Magical Weave to create fantastical effects. But that was long ago and now, they say that the Weave has twisted animals and plants into strange and dangerous creatures." You let the players know that there's something weird going on in the forest, but not exactly what it is based on information that might not be uncommon (there are stories about this). If they want to know more, they can research or search for an expert. They can decide that the Enchanted Forest is too dangerous and look for a way around it.

You need to cue players in to the fact that they need to research things, rather than expect them to do so. Otherwise, the next door in the dungeon is just a door and there's nothing thrilling about that.

kivzirrum
2017-10-27, 12:51 PM
Coming at it from the other end, a scene in which the actors have zero agency is a "cutscene" and it isn't a game, just a prop to set up a game.

Oof, yes. I remember one game of Exalted where the Storyteller narrated for ten minutes about all this badass stuff happening. The other players freaked out like it was the coolest session we'd ever had, but I was just wondering why I had to listen to all of that instead of actually playing the game :smallconfused:


There are several times in my gaming experience (as a player) where my actions up to a certain point have led to an epic conclusion. Upon reaching the final moments, I have had control taken away as the GM narrates what I do based on what I have done up until this point, and triggers the epic ending, even though that is not what my character would have done. I was much happier with agency being taken from me in those cases. Or, in short, I like agency to be sacrificed on a micro scale for greater agency on a macro scale, and such a thing is usually a conversation between the GM and player.

Fascinating. This sounds absolutely frustrating to me, but if your group enjoys it, power to y'all!


So you ignored their stated in-character choices, and then lied to them, to "make them happy".

Of course, part of the problem here is that the players (or at least the players as you describe them) want combat to be a regular feature of the gameplay, but the game (specifically the setting) that's being run is one in which reasonable people (the characters) try to avoid combat if they can.

Oh, I dunno if that's fair. Presumably the GM knows their players well enough to know what they enjoy, and while that isn't the method I would take (communicating, OOC when necessary, is really quite helpful in my opinion) as long as everyone had a good time, isn't that what matters?

Nifft
2017-10-27, 12:53 PM
While this is certainly true, I have to question why a DM is expected to "give the players info".

Because the DM is the window into the world for the players.

There is no reliable source of info about the world other than what the DM says.

I'm saying that the DM needs to ensure that the players have this information, because the alternative is a blind "choice" which is no choice at all.

D+1
2017-10-27, 03:25 PM
I'm curious whether people define Player Agency by actual events or just feelings. Using the ice cream example. Say a person has never had vanilla or chocolate and doesn't know the difference. They choose vanilla and are given chocolate. The person eats what they ordered and are satisfied.

Same thing occurs in roleplaying. DM designs an adventure for goblins and tells the players they can fight the kobolds or the goblins. The PCs choose the kobolds. The DM uses the same adventure and because kobolds and goblins are almost the same the DM doesn't change anything. The players are satisfied and feel like their choice mattered. They influenced the narrative (kobolds instead of goblins), if not the actual mechanics of what they interacted with in the game.

This is the ILLUSION of agency. It works, of course, and is an approach that can sometimes make otherwise heavily railroaded games more palatable, but only if players do not DETECT the illusion. Players object to the railroad when A) they WANT to make meaningful decisions, and B) they are clearly prevented from making those decisions, or having those decisions actually matter. Player agency is simply the ability of players to meaningfully affect the game with their decisions. They can be mollified if it simply SEEMS that their choices matter, but if they find that isn't the case they'll be understandably disappointed.

tensai_oni
2017-10-27, 05:14 PM
I will go against most of the thread and say that player agency has nothing to do with freedom or lack thereof during a play session/quest/mission/however you call it. It's good when the game master is open to players' actions and allows them to evade combat through smart diplomacy, stealth or whatever for example - but that is not agency. That is simply having an adventure with more options and solutions available.

Player agency is about player and character goals - which are often (but not always!) the same thing. It's something more long term than having an option between going a left path to fight kobolds and a right path to fight goblins. These choices are ultimately meaningless.

It's about what the player wants from the game, and whether the GM allows the players to pursue these goals or not. The goals can be planned in advance but may as well appear ad hoc: I want to find my mentor's killer. I want to improve living conditions of the goblin hamlet we just visited. I want to explore difficult relationships between my character and their family. I want my character to suffer dramatically. If the GM knows of these goals and allows the players to chase after them, dropping in plot hooks and points or even creating whole adventures dedicated to pursue of individual player wants, then there is agency. If the goals are actively ignored or even stomped down - the family the player wanted to interact with killed for cheap drama, for example, then there is no player agency.

By definition this means player agency can't be there without a means of communication between players and the GM. The players need to know what they want from the game and the GM must be informed of it. If the players are just in for the ride, to have a good time dungeoneering or exploring the unknown with no personal stakes except "I want my character to survive this and get a lot of loot/exp"? There is no agency of course but that's also fine. If that's what everyone wants and they have fun, the lack of agency doesn't matter. Agency is a tool, a mean to an end, not a goal itself.

Also needless to say, not every player goal needs to be pursued and realized. Some may clash with the game's theme, be way above the characters' means to pursue or make other players uncomfortable and be just plain wrong.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-27, 06:48 PM
I will go against most of the thread and say that player agency has nothing to do with freedom or lack thereof during a play session/quest/mission/however you call it. It's good when the game master is open to players' actions and allows them to evade combat through smart diplomacy, stealth or whatever for example - but that is not agency. That is simply having an adventure with more options and solutions available.

Player agency is about player and character goals - which are often (but not always!) the same thing. It's something more long term than having an option between going a left path to fight kobolds and a right path to fight goblins. These choices are ultimately meaningless.

It's about what the player wants from the game, and whether the GM allows the players to pursue these goals or not. The goals can be planned in advance but may as well appear ad hoc: I want to find my mentor's killer. I want to improve living conditions of the goblin hamlet we just visited. I want to explore difficult relationships between my character and their family. I want my character to suffer dramatically. If the GM knows of these goals and allows the players to chase after them, dropping in plot hooks and points or even creating whole adventures dedicated to pursue of individual player wants, then there is agency. If the goals are actively ignored or even stomped down - the family the player wanted to interact with killed for cheap drama, for example, then there is no player agency.

By definition this means player agency can't be there without a means of communication between players and the GM. The players need to know what they want from the game and the GM must be informed of it. If the players are just in for the ride, to have a good time dungeoneering or exploring the unknown with no personal stakes except "I want my character to survive this and get a lot of loot/exp"? There is no agency of course but that's also fine. If that's what everyone wants and they have fun, the lack of agency doesn't matter. Agency is a tool, a mean to an end, not a goal itself.

Also needless to say, not every player goal needs to be pursued and realized. Some may clash with the game's theme, be way above the characters' means to pursue or make other players uncomfortable and be just plain wrong.

There are a few points I want to address:

This is more a question of scale than on/off binary. The capacity to make short-term decisions with significant consequences is Agency just as much as the capacity to make long-term decisions with significant consequences is Agency. The only difference I'm seeing is scale. Yes, if you have the former and not the latter you have LESS agency overall, but that is not the same as 0 agency.

The other thing I'm finding weird is the whole "agency is a tool, not a goal" line of thinking. It seems as incongruous as saying that logs are a tool to make a log cabin, and not the goal. Sure, I guess? But isn't the presence of the logs an instrinsic part of the goal in the first place? If the whole point of the house is that it is made from logs.... doesn't that make the logs an intrinsic and inseparable element of the goal? And isn't it possible for a game to have more than one goal?
I see no reason why I can't have Agency be a goal. For instance:
"I want this campaign to be shaped mostly by Player Agency," sounds like a perfectly reasonable goal to set as part of the campaign. So the Tool-Not-Goal angle seems... incomplete for the same reason my goal can be both "lose weight" AND "Do 50 situps per day," and arguing that situps are a tool and not a goal would be incomplete.

Segev
2017-10-27, 06:53 PM
I believe this last part to be critical.

Player Agency really functions as a form of currency. By choosing to take action, you forsake alternatives. You make an investment by sacrificing resources strategically seeking the greatest reward for acceptable risk.

Oh. This reminded me of one of the most frustrating instances of agency being illusory and verisimilitude-breaking I've experienced in recent memory.

In a PF module at GenCon a couple of years ago, we were chasing after our NPC ally who had been drawn off or captured (I forget which) by some BBEG of the module, trying to rescue him. We were given a choice after we'd been through a couple of major fights as to whether to rest up, or keep pressing on to try to catch up. We had no idea how far ahead he'd been taken, only that he was in trouble.

We chose to press on without rest. We arrived just in time to see him facing off with the BBEG, and we were just a few spells shy of being fast enough to kill off said BBEG before he killed the NPC ally.

I learned later, from others who'd done the same module, that that scene always starts off the same way: you always arrive with the NPC ally in exactly the same state of fighting the BBEG. Us not resting and pressing onwards did nothing to change how quickly we caught up, nor even the precise amount of "hurt" our ally was. But it did mean we lacked spell resources and HP that we otherwise would have had.

This was an illusory choice in the sense that either way, the situation in which we'd find ourselves was unchanged, so there's no benefit to rushing ahead. However, we still paid for having rushed ahead.

It's...not entirely lacking agency, as our actions had consequences, but because the consequences were only applied to our resources and not to our situation, we got worse than gypped.

OldTrees1
2017-10-27, 06:58 PM
I will go against most of the thread and say that player agency has nothing to do with freedom or lack thereof during a play session/quest/mission/however you call it. It's good when the game master is open to players' actions and allows them to evade combat through smart diplomacy, stealth or whatever for example - but that is not agency. That is simply having an adventure with more options and solutions available.

Player agency is about player and character goals - which are often (but not always!) the same thing. It's something more long term than having an option between going a left path to fight kobolds and a right path to fight goblins. These choices are ultimately meaningless.

It's about what the player wants from the game, and whether the GM allows the players to pursue these goals or not. The goals can be planned in advance but may as well appear ad hoc: I want to find my mentor's killer. I want to improve living conditions of the goblin hamlet we just visited. I want to explore difficult relationships between my character and their family. I want my character to suffer dramatically. If the GM knows of these goals and allows the players to chase after them, dropping in plot hooks and points or even creating whole adventures dedicated to pursue of individual player wants, then there is agency. If the goals are actively ignored or even stomped down - the family the player wanted to interact with killed for cheap drama, for example, then there is no player agency.

By definition this means player agency can't be there without a means of communication between players and the GM. The players need to know what they want from the game and the GM must be informed of it. If the players are just in for the ride, to have a good time dungeoneering or exploring the unknown with no personal stakes except "I want my character to survive this and get a lot of loot/exp"? There is no agency of course but that's also fine. If that's what everyone wants and they have fun, the lack of agency doesn't matter. Agency is a tool, a mean to an end, not a goal itself.

Also needless to say, not every player goal needs to be pursued and realized. Some may clash with the game's theme, be way above the characters' means to pursue or make other players uncomfortable and be just plain wrong.

Let's test your theory that this is different from rather than an emergent property of access to more frequent and greater scale meaningful choices.

Let's start by examining the minimum case:
A: Your character wants to find their mentor's killer. The DM coincidentally uses an extremely strict railroad to make the party face the BBEG who just happens to be your character's mentor's killer. The PC was faced with no meaningful choices, the player did not choose to have their PC face their PC's mentor's killer. But that desired event did happen. Agency or not? (If Agency, why so?)

B: Your character wants to find their mentor's killer. The DM knows of this and decides to use an extremely strict railroad to make the party face the BBEG who just happens to be your character's mentor's killer. The PC was faced with no meaningful choices, the player did influence the DM's railroad path to have their PC face their PC's mentor's killer. But that desired event did happen. Agency or not? (If Agency, why so?)

C: Your character wants to find their mentor's killer. The DM runs a campaign full of meaningful choices. Those choices do allow your character to make goals and pursue them BUT finding your mentor's killer either was not within the scope of those choices or your character did not succeed in finding a path that would work. Agency or not? (If not, why not?)

D: Your character wants to find their mentor's killer. The DM runs a campaign full of meaningful choices. As a result of those choices your PC ends up facing their mentor's killer. Agency or not? (If not, why not?)

F: Your character wants to find their mentor's killer. The DM runs a campaign full of meaningful choices BUT the characters also have enough scope in which to create their own opportunities. Following those self created opportunities leads your PC to face down their mentor's killer. Agency or not? (If not, why not?)


There are a few points I want to address:


The other thing I'm finding weird is the whole "agency is a tool, not a goal" line of thinking. It seems as incongruous as saying that logs are a tool to make a log cabin, and not the goal. Sure, I guess? But isn't the presence of the logs an instrinsic part of the goal in the first place? If the whole point of the house is that it is made from logs.... doesn't that make the logs an intrinsic and inseparable element of the goal? And isn't it possible for a game to have more than one goal?
I see no reason why I can't have Agency be a goal. For instance:
"I want this campaign to be shaped mostly by Player Agency," sounds like a perfectly reasonable goal to set as part of the campaign. So the Tool-Not-Goal angle seems... incomplete for the same reason my goal can be both "lose weight" AND "Do 50 situps per day," and arguing that situps are a tool and not a goal would be incomplete.

I believe that line of thinking arises once there is plenty.

I can build a log cabin, or a mansion, or a death star out of logs. If logs are the goal then I should always collect enough to make a death star. However if the logs are a tool for building the building I am after, then I can stop collecting at some point.

If I am crafting a standard lovecraftian horror game. I would not want to have the PCs start out with meaningful choices in which they decide if the inner planes should crash into sigil OR the upper and lower planes should jettison out into the Far Realms. The PCs do not need that scale of agency in that campaign AND that scale of agency is not quite appropriate for that campaign. But just as too much agency would mess up the campaign, I still need to make sure the campaign has enough (err on the side of too much) agency for the players to be able to enjoy the lovecraftian horror "try to survive a year longer this time" game they signed up for.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-27, 07:09 PM
Oh. This reminded me of one of the most frustrating instances of agency being illusory and verisimilitude-breaking I've experienced in recent memory.

In a PF module at GenCon a couple of years ago, we were chasing after our NPC ally who had been drawn off or captured (I forget which) by some BBEG of the module, trying to rescue him. We were given a choice after we'd been through a couple of major fights as to whether to rest up, or keep pressing on to try to catch up. We had no idea how far ahead he'd been taken, only that he was in trouble.

We chose to press on without rest. We arrived just in time to see him facing off with the BBEG, and we were just a few spells shy of being fast enough to kill off said BBEG before he killed the NPC ally.

I learned later, from others who'd done the same module, that that scene always starts off the same way: you always arrive with the NPC ally in exactly the same state of fighting the BBEG. Us not resting and pressing onwards did nothing to change how quickly we caught up, nor even the precise amount of "hurt" our ally was. But it did mean we lacked spell resources and HP that we otherwise would have had.

This was an illusory choice in the sense that either way, the situation in which we'd find ourselves was unchanged, so there's no benefit to rushing ahead. However, we still paid for having rushed ahead.

It's...not entirely lacking agency, as our actions had consequences, but because the consequences were only applied to our resources and not to our situation, we got worse than gypped.

This could have been a trade-off, a pair of offsetting calculated risks, the ultimate meaningful choice... and instead, meh.

Segev
2017-10-27, 07:55 PM
This could have been a trade-off, a pair of offsetting calculated risks, the ultimate meaningful choice... and instead, meh.

Exactly. But a bit worse, because "choose wrong, and you only get punished."

I blame the DM running it, honestly. Not for having run the module as written, but for not telling us, "Look, the module assumes you rest here; you won't catch up any sooner if you don't." It's a slot at GenCon; I don't expect DMs to creatively interpret the module to account for all our choices. But at least don't pretend there's agency when there isn't and then penalize us for having exercised it without knowing there wasn't any.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-27, 09:45 PM
I believe that line of thinking arises once there is plenty.

I can build a log cabin, or a mansion, or a death star out of logs. If logs are the goal then I should always collect enough to make a death star. However if the logs are a tool for building the building I am after, then I can stop collecting at some point.
Yes, but having the logs is an intrinsic part of said construction. Diminishing it to just a tool makes it come across as optional. Call me ignorant, but I'm fairly sure the point of a log cabin is that it is made primarily of logs. Taking that away more or less makes the endeavour into something else entirely.

Hence why i say the stance is not Utterly Wrong, but is Incomplete. If the goal is to have a game with many potential outcomes then you damn well better have lots of player agency for the same reason you better have logs if you're building a log cabin. The apparent point of the "agency is a tool" standpoint is to backend justify the removal of agency.



If I am crafting a standard lovecraftian horror game. I would not want to have the PCs start out with meaningful choices in which they decide if the inner planes should crash into sigil OR the upper and lower planes should jettison out into the Far Realms.
Anything taken to a ridiculous extreme will be ridiculous and extreme, yes.
And yes, you don't need 86 quintillion logs to make a cabin. But you had better have them!



The PCs do not need that scale of agency in that campaign AND that scale of agency is not quite appropriate for that campaign. But just as too much agency would mess up the campaign, I still need to make sure the campaign has enough (err on the side of too much) agency for the players to be able to enjoy the lovecraftian horror "try to survive a year longer this time" game they signed up for.

As I said elsewhere, scale is a different question from "what is this thing."
Is Player Agency a tool? No. It is not a hammer.
It's construction material. Campaigns are made OF it, not made WITH it.
If that makes more sense.

OldTrees1
2017-10-27, 10:16 PM
Hence why i say the stance is not Utterly Wrong, but is Incomplete. If the goal is to have a game with many potential outcomes then you damn well better have lots of player agency for the same reason you better have logs if you're building a log cabin. The apparent point of the "agency is a tool" standpoint is to backend justify the removal of agency.

As I said elsewhere, scale is a different question from "what is this thing."
Is Player Agency a tool? No. It is not a hammer.
It's construction material. Campaigns are made OF it, not made WITH it.
If that makes more sense.

Your construction material metaphor is quite apt. You need to have some in order for there to be anything and eventually you can have more than enough for your purposes. The metaphor even covers the needed quantity varying between various campaigns (horror, stereotypical, sandbox, etc).

NichG
2017-10-27, 10:53 PM
The point of a log cabin is to provide shelter from the elements using locally available materials, not to be made of logs. If your locally available material is slabs of stone, saying 'log cabin or nothing, since there are no logs I'd like to freeze to death please' is silly.

The reason people are saying 'player agency is a tool' is because somewhere along the way, people stopped thinking about 'why is agency fun?' and instead got so pinned on the idea of agency itself that they substituted it as a replacement for fun. Saying 'agency is a tool' gets to the point that its a means, not an end. The distinction is important because the point of view of agency as an end says 'there (definitionally) cannot be a case where sacrificing agency for something else is justifiable', whereas agency as a means engages with the possibility that there are in fact cases where more or less agency is called for, or where different kinds of agency serve different ends, or so on.

Talking about it as a tool focuses the discussion on the 'why' rather than the 'what'. Not 'what is a theoretical definition of agency that no one manages to successfully attack' but rather 'Why do we care? What is good or enjoyable about experiencing agency? What happens when players have agency, and when they don't?'. Those are far more pragmatically useful discussions.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-27, 11:59 PM
The point of a log cabin is to provide shelter from the elements using locally available materials, not to be made of logs. If your locally available material is slabs of stone, saying 'log cabin or nothing, since there are no logs I'd like to freeze to death please' is silly.
People still build log cabins currently, in places you'd not expect to find them. But this here is missing the point of the metaphor.



The reason people are saying 'player agency is a tool' is because somewhere along the way, people stopped thinking about 'why is agency fun?' and instead got so pinned on the idea of agency itself that they substituted it as a replacement for fun. Saying 'agency is a tool' gets to the point that its a means, not an end. The distinction is important because the point of view of agency as an end says 'there (definitionally) cannot be a case where sacrificing agency for something else is justifiable', whereas agency as a means engages with the possibility that there are in fact cases where more or less agency is called for, or where different kinds of agency serve different ends, or so on.
Except I neither adopt the Tool stance nor do I have a problem with the concept of a sliding scale of Agency. As far as I can tell this theoretical position you're arguing against is not present.



Talking about it as a tool focuses the discussion on the 'why' rather than the 'what'. Not 'what is a theoretical definition of agency that no one manages to successfully attack' but rather 'Why do we care? What is good or enjoyable about experiencing agency? What happens when players have agency, and when they don't?'. Those are far more pragmatically useful discussions.

Since the topic is "what is player agency" as opposed to "why is player agency" I think we're not exactly out of bounds to dig into things like what people perceive player agency to be. Your perception is different, clearly. What I'm wondering is how you got to the conclusion that only from your particular perspective can those questions be asked? I see no reason to hold the Tool stance as somehow more enlightened or accurate. And as I've motioned, I view it not like a hammer, but like wood. A hammer is a means to an end.
Wood is an intrinsic part of what the end will be. The hammer can go somewhere else after. The wood cannot, for it becomes the completed work.

Player Agency becomes a part of what the campaign ends up being. It's makeup, its function, will inevitably affect what you end up with. It's a building block.
And of course, you can have more or less wood in a given building. Even none. Same with Player Agency.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-28, 12:05 AM
The point of a log cabin is to provide shelter from the elements using locally available materials, not to be made of logs. If your locally available material is slabs of stone, saying 'log cabin or nothing, since there are no logs I'd like to freeze to death please' is silly.

The reason people are saying 'player agency is a tool' is because somewhere along the way, people stopped thinking about 'why is agency fun?' and instead got so pinned on the idea of agency itself that they substituted it as a replacement for fun. Saying 'agency is a tool' gets to the point that its a means, not an end. The distinction is important because the point of view of agency as an end says 'there (definitionally) cannot be a case where sacrificing agency for something else is justifiable', whereas agency as a means engages with the possibility that there are in fact cases where more or less agency is called for, or where different kinds of agency serve different ends, or so on.

Talking about it as a tool focuses the discussion on the 'why' rather than the 'what'. Not 'what is a theoretical definition of agency that no one manages to successfully attack' but rather 'Why do we care? What is good or enjoyable about experiencing agency? What happens when players have agency, and when they don't?'. Those are far more pragmatically useful discussions.

Talking about it as a tool or a means to achieve something else, rather than a good thing in and of itself, also gives leave for some to push illusionism, for-your-own-good-ism, and so on.

After all, if something else is the actual point, and agency is just a way of make that something else happen, then anything else that can supposedly do as good a job or better of making that something else happen, allows them to favor the "better tool" and ignore player agency as the "inferior tool".

NichG
2017-10-28, 12:15 AM
Except I neither adopt the Tool stance nor do I have a problem with the concept of a sliding scale of Agency. As far as I can tell this theoretical position you're arguing against is not present.

Concretely, the position you adopted was 'agency is not optional' (or specifically, you complained that the tool stance suggested that agency was optional, which you disagreed with).

There are genres of tabletop games where agency isn't the main point, and even ones where there is no agency when it comes to the ultimate outcome of the game. You see it primarily in horror-related genres. An example related to me recently is a game called '10 candles' where essentially each game is an apocalpytic scenario oneshot where by the end, all of the characters have died, and nothing can actually change that.

I'll grant its not my taste in games, but its a thing that someone might endeavor to do in a tabletop setting, and evidently there are enough people who enjoy that kind of thing that they find it worthwhile to pursue as well.

Similarly, tournament dungeoncrawl modules are very low agency but are that way for a purpose - it enables the kind of comparative, competitive play that they are targeting.

Agency-as-tool means that we don't have to accept a premise that 'agency is ultimately the point of the game' in order to discuss it, which allows us to discuss agency in a much wider array of games than if we're forced to assume that particular stance.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-28, 12:34 AM
Concretely, the position you adopted was 'agency is not optional' (or specifically, you complained that the tool stance suggested that agency was optional, which you disagreed with).

Yeah, I'm noticing that to continue this line you have to pick out one sentence and ignore everything I've said contrary to that one sentence to clarify the position, such as the several paragraphs I've written since which explicitly state that having different scales of agency is not a problem. (I think it should be greater than 0, since a 0 agency rpg is the oldest kind. They are called Novels.)

To clarify what I mean by optional is the idea that it is perfectly acceptable to just arbitrarily stop using the tool based on whims, or to specifically attempt to build things that don't use that tool at all.



There are genres of tabletop games where agency isn't the main point, and even ones where there is no agency when it comes to the ultimate outcome of the game. You see it primarily in horror-related genres. An example related to me recently is a game called '10 candles' where essentially each game is an apocalpytic scenario oneshot where by the end, all of the characters have died, and nothing can actually change that.

I'll grant its not my taste in games, but its a thing that someone might endeavor to do in a tabletop setting, and evidently there are enough people who enjoy that kind of thing that they find it worthwhile to pursue as well.

Similarly, tournament dungeoncrawl modules are very low agency but are that way for a purpose - it enables the kind of comparative, competitive play that they are targeting.

Agency-as-tool means that we don't have to accept a premise that 'agency is ultimately the point of the game' in order to discuss it, which allows us to discuss agency in a much wider array of games than if we're forced to assume that particular stance.

You're once again missing what I'm saying. I'm not saying agency is the end goal. I also don't accept the premise that the Tool position is the sole position from which meaningful discussion can occur. I'm gonna need you to at least make an attempt to understand what I'm getting at.

Secondly, both of your examples still maintain a degree of Player Agency. Even if the ending is inevitable, the players have a large amount of play room to move about in.

In tournament play, the player agency is focused away from the narrative layer, into the mechanical layer, where it moves freely.

So yeah, these examples simply involve different breeds of wood, as I veiw it.

NichG
2017-10-28, 12:58 AM
Yeah, I'm noticing that to continue this line you have to pick out one sentence and ignore everything I've said contrary to that one sentence to clarify the position, such as the several paragraphs I've written since which explicitly state that having different scales of agency is not a problem. (I think it should be greater than 0, since a 0 agency rpg is the oldest kind. They are called Novels.)

To clarify what I mean by optional is the idea that it is perfectly acceptable to just arbitrarily stop using the tool based on whims, or to specifically attempt to build things that don't use that tool at all.


I would say that it is perfectly acceptable to specifically attempt to build games that don't make use of agency at all. I want to distinguish between statements like 'I would not like that game' and statements like 'that game is logically impossible' or 'it is inherently wrong to attempt to do that'.



You're once again missing what I'm saying. I'm not saying agency is the end goal. I also don't accept the premise that the Tool position is the sole position from which meaningful discussion can occur. I'm gonna need you to at least make an attempt to understand what I'm getting at.

Secondly, both of your examples still maintain a degree of Player Agency. Even if the ending is inevitable, the players have a large amount of play room to move about in.

In tournament play, the player agency is focused away from the narrative layer, into the mechanical layer, where it moves freely.

So yeah, these examples simply involve different breeds of wood, as I veiw it.

If we take 10 candles, the purpose of the game essentially comes down to a form of self-exploration - how do you find meaning in a situation where nothing you do can possibly matter and you're going to die no matter what? The agency, such as it might exist in transient forms, is basically counter-productive to creating the state of mind with which to explore that question. While agency might exist in such a game, seeing agency as the primary ingredient which determines the structure of the game misses the point.

If we look at the tournament modules, they're similar to games like chess and Go as mentioned up-thread in that past a certain point, increasing your expertise in the game actually means decreasing your agency. If what you want in a tournament module is to achieve the best possible score, eventually there is only a narrow optimal path of actions that leads there. While agency might exist in such a game, seeing agency as the primary ingredient which determines the structure of the game misses the point.

There are games where agency is the actual heart and soul of the game. God-games as are sometimes played on these forums are an example of that, where the game is built to encourage open-ended creativity in a shared context - the outcome of the game is what players choose to create. Similarly, there's a subclass of transformative sandbox games - sandbox games where the campaign ends up being about changing the world in some kind of player-driven way - that are primarily agency-based. On the other hand, a traditional sandbox game is not necessarily so - while again agency may exist in places, it's more about the feeling of freedom than it is about agency as more often than not decisions in a sandbox tend to be uninformed due to conservation of detail.

If we look at the stories people tell after the fact about old campaigns, sometimes they're about moments of agency, but as often as not they're about zany unexpected stuff that happened, unplanned interactions, or other assorted moments of awesome that actually involve the (sudden, surprising) absence of agency more than its presence. Even the way in which dice generate tension and story is in direct opposition to agency - they represent an agreement between all at the table to abandon a portion of their agency to the decisions of a random process.

Quertus
2017-10-28, 07:18 AM
Challenge accepted. There are many nuances that we cannot really touch upon with Darth Ultron but can with each other. Let's be comprehensive in our definition here.

First: I think we all agree that a necessary condition for a person to be a player in a game is for them to be capable of interaction with the game. If nothing the person does has any impact at all, then we should consider the person and "game" in question as independent and unrelated. I, a person, can be described as playing a game of chess with a normal board and pieces. I cannot be described as playing a game of chess if the pieces are all glued in place (no interaction possible --> no playing possible).

Second: Even in games with only 1 kind of interaction (cite one-button games here), the player is faced with choices of which of their interactions to use or to abstain from interacting at that time.

Third: Now that we have the background covered. It is time to discuss Meaningful Choices. I will note that the meaning of Meaningful can be subjective, especially as it applies to a specific case. So this is a good place for us to dissect further (both in the minimum case and in the ideal case).

To my understanding a choice needs the following characteristics for it to qualify as a Meaningful Choice in the context of enabling the possibility of Player Agency:
A: The Players need to be aware of the choice they face and be sufficiently informed about the choice. This does not require they know everything or even understand a majority of the situation. Sufficiently informed is defined by the following criteria.
B: The choice needs to have multiple outcomes and those outcomes need to be the result of differences between the options. To be sufficiently informed, the players need to know enough of those relevant differences that their limited information could be used to map the differences between the options to the difference outcomes.*

*Obviously there can be relevant differences that the players are not exposed to and those differences will also impact the outcome. However that is merely reminding us that many meaningful choices are contained within the context of a larger choice (the knowable and unknowable details of the choice).

Fourth. Now we have the concept of meaningful choices. In practice, meaningful choices are how a player is able to intentionally impact the shape of the game. This can range from really small scale (choosing to save person A vs person B) to large scale (reshaping the socio-economic structure of the material plane through a long chain of actions and interactions). It can range from infrequent to frequent. This is Player Agency.

Different campaigns will choose different shapes and sizes of Player Agency. It makes little sense to allow plane warping player agency in a campaign with the lovecraftian horror motif of insignificant & depowered. But such a game would still have Player Agency in the shape of the investigations made and the attempted plans to survive/stay sane.

This is also why it is so important to include player agency in a RPG. Without player agency, the people are not actually interacting with the game.

Wow. You must have a lot of experience with legalise (how does one spell legal ease?). Based on my (revised) definition, below, do you feel we differ on the "meaningful" bit of your definition?


The point of a log cabin is to provide shelter from the elements using locally available materials, not to be made of logs. If your locally available material is slabs of stone, saying 'log cabin or nothing, since there are no logs I'd like to freeze to death please' is silly.

The reason people are saying 'player agency is a tool' is because somewhere along the way, people stopped thinking about 'why is agency fun?' and instead got so pinned on the idea of agency itself that they substituted it as a replacement for fun. Saying 'agency is a tool' gets to the point that its a means, not an end. The distinction is important because the point of view of agency as an end says 'there (definitionally) cannot be a case where sacrificing agency for something else is justifiable', whereas agency as a means engages with the possibility that there are in fact cases where more or less agency is called for, or where different kinds of agency serve different ends, or so on.

Talking about it as a tool focuses the discussion on the 'why' rather than the 'what'. Not 'what is a theoretical definition of agency that no one manages to successfully attack' but rather 'Why do we care? What is good or enjoyable about experiencing agency? What happens when players have agency, and when they don't?'. Those are far more pragmatically useful discussions.

Just like "balance", agency is not a synonym for fun. But, if we cannot stick to the topic of defining what agency is, we will continue talking past each other in talking about your more pragmatic "why".

That having been said, once we think we are in agreement as to "what", asking "why" and noting areas of dissonance is a great test of the extent to which we have failed at the "what" step. Thus, I highly encourage asking "why" as part of asking "what". But, just as one does not generally start with the roof when building a log cabin, starting with "why" is generally rather counterproductive to conversational efficiency.


On the other hand, a traditional sandbox game is not necessarily so - while again agency may exist in places, it's more about the feeling of freedom than it is about agency as more often than not decisions in a sandbox tend to be uninformed due to conservation of detail.

If we look at the stories people tell after the fact about old campaigns, sometimes they're about moments of agency, but as often as not they're about zany unexpected stuff that happened, unplanned interactions, or other assorted moments of awesome that actually involve the (sudden, surprising) absence of agency more than its presence. Even the way in which dice generate tension and story is in direct opposition to agency - they represent an agreement between all at the table to abandon a portion of their agency to the decisions of a random process.

I can only conclude that the phrase "Player Agency" doesn't mean the same thing to you that it does to me.

So, I suppose it behooves me to explain my definition. Well, my revised definition, seeing as how I mentioned up-thread that I hadn't originally included the first step of knowledge. :smallredface:

So, to me, Player Agency involves the players getting to make choices for their characters that have a measurable, logical impact on the game. To make such choices, the players need to have knowledge to make informed choices, the characters need to have capabilities to perform actions, and the world needs to resolve in a logical way for the outcome of those choices to be predictable.

Now, here's where it gets tricky. I define agency as everything within the bounds of the characters capabilities. For example, if I'm playing a "normal" D&D character, it does not curtail my agency to not let me jump to the moon, because jumping to the moon is not within my capabilities. A game where my character cannot jump to the moon can still have 100% Player Agency.

Further, knowledge need not be perfect. However, knowledge and world consistency needs to be such that, when an event does not have the expected outcome, it is therefore obvious that our knowledge was inaccurate or incomplete. Everything should respond in a predictable way, and, when it does not, that must be indicative that there is something going on here to investigate.

Lastly, obtaining missing information must be possible. That may involve moving to OOC discussion (especially if the players and GM aren't on the same page / wavelength), and can even involve a retcon if the PCs should have known information of which the players were unaware.

So, to pull an example from another thread, if, in the bizarre game world, everyone knows that, contrary to the real world, barn fires are actually salvageable situations, then the PCs need to have that information to make an informed decision about what to do about a barn fire in order to be considered to have agency under my definition.

Let me put forth another bizarre world. The players say the PCs look around; suddenly, the sun grows much brighter and hotter. The PCs look for shelter. As they race for a convenient log cabin, the sun grows even brighter, and lightning and hail begin descending from the sky. They decide to rest in the cabin, and note that time itself begins to break down. The players express their anger at the GM, and volcanos begin erupting. As the players walk out, the GM narrates how the world breaks apart, and everyone dies.

In this game, the outcome (everyone dies due to forces outside their control) was predetermined. Which forces killed them was determined by the players' stated actions. How do the various definitions and metrics of Player Agency rate this example?

Frozen_Feet
2017-10-28, 07:24 AM
The discontinuity of argument here is because you're focusing on a specific type of choice ("things which affect the final outcome") and not the total number of choices.

Take Chess - the start of the game and the end game have only few possible choices. Majority of choices exists during midgame.

Does the lack of agency at the start, or lack of agency at the end, mean that the whole game lacks agency? The answer should be "obviously not".

Same principle applies to RPGs such as the one talked of above. Yeah, ultimately everyone dies. Does that mean players have no impact before the ultimate situation? I'm fairly sure the answer is "no".

NichG
2017-10-28, 07:56 AM
Just like "balance", agency is not a synonym for fun. But, if we cannot stick to the topic of defining what agency is, we will continue talking past each other in talking about your more pragmatic "why".

That having been said, once we think we are in agreement as to "what", asking "why" and noting areas of dissonance is a great test of the extent to which we have failed at the "what" step. Thus, I highly encourage asking "why" as part of asking "what". But, just as one does not generally start with the roof when building a log cabin, starting with "why" is generally rather counterproductive to conversational efficiency.


The problem is that discussing 'what' independent of 'why' leaves one without any guide as to what actually constitutes a useful definition. Often bids for different definitions or ways of framing the discussion end up being driven by unspoken whys, so talking about it explicitly gets that out in the open. For example, Max_Killjoy's response that "Talking about it as a tool or a means to achieve something else, rather than a good thing in and of itself, also gives leave for some to push illusionism, for-your-own-good-ism, and so on." is a bid of that sort - it implicitly suggests that the reason to favor one way of framing over another is to marginalize a specific set of DM behaviors. As part of that is the implicit call that 'agency' must have a strict positive connotation, which I think is unhelpful. I had the same reaction to the 'agency as building material' objection to the 'agency is a tool' comment - its more about 'what I want my DM to believe' rather than 'what is it actually?'.

On the other hand, Frozen_Feet gave a very objective coverage of the term, specifically going as far to say that what the players feel from it doesn't matter, it's just the number of meaningful moves that they could take at any given moment.

For me, out of the ones discussed so far, I'd probably go more with PhoenixPhyre's definition.

To justify that, I have to go to the 'why' of things. It's the 'why' where, likely, we might differ in what we're actually trying to accomplish by discussing agency in the first place. I find the 'agency as building material' or 'agency is what the campaign is made of' kind of thing to be too focused on trying to establish what constitutes good gaming. Frozen_Feet's objective thing has the problem, for me, that while you can probably count it most cleanly of all the definitions, it introduces an extra layer where you have to constantly take into account that what matters for the actual game is some other thing (the players' current estimate or belief about their agency, or some-such) and I don't think that the objectivity of it is worth the extra fuss. I'd lean more towards it in a context such as measuring the agency of an artificial agent or something like that (I'd probably use the information theoretic definition of 'empowerment' rather than agency, for what its worth), but for tabletop gaming I think it hides the important psychological aspects.

If I'm going to use terms like 'agency' its because I would like those terms to ultimately be somewhat predictive. I want to be able to investigate statements such as 'when players apply their agency towards obtaining more agency, it feels like such and such', so that ultimately I have a better idea how games as a whole function - from the point of view of player, DM, and designer. On the other hand, I'm decidedly uninterested in using definitions to push for certain standards as to what constitutes good gaming. So I pushed back against what seemed to be a bid to include those normative elements into the discussion.


I can only conclude that the phrase "Player Agency" doesn't mean the same thing to you that it does to me.

So, I suppose it behooves me to explain my definition. Well, my revised definition, seeing as how I mentioned up-thread that I hadn't originally included the first step of knowledge. :smallredface:

So, to me, Player Agency involves the players getting to make choices for their characters that have a measurable, logical impact on the game. To make such choices, the players need to have knowledge to make informed choices, the characters need to have capabilities to perform actions, and the world needs to resolve in a logical way for the outcome of those choices to be predictable.

Now, here's where it gets tricky. I define agency as everything within the bounds of the characters capabilities. For example, if I'm playing a "normal" D&D character, it does not curtail my agency to not let me jump to the moon, because jumping to the moon is not within my capabilities. A game where my character cannot jump to the moon can still have 100% Player Agency.

Further, knowledge need not be perfect. However, knowledge and world consistency needs to be such that, when an event does not have the expected outcome, it is therefore obvious that our knowledge was inaccurate or incomplete. Everything should respond in a predictable way, and, when it does not, that must be indicative that there is something going on here to investigate.

Lastly, obtaining missing information must be possible. That may involve moving to OOC discussion (especially if the players and GM aren't on the same page / wavelength), and can even involve a retcon if the PCs should have known information of which the players were unaware.

For example, there are two things going on in your definitions here. First you lay out what you think agency is. So far so good, I'm roughly on board with that. But then you go on to dictate a bunch of prescriptions about what 'should' or 'must' happen or be possible, as well as make safe harbors for certain ways agency might be denied that might still not be unreasonable in a game.

I would say, stop after the first block (everything before 'it gets tricky'). The rest of it is not 'what is agency?', it's 'what do I expect of DMs with regards to my agency in their games?'. You can ask the second question, but I would like for the two to not become tangled.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-28, 08:57 AM
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.

Quertus
2017-10-28, 09:24 AM
The problem is that discussing 'what' independent of 'why' leaves one without any guide as to what actually constitutes a useful definition. Often bids for different definitions or ways of framing the discussion end up being driven by unspoken whys, so talking about it explicitly gets that out in the open. For example, Max_Killjoy's response that "Talking about it as a tool or a means to achieve something else, rather than a good thing in and of itself, also gives leave for some to push illusionism, for-your-own-good-ism, and so on." is a bid of that sort - it implicitly suggests that the reason to favor one way of framing over another is to marginalize a specific set of DM behaviors. As part of that is the implicit call that 'agency' must have a strict positive connotation, which I think is unhelpful. I had the same reaction to the 'agency as building material' objection to the 'agency is a tool' comment - its more about 'what I want my DM to believe' rather than 'what is it actually?'.

On the other hand, Frozen_Feet gave a very objective coverage of the term, specifically going as far to say that what the players feel from it doesn't matter, it's just the number of meaningful moves that they could take at any given moment.

For me, out of the ones discussed so far, I'd probably go more with PhoenixPhyre's definition.

To justify that, I have to go to the 'why' of things. It's the 'why' where, likely, we might differ in what we're actually trying to accomplish by discussing agency in the first place. I find the 'agency as building material' or 'agency is what the campaign is made of' kind of thing to be too focused on trying to establish what constitutes good gaming. Frozen_Feet's objective thing has the problem, for me, that while you can probably count it most cleanly of all the definitions, it introduces an extra layer where you have to constantly take into account that what matters for the actual game is some other thing (the players' current estimate or belief about their agency, or some-such) and I don't think that the objectivity of it is worth the extra fuss. I'd lean more towards it in a context such as measuring the agency of an artificial agent or something like that (I'd probably use the information theoretic definition of 'empowerment' rather than agency, for what its worth), but for tabletop gaming I think it hides the important psychological aspects.

If I'm going to use terms like 'agency' its because I would like those terms to ultimately be somewhat predictive. I want to be able to investigate statements such as 'when players apply their agency towards obtaining more agency, it feels like such and such', so that ultimately I have a better idea how games as a whole function - from the point of view of player, DM, and designer. On the other hand, I'm decidedly uninterested in using definitions to push for certain standards as to what constitutes good gaming. So I pushed back against what seemed to be a bid to include those normative elements into the discussion.



For example, there are two things going on in your definitions here. First you lay out what you think agency is. So far so good, I'm roughly on board with that. But then you go on to dictate a bunch of prescriptions about what 'should' or 'must' happen or be possible, as well as make safe harbors for certain ways agency might be denied that might still not be unreasonable in a game.

I would say, stop after the first block (everything before 'it gets tricky'). The rest of it is not 'what is agency?', it's 'what do I expect of DMs with regards to my agency in their games?'. You can ask the second question, but I would like for the two to not become tangled.

... Despite making the thread, I can't really keep up with it. So I'm just skimming, and poking at large areas of dissonance.

I fully agree with the your desire to remove notions of positive connotations, and to smoke out hidden agendas. I just disagreed with your methods, in part because they felt like what you were arguing against.

When watching a movie, I almost always have zero agency to affect the outcome. And this is not a bad thing. Lack of agency is not inherently bad.

So, regarding your disagreement with the existence of the second half of my definition, how would you suggest I go about expressing the, to me, utterly integral and indispensable notion that my definition of Player Agency is strictly bounded by the character's capabilities?


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.

I don't consider what you call large-scale agency to be a part of Player Agency. But I do consider "take an action at time T that has an effect at time T+X, not just at time T" to fall under Player Agency. And that includes very large-scale, campaign-changing consequences.

NichG
2017-10-28, 10:06 AM
... Despite making the thread, I can't really keep up with it. So I'm just skimming, and poking at large areas of dissonance.

I fully agree with the your desire to remove notions of positive connotations, and to smoke out hidden agendas. I just disagreed with your methods, in part because they felt like what you were arguing against.

When watching a movie, I almost always have zero agency to affect the outcome. And this is not a bad thing. Lack of agency is not inherently bad.

So, regarding your disagreement with the existence of the second half of my definition, how would you suggest I go about expressing the, to me, utterly integral and indispensable notion that my definition of Player Agency is strictly bounded by the character's capabilities?

I guess I'd say it's better as a logical conclusion about the practical limitations of agency in any given situation rather than being stated as part of the definition of agency itself. If for example I were to say 'agency is what can be intentionally brought about', then if the character is the bottleneck through which actions are taken then things that the character cannot achieve will naturally not be part of that player's agency without requiring any additional caveats. The word 'intentionally' would cover the knowledge aspect, and the word 'can' covers the limits imposed by e.g. character capabilities.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-28, 10:42 AM
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.


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.




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.


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.




I fully agree with the your desire to remove notions of positive connotations, and to smoke out hidden agendas. I just disagreed with your methods, in part because they felt like what you were arguing against.

When watching a movie, I almost always have zero agency to affect the outcome. And this is not a bad thing. Lack of agency is not inherently bad.


Why would we want to remove the positive connotations?

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

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-28, 10:54 AM
I don't consider what you call large-scale agency to be a part of Player Agency. But I do consider "take an action at time T that has an effect at time T+X, not just at time T" to fall under Player Agency. And that includes very large-scale, campaign-changing consequences.

Why not? Players (including the DM) make informed, meaningful choices well before characters even enter picture. Key decisions include choice of system, choice of setting, character construction choices (playing Quertus results in different game-play than does playing Arnus), choice of story (play a module or not? If so, which module? These have large effects in play.). In fact, there is only one choice that cannot (barring a Saw "I want to play a game" scenario) be taken away, and it's a large-scale choice. The choice to play or not to play.

More broadly, defining agency in terms of characters obscures one key idea--responsibility. Characters have no agency, and bear no responsibility for their choices. Only players do. Hiding behind "It's what my character would do" to excuse antagonistic or disruptive play is trying to shift the blame to the character. But the player made those choices, not the character. What that statement really means is "I want to be disruptive, but I don't want to suffer the consequences of disruption." It's a denial of your own agency, and is false. The character is who you say he is--decisions to grow/change are on your shoulders, not the character's.

For example, you could decide that Quertus is tired of being tactically inept and that he's going to put his enormous intelligence to work to solve that problem. That's a large-scale agency choice--you're choosing his direction independently of the exact circumstances. And it's entirely up to you (at least in D&D)--there are no mechanical or other binding restraints on character personality and growth.

jayem
2017-10-28, 11:15 AM
Having 100% PA mean 100% character capability seems reasonable enough. We can always call Fate a 200% player agency variant which kind of shows somethings up.

I'm not sure I'd count PhoenixPhyre "long term agency" as long term agency, I'd reserve that for long term in game consequences of in game actions (particularly character actions, but it is PA rather than PCA), and give that a different name (I agree it is important-and a type of agency).

I do like the "meaningful" "choice" definition..

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-28, 11:33 AM
Having 100% PA mean 100% character capability seems reasonable enough. We can always call Fate a 200% player agency variant which kind of shows somethings up.

I'm not sure I'd count PhoenixPhyre "long term agency" as long term agency, I'd reserve that for long term in game consequences of in game actions (particularly character actions, but it is PA rather than PCA), and give that a different name (I agree it is important-and a type of agency).

I do like the "meaningful" "choice" definition..

Large-scale, not long-term. It's about granularity and scope. Large-scale agency has to do with what kind of game you're playing or goals and attitudes of a character, not actions in-character. Maybe calling them "Out-of-Character Agency" and "In-character agency" would be clearer?

With large-scale agency, I, the player, am making choices as myself, for myself. With small-scale agency, I, the player, am making choices for a character (or characters in the DM's case) in a specific situation. Both are player agency, but they're very different types of things.

jayem
2017-10-28, 11:45 AM
Maybe calling them "Out-of-Character Agency" and "In-character agency" would be clearer?

Possibly, I made the jump (large-scale=big-consequences=long-time) when reading the titles as to what to expect.

[edit-though that I suppose has a conflict with Fate style agency. in any case you've described what you mean quite clearly]

OldTrees1
2017-10-28, 12:17 PM
Wow. You must have a lot of experience with legalise (how does one spell legal ease?). Based on my (revised) definition, below, do you feel we differ on the "meaningful" bit of your definition?

So, I suppose it behooves me to explain my definition. Well, my revised definition, seeing as how I mentioned up-thread that I hadn't originally included the first step of knowledge. :smallredface:

So, to me, Player Agency involves the players getting to make choices for their characters that have a measurable, logical impact on the game. To make such choices, the players need to have knowledge to make informed choices, the characters need to have capabilities to perform actions, and the world needs to resolve in a logical way for the outcome of those choices to be predictable.

Now, here's where it gets tricky. I define agency as everything within the bounds of the characters capabilities. For example, if I'm playing a "normal" D&D character, it does not curtail my agency to not let me jump to the moon, because jumping to the moon is not within my capabilities. A game where my character cannot jump to the moon can still have 100% Player Agency.

Further, knowledge need not be perfect. However, knowledge and world consistency needs to be such that, when an event does not have the expected outcome, it is therefore obvious that our knowledge was inaccurate or incomplete. Everything should respond in a predictable way, and, when it does not, that must be indicative that there is something going on here to investigate.

Lastly, obtaining missing information must be possible. That may involve moving to OOC discussion (especially if the players and GM aren't on the same page / wavelength), and can even involve a retcon if the PCs should have known information of which the players were unaware.

So, to pull an example from another thread, if, in the bizarre game world, everyone knows that, contrary to the real world, barn fires are actually salvageable situations, then the PCs need to have that information to make an informed decision about what to do about a barn fire in order to be considered to have agency under my definition.

Let me put forth another bizarre world. The players say the PCs look around; suddenly, the sun grows much brighter and hotter. The PCs look for shelter. As they race for a convenient log cabin, the sun grows even brighter, and lightning and hail begin descending from the sky. They decide to rest in the cabin, and note that time itself begins to break down. The players express their anger at the GM, and volcanos begin erupting. As the players walk out, the GM narrates how the world breaks apart, and everyone dies.

In this game, the outcome (everyone dies due to forces outside their control) was predetermined. Which forces killed them was determined by the players' stated actions. How do the various definitions and metrics of Player Agency rate this example?

You define Agency as the ability to have impact and then start detailing what is necessary for that impact.
I defined Agency as the ability to have impact arising from being faced with meaningful choices and I defined Meaningful Choices in a manner that I expect the ability for a player to impact the world through them is an emergent property of the kind of choice.

We did differ on whether the characters capabilities were included in or treated as bounds for the definition of Agency. Since I prefer to run Sandbox games, I see that the characters abilities are limits on their ability to impact the world. This usually leads to be starting such campaigns at a higher level than I otherwise would so that the Players have a larger ability to impact the world. This intentional adjustment for the sake of increasing the ability to cause impact, leads me towards considering the limits of character capabilities as an artificial ceiling on the Agency in that game but not on the scale in general. Aka a character that can jump to the moon does have more potential agency than the identical character that cannot (all that is required is for the DM to make going to the moon have impact on the game). But a character does not need total Agency under that definition, because limitations on character capabilities have value in campaign design.

I think you went from describing to prescribing when you talked about missing information MUST be obtainable. For a definition of Agency I think we can leave it as the choice or part of a choice that depended on that missing information was not a meaningful choice but the rest might have been. I can play a Monty Hall puzzle and have some agency (informed impactful choice to always switch) despite not having all the information needed to know the result.


Large-scale, not long-term. It's about granularity and scope. Large-scale agency has to do with what kind of game you're playing or goals and attitudes of a character, not actions in-character. Maybe calling them "Out-of-Character Agency" and "In-character agency" would be clearer?

With large-scale agency, I, the player, am making choices as myself, for myself. With small-scale agency, I, the player, am making choices for a character (or characters in the DM's case) in a specific situation. Both are player agency, but they're very different types of things.

If the DM frames questions about what the next campaign would be about in the form of meaningful choices the PCs face, is that Large Scale or Short Scale in your terminology?

What about PCs that construct situations where they get meaningful choices about how to shape the world? Imagine a Rogue that is Guildmaster of all the thieves guilds on the material plane.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-28, 12:45 PM
If the DM frames questions about what the next campaign would be about in the form of meaningful choices the PCs face, is that Large Scale or Short Scale in your terminology?

What about PCs that construct situations where they get meaningful choices about how to shape the world? Imagine a Rogue that is Guildmaster of all the thieves guilds on the material plane.

The fundamental difference (as I put in my second response) is one of who the decisions are being made for.

Are the players choosing what type of game they want to play? Large-scale (or Out of character) agency. This can include making decisions that strongly restrict the agency later ("the entire game will take place in a single room with no way out or in" is an exercise of OOC agency). Characters may not have even been created yet. Another example is this--I gave a couple of groups a choice from a set of campaign seeds. These included a brief description of what environments the characters (which had completed a tutorial mission at this point) would face, what enemies, and what the over-arching goal of the campaign would be. This is OOC agency--the characters had no way of knowing these details, but the players could choose which they preferred (believed that they would find more fun).

Are the players choosing actions for a restricted set of characters in a scenario/set of circumstances? That's small-scale (IC agency). 90% of the time, this is the dominant play loop of D&D-like games.

1) DM narrates a situation.
2) Players decide what their character attempts. Players and DM resolve the attempt.
3) GOTO 1 (updating the situation with the changes due to the attempt).

Of course, the two influence each other--neither stands alone and this is not a binary, it's a set of continua. Here are four exceptional cases that showcase the differences. All start with "A group of friends gather to play a game."

1) High OOC, low IC agency: The participants set initial parameters (build a setting, choose a system, design characters, etc) and feed that information into a glorified version of Conway's Game of Life (a zero-external-input simulation engine). Their only input was at the configuration stage, but those actions mattered.

2) Low OOC, high IC agency: They randomly (as in, using a randomizer) pick a system and a setting with pre-built characters (including personality and goals). They then play a game where each player strives to follow the pre-built personalities and goals in whatever way they feel best fits the character. Their decisions shape the outcome.

3) Low OOC, low IC agency: An external DM arrives with a pre-generated, highly-railroaded module. Their only choice is to play the pre-generated characters through the scripted plot, or not play at all. They can make choices, but they don't change anything significant.

4) High OOC, high IC agency: They play a free-form, DM-less (high narrative control) game in a self-defined setting. The only rules are consensus. Actions both OOC and IC matter strongly at every step.

Of course, most TTRPGs are not at any of these extremes (except maybe DU's games). D&D tends to limit setting/rules-related OOC agency while giving strong character-related OOC agency (defining build, personality and goals for a character). Running modules restricts IC agency, but since that's knowingly agreed on in advance, it's not a harmful agency violation in my opinion.

OldTrees1
2017-10-28, 01:13 PM
The fundamental difference (as I put in my second response) is one of who the decisions are being made for. -snip-

Crystal clear.

Yes, I think that is a good distinction to remember.

Quertus
2017-10-28, 10:37 PM
I guess my issue with certain definitions of Player Agency is that the choice between playing Checkers and playing Chess has nothing to do with the degree to which Chess gives you agency.

Further, as a player, you absolutely have agency at all phases of Chess - you absolutely have the option to make a suboptimal move, just like you have the option to pick a level in Commoner or take an attack of opportunity on your ally in D&D, or play with Muck Dwellers or 1000 islands + 4 Sword of the Ages in MtG. Now, does the fact that certain moves are suboptimal trap options say something about the option to pick them, with regards to agency? Currently, unlike with Illusions or Inevitable Ogres, I'm coming down on the side of "no", but I may be wrong.

Let me flip that around. Playing Quertus, or Armus, or any other character I'd care to play, they have a personality. Role-playing that personality, and their non-omniscient perspective on reality, greatly curtails my options. Yet I don't feel a loss of Agency. Why not? (I don't have an answer for this. Have I lost Agency without realizing it? Or should Player Agency be defined in some way such that options curtailed by role-playing do not result in a loss of Agency?)


I guess I'd say it's better as a logical conclusion about the practical limitations of agency in any given situation rather than being stated as part of the definition of agency itself. If for example I were to say 'agency is what can be intentionally brought about', then if the character is the bottleneck through which actions are taken then things that the character cannot achieve will naturally not be part of that player's agency without requiring any additional caveats. The word 'intentionally' would cover the knowledge aspect, and the word 'can' covers the limits imposed by e.g. character capabilities.

Hmmm... What if we consider those paragraphs to be clarifying the meanings of my previous words? They are a test: if you read them to be opposed to each other, then I haven't been clear? Most software developers can't test their own code - I can. I think this easy in terms of safeguards and fall conditions.

But, you're right - I should work harder to make sure that the first half of the definition stands alone, and clearly supports the second (interpreted) half.


Why would we want to remove the positive connotations?

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

Because I am even more biased than you in believing that Player Agency is the bestest thing ever, and essential to a good RPG.

Because a definition of Player Agency should be able to stand in its own, independent of a characterization of its value to an RPG.

Because there are those who contend that there are times when Agency is suboptimal, and if Player Agency is conflated with being better, it makes for a more difficult conversation.

Or, on a more personal note, because you dislike supernatural mind control based on your previous bad experiences with it under a railroading GM. Whereas me, I haven't had horrible experiences with it, so I don't dislike it. And my definition of Player Agency doesn't call out supernatural mind control as removing Agency (as, to me, mind control merely changes the list of what is within the character's capabilities). And I want to be able to have this discussion about what is Player Agency without crossing wires about what is good and bad.

And because, if possible, I want to avoid a scenario like, "if the players don't like it, it's railroading". Where someone contends that, for me, mind control isn't a loss of Player Agency, but, for you, it is.


Maybe calling them "Out-of-Character Agency" and "In-character agency" would be clearer?

I agree with this nomenclature.


Why not? Players (including the DM) make informed, meaningful choices well before characters even enter picture. Key decisions include choice of system, choice of setting, character construction choices (playing Quertus results in different game-play than does playing Arnus), choice of story (play a module or not? If so, which module? These have large effects in play.). In fact, there is only one choice that cannot (barring a Saw "I want to play a game" scenario) be taken away, and it's a large-scale choice. The choice to play or not to play.

Why do I not include "OOC agency" in my definition of Player Agency? That's a very good question, and it's questions like this that make me glad I made this thread.

Hmmm... As I said above, the presence or absence of the choice between playing Chess and playing Checkers tells us nothing about how much Agency one has while playing Chess.

I can't say that I don't care about OOC Agency - I would very much rather play a character that I know that I'll enjoy than have to take a 20 creating new characters until one fits.

But I also care about how my gaming snacks tastes, what dice I use, what my mini looks like, how my character sheet is laid out, how well lit the room is, what house rules we are using, how many 5-year-olds are convenient for demonstrating points. But caring about a thing does not make it related to Agency. So, what does?

My personal definition going into this thread revolved (and still revolves) around the character's capabilities. As such, OOC Agency does not fall within my personal definition of Player Agency. To pull an example from another thread, to me, getting to create entire countries for RPGs is as relevant to Player Agency as getting to name the princess in Grandpa's (railroading) story. That is to say, not at all, because it has nothing to do with the character having an impact on the game.

But, afaict, it's entirely circular logic. So I'm perfectly content to have two separate labels for IC and OOC Player Agency, and determining ways to differentiate between them.


More broadly, defining agency in terms of characters obscures one key idea--responsibility. Characters have no agency, and bear no responsibility for their choices. Only players do. Hiding behind "It's what my character would do" to excuse antagonistic or disruptive play is trying to shift the blame to the character. But the player made those choices, not the character. What that statement really means is "I want to be disruptive, but I don't want to suffer the consequences of disruption." It's a denial of your own agency, and is false. The character is who you say he is--decisions to grow/change are on your shoulders, not the character's.

For example, you could decide that Quertus is tired of being tactically inept and that he's going to put his enormous intelligence to work to solve that problem. That's a large-scale agency choice--you're choosing his direction independently of the exact circumstances. And it's entirely up to you (at least in D&D)--there are no mechanical or other binding restraints on character personality and growth.

... This is a much larger conversation. But the quick of it is, I believe in a much more narrow range of likely behaviors than I suspect you do.

The first step to fixing a problem is realizing that there is one. Quertus has no concept that he is tactically inept. He had received decades of reinforcement of his current behavior. While he knows he's not an Imperial War Wizard, and that he lacks their training and understanding of battlefield tactics, he does not have the perspective to recognize just how bad his choices are. Further, he knows enough to have saved over 100 worlds, and the only person I can remember trying to teach Quertus tactics somehow managed to be worse at it than Quertus (they recommended buffing the enemy). Quertus has no desire to learn "advanced" combat tactics - all he wants is to retire!

So Quertus has nothing to build from to recognize the problem and develop a desire to improve.

On the larger issue of "it's what my character would do", I think the focus is wrong. WWJD (etc) are a thing precisely because those letters have meaning - to deny that should be clearly wrong minded.

It takes a much more careful analysis of the elements to determine exactly what caused any given problem, and what can reasonably be done to fix it, than to just blithely assume that characterization of a character is meaningless.


I think you went from describing to prescribing when you talked about missing information MUST be obtainable. For a definition of Agency I think we can leave it as the choice or part of a choice that depended on that missing information was not a meaningful choice but the rest might have been. I can play a Monty Hall puzzle and have some agency (informed impactful choice to always switch) despite not having all the information needed to know the result.

Hmmm... I probably rolled a 1 on expression. Let me try again.

Science likes to believe that the real world is a predictable place, with rhyme and reason and repeatable phenomenon.

I believe I was attempting to contend that, for Player Agency to exist, similar principles must apply to the game world. As a test of such principles, I contended that "all information is learnable" would potentially suffice; further, that being able to learn it OOC was adequate. I am, however, currently questioning the accuracy of my contention.


Running modules restricts IC agency, but since that's knowingly agreed on in advance, it's not a harmful agency violation in my opinion.

Well, now, that's an interesting question: if you're playing an Adventure Path, you know that if you stray too far off the rails, you cannot continue, and you've lost the game. But, you technically still have the option to do so. So is it truly a loss of Player Agency?

NichG
2017-10-28, 11:33 PM
Let me flip that around. Playing Quertus, or Armus, or any other character I'd care to play, they have a personality. Role-playing that personality, and their non-omniscient perspective on reality, greatly curtails my options. Yet I don't feel a loss of Agency. Why not? (I don't have an answer for this. Have I lost Agency without realizing it? Or should Player Agency be defined in some way such that options curtailed by role-playing do not result in a loss of Agency?)

Hmmm... What if we consider those paragraphs to be clarifying the meanings of my previous words? They are a test: if you read them to be opposed to each other, then I haven't been clear? Most software developers can't test their own code - I can. I think this easy in terms of safeguards and fall conditions.

There's again two separate things though. You're talking here about your feeling that agency was curtailed, not actually what agency you have. In other places you talk about things like '100% player agency'. That all speaks of a framework that wants to assume a default and then talk in terms of way that it is limited (but, notice, doing it that way makes it really hard to talk about ways that it might be increased, necessitating the awkward 200% agency thing when talking about games like FATE).

So if we talk about the 'why?', it makes me think - what could the 'why?' be behind wanting to talk about agency more in terms of how it is modified from some assumed baseline, than to talk about agency independent of that expectation?

If we're talking about your characters that you play, it only seems weird that you'd voluntarily lower your own agency if you assume a normative definition - e.g. 'agency is always good and you always want as much of it as possible up to the natural baseline', so the definition gets tangled. That's where this question of defining agency such that certain limits don't count as a loss comes from - it only makes sense if it's unacceptable to ever consider agency as something you don't want or need as much of as possible. But if agency is just a particular thing, then its not strange to sometimes want to trade off agency or spend agency or sacrifice agency or so on. So in that case, you can start to examine why some decreases of agency feel bad, but other decreases of agency don't, without the implicit assumption that it must be because in one case you aren't 'really' losing agency.

For example, if we go with 'agency is the outcomes which you can intentionally bring about', then choosing to use agency always means that your agency goes down - you're committing to a particular outcome, whereas before you made the decision you could have chosen any of those achievable outcomes. But it goes down in exchange for getting the outcome you want, which is in that moment more satisfying than keeping the breadth of options alive. So the experience of how interacting with agency feels can be more complicated than just 'more = good', and the discussion can be about exploring that psychology rather than exploring the meaning of agency itself.

OldTrees1
2017-10-29, 12:38 AM
I guess my issue with certain definitions of Player Agency is that the choice between playing Checkers and playing Chess has nothing to do with the degree to which Chess gives you agency.

Further, as a player, you absolutely have agency at all phases of Chess - you absolutely have the option to make a suboptimal move, just like you have the option to pick a level in Commoner or take an attack of opportunity on your ally in D&D, or play with Muck Dwellers or 1000 islands + 4 Sword of the Ages in MtG. Now, does the fact that certain moves are suboptimal trap options say something about the option to pick them, with regards to agency? Currently, unlike with Illusions or Inevitable Ogres, I'm coming down on the side of "no", but I may be wrong.

Let me flip that around. Playing Quertus, or Armus, or any other character I'd care to play, they have a personality. Role-playing that personality, and their non-omniscient perspective on reality, greatly curtails my options. Yet I don't feel a loss of Agency. Why not? (I don't have an answer for this. Have I lost Agency without realizing it? Or should Player Agency be defined in some way such that options curtailed by role-playing do not result in a loss of Agency?)


Shifted example might bring clarity: There are many variations to chess. If you both give each other the choice between bughouse and vanilla chess, that does speak to the agency in the game you both are playing even if it does not speak to the agency within bughouse or vanilla chess.

Why do you feel like you have not lost agency going from checkers to RPGs despite the transition from a perfect information game to an imperfect information game? It is probably because RPGs give you more options even after removing most of the options it adds. Armus and Quertus literally could play a game of chess in an RPG but instead engage in a imperfect information game against a chessmaster BBEG.


Hmmm... I probably rolled a 1 on expression. Let me try again.

Science likes to believe that the real world is a predictable place, with rhyme and reason and repeatable phenomenon.

I believe I was attempting to contend that, for Player Agency to exist, similar principles must apply to the game world. As a test of such principles, I contended that "all information is learnable" would potentially suffice; further, that being able to learn it OOC was adequate. I am, however, currently questioning the accuracy of my contention.


While I usually run sandboxes with enough agency for the PCs to be major players, I tend to use Lovecraftian Horror as my examples. Go figure.

Imagine a horror game full of a mixture of blind (the choice has impact but the players are uninformed when choosing) and meaningful choices that the PCs run through as they try to survive. Would it detract from the meaningful choices if the blind choices did not have "all information is learnable"?

Say there was a fork in the hallway & the PCs ran down one direction. There was no information available to the PCs (blind choice). Later they see a creature and choose to engage to slink away based upon its description. The DM never reveals to the players what was down the other direction (other than that it was different). Did being unable to learn OOC about the other direction detract from the meaningful choice they had later?

Say they engaged the creature and chased it to another fork in the hallway. This time there is a slime trail leading towards the right. The PCs choose whether to follow the slime trail (unknowingly towards the science lab) or go left away from the creature (and unknowingly towards the library). If the DM never reveals the lab/library that was in the other direction, did that detract from the meaningful choice to follow or avoid the slime trail?

I do not think the lack of information matters as long as we include meaningful choices and the PCs being informed about the details of the choice as a necessary condition of it being meaningful.

Floret
2017-10-29, 04:04 AM
I do not think the lack of information matters as long as we include meaningful choices and the PCs being informed about the details of the choice as a necessary condition of it being meaningful.

I'd absolutely say it does. Without any information about the situation (as in the two hallways) this is effectively akin to someone telling you to make a cointoss. Are you exercising your agency by doing it? Maybe a bit, you could refuse.
But are you exercising your agency by whether you get heads or tails? Not in a million years.

I agree that it feels like having more control than when someone else throws that coin for you (even though that's entirely illusionary), but the result is effectively random (to the one making the decision), and cannot be said to be determined by the decision anymore than the result of a dieroll is.

Thinking about it, this is another reason why I would put percieved agency as the thing more relevant to care about than actual agency* - yes, the decision lead to different results, but no matter if we classify that as agency or not, the important part is that it doesn't feel to the player as if they had any sort of meaningful control (even though they did).

*While noting that it is nigh impossible to create the feeling of agency without a great deal of actual agency being given.

oxybe
2017-10-29, 04:38 AM
Let me flip that around. Playing Quertus, or Armus, or any other character I'd care to play, they have a personality. Role-playing that personality, and their non-omniscient perspective on reality, greatly curtails my options. Yet I don't feel a loss of Agency. Why not? (I don't have an answer for this. Have I lost Agency without realizing it? Or should Player Agency be defined in some way such that options curtailed by role-playing do not result in a loss of Agency?)

Every choice you make up until the game starts is usually about deciding where you want to apply or focus your agency on once gameplay starts, by making and weighing the opportunity costs for doing so. You can play Quertus, Armus or any other character, but by doing so you're restricting your ability to play those unchosen characters and their unique options.

One could largely that that lost "potential agency" is relegated to acceptable losses and you've largely moved on in your mind.

Similarly to how deciding to play a fantasy game restricts the types of characters you can make, and further the setting and genre may put more restrictions, think darksun and it's choice of races for example: If you accept to play in a game of Darksun, you've tossed playing Crunk the Half-Orc aside as well as any character with a beef VS orcs. Those are things you've already instantly accepted in the back of your mind as acceptable losses where your agency is concerned when you chose to play in that Darksun game.

If "no orcs" is deal breaker, you can always choose to apply your single greatest bit of agency as a player and just choose to not play in that game, same as if you don't care for games that feature heavy diplomacy or combat.

Darth Ultron
2017-10-29, 09:50 AM
1) DM narrates a situation.
2) Players decide what their character attempts. Players and DM resolve the attempt.
3) GOTO 1 (updating the situation with the changes due to the attempt).



1) High OOC, low IC agency: The participants set initial parameters (build a setting, choose a system, design characters, etc) and feed that information into a glorified version of Conway's Game of Life (a zero-external-input simulation engine). Their only input was at the configuration stage, but those actions mattered.

2) Low OOC, high IC agency: They randomly (as in, using a randomizer) pick a system and a setting with pre-built characters (including personality and goals). They then play a game where each player strives to follow the pre-built personalities and goals in whatever way they feel best fits the character. Their decisions shape the outcome.

3) Low OOC, low IC agency: An external DM arrives with a pre-generated, highly-railroaded module. Their only choice is to play the pre-generated characters through the scripted plot, or not play at all. They can make choices, but they don't change anything significant.

4) High OOC, high IC agency: They play a free-form, DM-less (high narrative control) game in a self-defined setting. The only rules are consensus. Actions both OOC and IC matter strongly at every step.

Of course, most TTRPGs are not at any of these extremes (except maybe DU's games).

Look, my name is mentioned.

So...your examples are all over the place and don't mention the same things.

1) High OOC, low IC agency: So this is the players have lots of say at the Game Zero part, but then they just sit down and play the game like normal players? Ok.

2) Low OOC, high IC agency: A game is picked randomly? Characters are pre generated? But then it is just a mess of a random player controlled game? Ok.

3) Low OOC, low IC agency: So the classic Jerk Railroad DM game here.

4) High OOC, high IC agency: The Free Form Game.

Bit odd you only mention having a plot for the railroad game.


Let me flip that around. Playing Quertus, or Armus, or any other character I'd care to play, they have a personality. Role-playing that personality, and their non-omniscient perspective on reality, greatly curtails my options. Yet I don't feel a loss of Agency. Why not? (I don't have an answer for this. Have I lost Agency without realizing it? Or should Player Agency be defined in some way such that options curtailed by role-playing do not result in a loss of Agency?)

Well, my answer would be: Player Agency does not matter and is in fact just an illusion. If you can give up something and not notice you even lost it, then it does not matter much at all.

High, or Pure, Player Agency is Free Form: a player can have a character do anything on a whim and no one can say anything about it ever. Then you start to chip away at that for other RPGs. First you have the game, game setting, game rules and game concept. Then you have the social contract, common sense, and social norms. Then you have the other players and the DM. Then you have any self imposed things from yourself. And finally you have the story, plot or whatever you want to call whatever the game has that makes it not just a random free form mess.

Just look at that list, it is huge. It is going from having it all, to nothing...or so little that it is next to nothing.



Because I am even more biased than you in believing that Player Agency is the bestest thing ever, and essential to a good RPG.

Is it? Or do you just think it is? Is it just as you have been told it is the best? Do you just think it sounds good?

OldTrees1
2017-10-29, 10:56 AM
I'd absolutely say it does. Without any information about the situation (as in the two hallways) this is effectively akin to someone telling you to make a cointoss. Are you exercising your agency by doing it? Maybe a bit, you could refuse.
But are you exercising your agency by whether you get heads or tails? Not in a million years.

You did not answer the question. I did not ask if the blind choice had player agency (we both know blind choices are not meaningful choices). I asked if the meaningful choice they had later was hurt by the DM not revealing the hidden information about the blind choice not taken. This was a specific question to Quertus addressing subtle differences between their definition of meaningful choices ("all information must be learnable") vs my definition of meaningful choices ("to be a meaningful choice, the PCs know the relevant details").

So:
A) Did the meaningful choice to "engage or slink away from the creature" get hurt by the information of the other path of the blind choice before not being revealed OOC?
B) Did the meaningful choice of "go right to follow the slime or left to avoid the slime" get hurt by the information of the other path of the entangled blind choice of (unknown to the players, there is a lab to the right and a library to the left) not being revealed OOC.

PS: Previously, and especially now that Darth Ultron has dropped in, I will stick to discussing actual rather than perceived agency.


.

I see you are starting off just as intellectually dishonest as you were/are in the other thread. We might as well just talk around you until you learn some honesty.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-29, 11:42 AM
I can't wait for Darth Ultron to crash his way into this thread like Kool-aid man and then ramble his way through a subject he has no comprehension of.

/S

There was always the chance that the king of threadcrapping might not have noticed it and we could have had an actual a grown-up discussion...

Darth Ultron
2017-10-29, 03:09 PM
PS: Previously, and especially now that Darth Ultron has dropped in, I will stick to discussing actual rather than perceived agency.


Hey you had a whole week to hug and talk about how great player agency was without a single other diverse viewpoint.



I see you are starting off just as intellectually dishonest as you were/are in the other thread. We might as well just talk around you until you learn some honesty.

Just as you don't like something, does not make it wrong....and that is One To Grow On.


There was always the chance that the king of threadcrapping might not have noticed it and we could have had an actual a grown-up discussion...

King of Threadcapping?

Talakeal
2017-10-29, 09:19 PM
A couple of questions for people who are strongly opposed to the Quantum Ogre:

First, are you ok with improv GMing?

If so, why do you find it acceptable for a GM to spontaneously invent an encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate, but not to spontaneously decide to use a pre-planned encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate?

If you do oppose improv GMing, do you insist that all encounter be tied to a specific time as well as a specific place? For example, you hate the idea of an ogre always encountering the party three days after they leave town, but would you be ok with them always encountering an ogre the first time they enter the forest three hexes north of town? If yes, why do you feel an encounter that is locked to a specific space but not a specific time to be more enjoyable and / or realistic than one that is tied to a specific time but not a specific place?

If no, how do you actually ever find adventure? I would imagine a game where encounters must be planned in advance and be locked to both a specific time and place to be incredibly time consuming for the DM, and incredibly boring for the players as I would imagine they spend most of their time just wandering around doing mundane tasks hoping to be in just the right place at just the right time to actually find the encounters.

oxybe
2017-10-29, 09:57 PM
A couple of questions for people who are strongly opposed to the Quantum Ogre:

First, are you ok with improv GMing?

If so, why do you find it acceptable for a GM to spontaneously invent an encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate, but not to spontaneously decide to use a pre-planned encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate?

If you do oppose improv GMing, do you insist that all encounter be tied to a specific time as well as a specific place? For example, you hate the idea of an ogre always encountering the party three days after they leave town, but would you be ok with them always encountering an ogre the first time they enter the forest three hexes north of town? If yes, why do you feel an encounter that is locked to a specific space but not a specific time to be more enjoyable and / or realistic than one that is tied to a specific time but not a specific place?

If no, how do you actually ever find adventure? I would imagine a game where encounters must be planned in advance and be locked to both a specific time and place to be incredibly time consuming for the DM, and incredibly boring for the players as I would imagine they spend most of their time just wandering around doing mundane tasks hoping to be in just the right place at just the right time to actually find the encounters.

Quantum ogre is fine... sometimes. It's a tool to be used.

If that ogre is just that, a simple ogre, then there's no real issue on whether you use it as an encounter if the players leave town via the north or south.

If it is a specific ogre though, especially one the players are aware of, that's when you run into issues.

Let's say the Ogre works for the Evil Baron Von Hackenslash. unbeknownst to the players, the Ogre is just passing through the territory while carrying a note that is meant for one of the Baron's top men.

Players, aware that the Ogre is trekking through the northern part of the territory, decide to go leave town via the south. At this point our GM has a problem.

He was hoping the PCs would grab and decipher that note, interrupting the information going to the Baron & hopefully handing it to the local charter of The Knights in Really Nice Armour Who Also Build Orphanariums and Puppy Hotels.

Does an Improv GM toss our Ogre fight vs the PCs who, realistically, went the opposite direction to avoid the Ogre? What if our PCs in question are double paranoid and also keep on the look out, noting that they still continue to be on their guard and try to avoid potential southern Ogre crossings, in case their information is wrong.

In short, the Quantum Ogre's successful use relies on the Quantum mechanics: that it's current state is not defined until the players themselves, or by proxy of an NPC, observe the ogre.

It falls back to Shroedinger's tongue-in-cheek cat, which until we observe it, cannot be said to be dead or alive: the Ogre is neither here nor there until someone sees and mentions it.

If our ogre is used in a different location (ie state of being, to bring it back to the cat) then one that was observed, it causes jank, potentially breaking a player's suspension of disbelief and immersion by betraying their understanding of the world.

However, if the players have no recollection of seeing or hearing about an ogre being talked about, ie: it hasn't been observed, then bumping into our plot ogre in their foray south is not so much "quantum ogre" and more "i have an ogre prepared for tonight & I a note I want to plot dump on you". It's pretty obvious from a player side, that we just happen to bump into the right ogre, but it doesn't so much as break the suspension of disbelief as cause a few groans for how transparent it is.

OldTrees1
2017-10-29, 10:13 PM
A couple of questions for people who are strongly opposed to the Quantum Ogre:

First, are you ok with improv GMing?

If so, why do you find it acceptable for a GM to spontaneously invent an encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate, but not to spontaneously decide to use a pre-planned encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate?

If you do oppose improv GMing, do you insist that all encounter be tied to a specific time as well as a specific place? For example, you hate the idea of an ogre always encountering the party three days after they leave town, but would you be ok with them always encountering an ogre the first time they enter the forest three hexes north of town? If yes, why do you feel an encounter that is locked to a specific space but not a specific time to be more enjoyable and / or realistic than one that is tied to a specific time but not a specific place?

If no, how do you actually ever find adventure? I would imagine a game where encounters must be planned in advance and be locked to both a specific time and place to be incredibly time consuming for the DM, and incredibly boring for the players as I would imagine they spend most of their time just wandering around doing mundane tasks hoping to be in just the right place at just the right time to actually find the encounters.

I do not know if this qualifies as strongly opposed:
I accept Quantum Ogre as being acceptable BUT I want verisimilitude and thus I strongly prefer the DM not use things like Quantum Ogre which undermine the verisimilitude of the world. So let's go through your list with that position in mind.

Yes, improv DMing is perfectly acceptable. I personally use derived improv as a DMing style to preserve verisimilitude by deriving the answers to unexpected questions so that I give the same answer as if I had prepared it in advanced.

So why do I not like Quantum Ogres but do like improv DMing:
Quantum Ogres require betraying the verisimilitude of the campaign world by moving an encounter in a manner it did not have the power to move. In contrast, creating or deriving what encounter would have been there does not contradict previously planned facts about the world*. Additionally there is the detail that Quantum Ogre retcons the details of a PC choice thus weakening or negating its meaning. In contrast Improv DMing does not necessitate doing such.

So Quantum Ogres are acceptable, but I strongly prefer the DM never ever use them. Improvising a new but actually reasonable encounter results in a much more real world for the PCs to interact with.

*Even if you introduce the Quantum Ogre in a superposition rather than as having a discrete location that you move, you still are moving it when you collapse the wavefunction into the location "in front of the PCs".

Or in other words: I can do improv DMing in a manner without either of the negatives that people dislike about Quantum Ogres (can retcon away some agency & harms verisimilitude of the world). Therefore I like improv DMing but strongly prefer Quantum Ogres never ever be used when I am a Player.

Cozzer
2017-10-30, 02:22 AM
I'm going to repeat myself: it's one thing to use quantum ogres to introduce new plot hooks or setting elements, it's another thing to use them to advance an existing plot.

Like, let's say the current adventure is about finding a serial killer. You could decide that in the next city the PCs will stumble upon his latest victim, whatever this next city might be. That's an acceptable use of the quantum ogre, in my opinion. But if you say "in the next city the PCs, who are already looking for the serial killer, will stumble upon an hint to find him", then that's bad. That goes for "the PCs will stumble upon an henchman of an estabilished villain" too. If the only way the PCs can make the plot go on is through sheer coincidence, then I think you should rethink the structure of your adventure.

The point is not that you shouldn't use quantum ogres, the point is that if the structure of your adventure is solid, you won't find yourself needing them. (Well, sometimes you will anyway, nobody is perfect, but the point is minimizing their use, not refusing them altogether). Each time you find yourself thinking "...and then the main characters just happen to X the Y" while describing how you expect the plot to continue, it's a sign of a potential weakness in your adventure (again, except for the very first thing that happens, or maybe the first two or three, depending on how many new setting elements you need to introduce).

jayem
2017-10-30, 03:09 AM
A couple of questions for people who are strongly opposed to the Quantum Ogre:

If you do oppose improv GMing, do you insist that all encounter be tied to a specific time as well as a specific place? For example, you hate the idea of an ogre always encountering the party three days after they leave town, but would you be ok with them always encountering an ogre the first time they enter the forest three hexes north of town?
If yes, why do you feel an encounter that is locked to a specific space but not a specific time to be more enjoyable and / or realistic than one that is tied to a specific time but not a specific place?


Partially
Generally most things in real life are more tied down to place than time. And time moves for us all.

If you lock an encounter to a place, you probably automatically get what he was doing before and after, and get to make the place consistent. Monday-Jayem is in his house, Tuesday-jayem is in his house ... is a bit boring, not entirely accurate or believable but close. And saying, "well when you weren't there he did go to the shops" is a fairly tiny QO.

If you lock an encounter to a time, you don't get that. Monday-Jayem is nowhere, Tuesday-Jayem is anywhere and everywhere, Wednesday-Jayem is nowhere. Here the game description is more or less unbelievable for people, and though it can be corrected it obviously requires more work and massive applications of QO.
To be silly about it, say the encounter was with a bad guys castle. What if the players walked 2 day then turned back. Did they miss it on the first day?

This is not universally true, something like an eclipse, would work the opposite way.

Further many things fit into neither camp simply, a pursuing army clearly isn't waiting for you. But though the time encounter is closer, if I don't move it should catch up quicker, in theory (but again the QOing is small).
A merchant on the road likewise. but for this either work well (ish, if you double back or wait then some fun happens with either method, you shouldn't overtake a merchant on the way back that you didn't pass on the way there)

Frozen_Feet
2017-10-30, 06:07 AM
A couple of questions for people who are strongly opposed to the Quantum Ogre:

First, are you ok with improv GMing?

*sigh*

This isn't the first time I've seen this awkward transition happen from this topic. It's one of the prime reasons I hold that "Inevitable Ogre" is the better name.

So let's instead answer the more sensical, implied question: "can a GM improvize in a way which nullifies player agency?" The answer is trivially yes. The follow-up is "should GM improvize in a way that nullifies player agency?" The answer is trivially no.

Note the use of verb "nullify" instead of "lessen" or "restrict". If a GM improvizes in a way which restricts number of possible responses to one hundred, or in a way which lessens the number of possible moves to one hundred from one thousand, that's usually not a problem. Exception goes for the cases where a player's pet tactic happens to be one of the eliminated choices. Again: a typical playgroup only goes through an adventure once. In any robust scenario, they can explore only a fraction of available move space. Thus, restricted agency only starts hindering the game when there are very few, or no choices at all.

So the answer to your specific question, "Am I ok with improvized GMing?", is "yes if it's implemented in a way that does not nullify player agency".

In any case, any similariy between the Inevitable Ogre, that is, a GM stubbornly using an encounter regardless of in-game events, and improvization, is completely superficial. Even when they both screw players over. Improvization sits on the opposite end of the spectrum from the Ogre, and if the word "Quantum" made you think otherwise, you're focusing on the wrong thing.


If so, why do you find it acceptable for a GM to spontaneously invent an encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate, but not to spontaneously decide to use a pre-planned encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate?

Spontaneous pre-planned encounters aren't. The closest you get is Honest-to-God random encounters, where a GM has prepared a selection of possible encounters and uses some random process to choose between them.

Like I said before, random encounters too can be implemented in a way that nullifies player agency. But in other respects, they too are far removed from the Ogre.

Like with improvization, I'm fine with random encounters when they are implemented in a way which does not nullify player agency.


If you do oppose improv GMing, do you insist that all encounter be tied to a specific time as well as a specific place? For example, you hate the idea of an ogre always encountering the party three days after they leave town, but would you be ok with them always encountering an ogre the first time they enter the forest three hexes north of town? If yes, why do you feel an encounter that is locked to a specific space but not a specific time to be more enjoyable and / or realistic than one that is tied to a specific time but not a specific place?

It's not really about realism. The difference is that in a game, as well as real world, players typically have power over where they or their play pieces are, and next to no control over when they are. Hence it makes more intuitive sense to tie encounters to space, or space and time, rather than just time. Encounters tied to just time also create "teleporting ogre" problem. That is, if no attention is paid to where the encounter will take place, it may become hard to justify why the encounter takes place where it does.

Now, in fantastic games, you may have genuine teleporting enemies. But what sets those apart from the Inevitable Ogre is that the encounter's specifics will be altered by the environment. Once you start adapting your Ogre to the battleground the players chose, it no longer has that problematic element of stubborn preplanning.


If no, how do you actually ever find adventure? I would imagine a game where encounters must be planned in advance and be locked to both a specific time and place to be incredibly time consuming for the DM, and incredibly boring for the players as I would imagine they spend most of their time just wandering around doing mundane tasks hoping to be in just the right place at just the right time to actually find the encounters.

It's not really any more time-consuming than crafting other pre-planned content, such as random tables or maps. Just less reusable.

As for it being boring to the players, that depends on event frequency and event quality. If the scenario space is small enough, the players will stumble on one or more event sequences eventually. For a non-table-top example of how this works, play Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask or Star Control 2: Ur-Quan Masters.

Darth Ultron
2017-10-30, 06:30 AM
I'm going to repeat myself: it's one thing to use quantum ogres to introduce new plot hooks or setting elements, it's another thing to use them to advance an existing plot.

So quantum ogers are only bad if they advance the plot(and I'd even go as far to say the oger here is Railroading)? Interesting take.




Like, let's say the current adventure is about finding a serial killer. You could decide that in the next city the PCs will stumble upon his latest victim, whatever this next city might be. That's an acceptable use of the quantum ogre, in my opinion. But if you say "in the next city the PCs, who are already looking for the serial killer, will stumble upon an hint to find him", then that's bad. That goes for "the PCs will stumble upon an henchman of an estabilished villain" too. If the only way the PCs can make the plot go on is through sheer coincidence, then I think you should rethink the structure of your adventure.

Well, you might need to be more clear here. How is finding a latest victim NOT advancing the plot? Is finding a clue All Ways advancing a plot?



The point is not that you shouldn't use quantum ogres, the point is that if the structure of your adventure is solid, you won't find yourself needing them. (Well, sometimes you will anyway, nobody is perfect, but the point is minimizing their use, not refusing them altogether). Each time you find yourself thinking "...and then the main characters just happen to X the Y" while describing how you expect the plot to continue, it's a sign of a potential weakness in your adventure (again, except for the very first thing that happens, or maybe the first two or three, depending on how many new setting elements you need to introduce).

Well, you can have a ''solid'' adventure...whatever that is with no coincidence(and I guess no plot too?), but, as everyone will all ways say *what do you do when the players do something unexpected*. You really only have tow choices: Stop the game or improve some quantum ogers.

And it is not bad or wrong to think or expect a plot to go in direction A, that is kind of common sense.

Cozzer
2017-10-30, 08:28 AM
Ultron, I'm honestly sorry to say this but my willingness to assume you're approaching these discussions with anything even remotely resembling good faith has run over several topics ago. I'm never going to engage in discussion with you, so replying specifically to my posts is probably going to be an utter waste of time for you.

georgie_leech
2017-10-30, 08:49 AM
I'm going to repeat myself: it's one thing to use quantum ogres to introduce new plot hooks or setting elements, it's another thing to use them to advance an existing plot.

Like, let's say the current adventure is about finding a serial killer. You could decide that in the next city the PCs will stumble upon his latest victim, whatever this next city might be. That's an acceptable use of the quantum ogre, in my opinion. But if you say "in the next city the PCs, who are already looking for the serial killer, will stumble upon an hint to find him", then that's bad. That goes for "the PCs will stumble upon an henchman of an estabilished villain" too. If the only way the PCs can make the plot go on is through sheer coincidence, then I think you should rethink the structure of your adventure.

The point is not that you shouldn't use quantum ogres, the point is that if the structure of your adventure is solid, you won't find yourself needing them. (Well, sometimes you will anyway, nobody is perfect, but the point is minimizing their use, not refusing them altogether). Each time you find yourself thinking "...and then the main characters just happen to X the Y" while describing how you expect the plot to continue, it's a sign of a potential weakness in your adventure (again, except for the very first thing that happens, or maybe the first two or three, depending on how many new setting elements you need to introduce).

How do you feel about, say, the established villain having a henchman in each potential town, abeit different henchmen for each?

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-30, 09:10 AM
It's not really any more time-consuming than crafting other pre-planned content, such as random tables or maps. Just less reusable.

And thus much more time-consuming because it's not reusable. That's the inevitable (rimshot) trade-off.

I'm not much for inevitable ogres, but I use other ways of making sure the party has the information they need. I'm a strong believer in avoiding single points of failure for quests. There are clues/hints/plot tokens spread all over. They need some of them, but which ones are up to them. Some require intentional research, some require luck, some are pretty inevitable (they come from the quest giver).

Pleh
2017-10-30, 09:11 AM
*sigh*

This isn't the first time I've seen this awkward transition happen from this topic. It's one of the prime reasons I hold that "Inevitable Ogre" is the better name.

So let's instead answer the more sensical, implied question: "can a GM improvize in a way which nullifies player agency?" The answer is trivially yes. The follow-up is "should GM improvize in a way that nullifies player agency?" The answer is trivially no.

This does make me see a neat distinction between a Quantum Ogre and an Inevitable Ogre.

A Quantum Ogre operates on lack of player knowledge. They don't know about the Ogre, so it can be introduced at any appropriate point. Player agency is not harmed because players know to expect some amount of random variables.

An Inevitable Ogre shows up even if the players learn about the Ogre, take steps to avoid it, and they encounter it anyway for no reason other than the DM's insistence.

BRC
2017-10-30, 09:29 AM
How do you feel about, say, the established villain having a henchman in each potential town, abeit different henchmen for each?

This gets into the idea of an Informed Decision.

I hold that, from the player's perspective there is no practical difference between presenting a single option, Presenting multiple options with the same result (The Quantum Ogre), and presenting multiple, indistinguishable options.

Sure, in the last case the Players are technically making a decision that influences how things go, without information they don't really own that decision.

Consider

There is One Door, behind it is an Ogre. From the player's perspective, there was no way to avoid the Ogre.

There are Three Doors. Whichever one the Player's open, there will be an Ogre. From the player's perspective, there was no way to avoid the Ogre.

There are three Identical Doors. Door #1 has some goblins, Door #2 has an Ogre, Door #3 has Zombies. The players, have no way to inform their decision, open Door #2. From their perspective, they had no choice but to face the Ogre since they did everything they could do (Picked a Door), and still fought the Ogre.

OldTrees1
2017-10-30, 09:34 AM
This does make me see a neat distinction between a Quantum Ogre and an Inevitable Ogre.

A Quantum Ogre operates on lack of player knowledge. They don't know about the Ogre, so it can be introduced at any appropriate point. Player agency is not harmed because players know to expect some amount of random variables.

An Inevitable Ogre shows up even if the players learn about the Ogre, take steps to avoid it, and they encounter it anyway for no reason other than the DM's insistence.

That definition fails to define Quantum Ogre (old and current usage) and might grant a false negative to some Inevitable Ogres (replacement term for Quantum Ogre).

The PCs are in a city. There is an Ogre waiting to ambush them on the road. The PCs leave the city on the ___ road --> The Ogre is now on that road because the PCs are on that road BUT without a justification for that causal relationship. I did not need to specify if the PCs did or did not know about where the Ogre was before, nor did I specify if the Ogre had a specific location or if the DM placed them in a superposition prior to the PC choice of direction. In all those cases the PCs made their decision in a choice, and then the DM used that decision to change the nature of the initial choice to make an outcome inevitable without justification for that causal relationship.

Segev
2017-10-30, 09:46 AM
A couple of questions for people who are strongly opposed to the Quantum Ogre:

First, are you ok with improv GMing?

If so, why do you find it acceptable for a GM to spontaneously invent an encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate, but not to spontaneously decide to use a pre-planned encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate?

If you do oppose improv GMing, do you insist that all encounter be tied to a specific time as well as a specific place? For example, you hate the idea of an ogre always encountering the party three days after they leave town, but would you be ok with them always encountering an ogre the first time they enter the forest three hexes north of town? If yes, why do you feel an encounter that is locked to a specific space but not a specific time to be more enjoyable and / or realistic than one that is tied to a specific time but not a specific place?

If no, how do you actually ever find adventure? I would imagine a game where encounters must be planned in advance and be locked to both a specific time and place to be incredibly time consuming for the DM, and incredibly boring for the players as I would imagine they spend most of their time just wandering around doing mundane tasks hoping to be in just the right place at just the right time to actually find the encounters.

The quantum/inevitable ogre isn't a problem for player agency unless the inevitability of it is in spite of player efforts to the contrary.

If the party is in town, and had four roads (N, S, E, W) leading out of town, and the DM had planned that there's an ogre on the East road, the party can do a few things.

If they just decide to head out a random direction, doing no particular research, seeking to "see what's there," then the DM - who in our example thinks the ogre is his coolest encounter - can decide their "random" direction was East. If they still are just going in a random direction, but proclaim they're going North (still having done no research to know what lies on any particular path), the DM could move the ogre - the now-inevitable ogre - to the N path.

Both of those are fine. The party has not exercised (or never had) any agency regarding the encounter. To them, there's no difference between if the ogre really was always on the N path, if they had chosen the E path arbitrarily or the DM chose it for them arbitrarily, etc.

The inevitable ogre is only a problem when the DM has placed him on the E path, and the party actually does some investigation to learn that there is an ogre on the East Road, and the party chooses to go any other direction. Now, they have agency: seek or avoid the ogre of which they know. If the DM drops the ogre on them "because he decided to move, and is now here," that's a problem. That's the kind of agency-killing railroading people are griping about.

It comes down to whether it interferes with player agency. If the players and their characters had no agency to begin with, it's not a problem (unless the lack of agency is, itself, problematic; this is best avoided by having it be an information lack rather than a lack of choices).

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-30, 09:49 AM
Again, there's a matter of context and specifics.

Does the "head villain" know about the PCs, and where they are? Does he have motive and means to intercept them? Then it's perfectly reasonable for him to have henchmen waiting along each road away from the city the PCs are in. Maybe the PCs learn about this, however, and decide to sneak cross-country or spend a pile of ducats to have a mage teleport them to their next destination or whatever. Or maybe they don't, and they're going to have to fight one of these groups of henchmen and mooks.

However, if the villain has no reason to have henchmen along all the roads waiting specifically to interecept the PCs, then there's a much higher potential that having the PCs intercepted no matter which way they go will involve shenanigans on the part of the GM.

And if the GM comes up with on-the-fly excuses as to why nothing else the PCs try but going down one particular road is possible, or moves the villain's lackies around so that they hit the PCs no matter what they do, then you're probably seeing straight-up railroading.

OldTrees1
2017-10-30, 09:53 AM
The quantum/inevitable ogre isn't a problem for player agency unless the inevitability of it is in spite of player efforts to the contrary.

If the party is in town, and had four roads (N, S, E, W) leading out of town, and the DM had planned that there's an ogre on the East road, the party can do a few things.

If they just decide to head out a random direction, doing no particular research, seeking to "see what's there," then the DM - who in our example thinks the ogre is his coolest encounter - can decide their "random" direction was East. If they still are just going in a random direction, but proclaim they're going North (still having done no research to know what lies on any particular path), the DM could move the ogre - the now-inevitable ogre - to the N path.

Both of those are fine. The party has not exercised (or never had) any agency regarding the encounter. To them, there's no difference between if the ogre really was always on the N path, if they had chosen the E path arbitrarily or the DM chose it for them arbitrarily, etc.

The inevitable ogre is only a problem when the DM has placed him on the E path, and the party actually does some investigation to learn that there is an ogre on the East Road, and the party chooses to go any other direction. Now, they have agency: seek or avoid the ogre of which they know. If the DM drops the ogre on them "because he decided to move, and is now here," that's a problem. That's the kind of agency-killing railroading people are griping about.

It comes down to whether it interferes with player agency. If the players and their characters had no agency to begin with, it's not a problem (unless the lack of agency is, itself, problematic; this is best avoided by having it be an information lack rather than a lack of choices).

Well said.

Even if someone does have a preference in the case of inevitable ogres that the party did not know about when making their choice, such a preference is not about player agency.

Cozzer
2017-10-30, 09:57 AM
How do you feel about, say, the established villain having a henchman in each potential town, abeit different henchmen for each?

Well, that's not a quantum ogre, that's several ogres. Unless all the other henchmen magically disappear out of existence as soon as the PCs meet the first one. In which case yes, just use a quantum ogre at that point. :smalltongue:

But it would be way more satisfying if the PCs could find out about all these various henchmen beforehand, so they can choose which one they want to confront first. Again, my problem is not with the quantum ogre in itself, it's "why is your main plot depending on the PCs randomly stumbling on an henchman"? Even if you manage to get them to the main villain without exposing the quantumness of your henchmen, it would still be less satisfying than if they actively chased down the henchman.

I mean, I'm not trying to argue "quantum ogre is bad and you should feel bad". It's a tool, and has its uses. But in my opinion it's a "worst case scenario" tool, like "oh crap, I made a few mistakes while planning my adventure, so I have to fall back on the quantum ogre strategy because the alternatives are worse". It's not something you include in your plans, it's something you keep in reserve if your plans fail.

Since I love sports metaphors, I'm going to shoehorn one here: it's like taking a contested shot in basketball. Sometimes you have to do it, because you're out of other options, and there's nothing bad about it. But if it happens too often, it's a sign you should improve your offensive strategies. And if you do it when you're not out of other options, then you're making a bad call. Also, if you're good enough at shooting, you might even win a game while shooting a lot of contested shots! But even in that case, you're not playing at your full potential and would become way better if you learned ways to avoid contested shots.

Thinker
2017-10-30, 09:57 AM
And thus much more time-consuming because it's not reusable. That's the inevitable (rimshot) trade-off.

I'm not much for inevitable ogres, but I use other ways of making sure the party has the information they need. I'm a strong believer in avoiding single points of failure for quests. There are clues/hints/plot tokens spread all over. They need some of them, but which ones are up to them. Some require intentional research, some require luck, some are pretty inevitable (they come from the quest giver).

I'm agreeable with this. I suppose you could call them Inevitable Clues the way that I use them. The party will be able to find out pieces of information without necessarily being at the exact spot I had expected (though the clues themselves may be different). I'm a bit influenced by Monster World in this regard, but I like to have the investigate roll be used to allow the players to ask questions when they're in an appropriate location such as a crime scene, when interviewing a witness, at an abandoned goblin encampment, while researching a local legend or the specific monster etc. Basically, it's applicable whenever it would be reasonable to find clues about the information. There is a list of questions I will always allow:

What did the monster(s)/person(s) look like?
What kind of abilities did the monster(s)/person(s) use?
Did anything appear to hurt the monster(s)/person(s)?
Where did the monster(s)/person(s) go afterward?
What did the monster(s)/person(s) seem to be after?

Depending on the reliability of the witness, integrity of the crime-scene, or the like, I'll tell them how reliable the information is. I will also describe the clue that answered the question - "The footprints of the giant beast headed east toward the churchyard." If they're doing research, they can ask additional questions like, "What kind of monster looks like X?" or "What are known weaknesses of Y?" I also encourage them to come up with additional questions that might be relevant. They get three questions on a full success, 1 on a partial, and none on a failure.

This allows me to provide the information to the players based on their characters' skill without requiring them to be in a specific place to get the information. If it is unlikely that the information would be available based on the circumstances, I'll suggest that they ask another question.

Pleh
2017-10-30, 12:13 PM
The quantum/inevitable ogre isn't a problem for player agency unless the inevitability of it is in spite of player efforts to the contrary.

If the party is in town, and had four roads (N, S, E, W) leading out of town, and the DM had planned that there's an ogre on the East road, the party can do a few things.

If they just decide to head out a random direction, doing no particular research, seeking to "see what's there," then the DM - who in our example thinks the ogre is his coolest encounter - can decide their "random" direction was East. If they still are just going in a random direction, but proclaim they're going North (still having done no research to know what lies on any particular path), the DM could move the ogre - the now-inevitable ogre - to the N path.

Both of those are fine. The party has not exercised (or never had) any agency regarding the encounter. To them, there's no difference between if the ogre really was always on the N path, if they had chosen the E path arbitrarily or the DM chose it for them arbitrarily, etc.

The inevitable ogre is only a problem when the DM has placed him on the E path, and the party actually does some investigation to learn that there is an ogre on the East Road, and the party chooses to go any other direction. Now, they have agency: seek or avoid the ogre of which they know. If the DM drops the ogre on them "because he decided to move, and is now here," that's a problem. That's the kind of agency-killing railroading people are griping about.

It comes down to whether it interferes with player agency. If the players and their characters had no agency to begin with, it's not a problem (unless the lack of agency is, itself, problematic; this is best avoided by having it be an information lack rather than a lack of choices).

This sounds like what I was trying to say.

OldTrees. Help me understand the nuances I am missing, will you?

OldTrees1
2017-10-30, 02:11 PM
This sounds like what I was trying to say.

OldTrees. Help me understand the nuances I am missing, will you?

Nuance 1: Your post was trying to split Quantum Ogre and Inevitable Ogre into two different concepts. They are the old/current and new names for the same concept.

This does make me see a neat distinction between a Quantum Ogre and an Inevitable Ogre.
However since Inevitable Ogre merely exists as a proposed new name for the perceived misnomer "Quantum" Ogre, there is no distinction to be found between Quantum Ogre and Quantum Ogre (Axiom: Everything is the same as itself).

Segev's post did not try to force a differentiation between Quantum/Inevitable Ogre and Inevitable/Quantum Ogre. Instead it detailed some of the implementations/uses of the Quantum Ogre and discussed how they did or did not impact Player Agency:


Players decide not to have a choice ("Hey DM, you choose which way we went") & the DM moves the encounter to in front of them: No agency lost because not a choice is not a meaningful choice.
Players make an uninformed choice (a Blind Choice to go North without knowing the encounter was East) & the DM moves the encounter to in front of them: No agency lost because a blind choice is not a meaningful choice. Still an Inevitable/Quantum Ogre, just not in an agency harming way.
Players make an informed choice to avoid the encounter & the DM moves the encounter to in front of them: Agency was lost* because the choice to avoid was a meaningful choice before the DM moved the encounter.


*Assuming it is still a Quantum Ogre rather than an encounter with an in game reason for being able to move in reaction to the PC's choice of direction.

Nuance 2:
While your split definition (once we move past the nuance that Quantum Ogre = Inevitable Ogre) does have a good definition for Segev's case 3, the other definition does not map to case 1 & 2.

Nuance 3: I don't think you are missing this one but it is a nuance to mention.
Case 1 and Case 2 have only 1 difference, that being the Players giving up their blind choice to the DM vs making the blind choice. This difference has no impact on the topic of Player Agency, but can impact verisimilitude. One could argue case 1 is not a quantum/inevitable ogre at all. But that nuance is off topic with regards to this thread's topic of Player Agency.

Segev
2017-10-30, 02:19 PM
For the record, despite "inevitable ogre" perhaps being a more fitting term, I am liable to go back to using "quantum ogre" in the future just because I like the term more.

BRC
2017-10-30, 02:25 PM
I wonder, is the Quantum Ogre less a problem from a "Player Agency" Standpoint, or from a "don't waste the Player's time" standpoint.

Because, as it seems, the problem isn't the Ogre itself. Sometimes the PC's encounter Ogres. The problem is that the PC's spend some time/effort to specifically AVOID the Ogre, but encounter it anyway.


Technically, they have just as much Agency as if they had never heard of the Ogre, or if it was the result of a random encounter the DM rolled 30 seconds before the fight starts. In all three cases, the Players had no way of avoiding the Ogre.

The problem seems to come up when the players are Presented with an opportunity to exercise agency (Avoiding the Ogre), exercise that Agency, and then have their agency ignored.

It both produces that feeling of "our choices don't matter" that extended Railroading leads to, and turns whatever they did to avoid the ogre into a waste of time.

Segev
2017-10-30, 02:34 PM
I wonder, is the Quantum Ogre less a problem from a "Player Agency" Standpoint, or from a "don't waste the Player's time" standpoint.

Because, as it seems, the problem isn't the Ogre itself. Sometimes the PC's encounter Ogres. The problem is that the PC's spend some time/effort to specifically AVOID the Ogre, but encounter it anyway.


Technically, they have just as much Agency as if they had never heard of the Ogre, or if it was the result of a random encounter the DM rolled 30 seconds before the fight starts. In all three cases, the Players had no way of avoiding the Ogre.

The problem seems to come up when the players are Presented with an opportunity to exercise agency (Avoiding the Ogre), exercise that Agency, and then have their agency ignored.

It both produces that feeling of "our choices don't matter" that extended Railroading leads to, and turns whatever they did to avoid the ogre into a waste of time.
I suppose that's one way to look at it. I would quibble that it really is about the agency, though.

Players want their actions to have meaning. It's one thing to try and fail because the dice were against you, or you made a poor tactical or strategic decision. It's another when it didn't matter what choices you made, the result was inevitable. The inevitable ogre is a problem when, despite the players deliberately working to avoid it, it shows up. No matter how well they did.

"Ogres are known to haunt these forests, exacting tolls in coin and blood from those who pass through." "Okay, we'll take the long way around the forest."

The DM may not have intended that, and really wants them to encounter these ogres. "The forest is too wide. You, um, can't." "Okay, we'll fly over it; ogres aren't known for flying, and if we prep spells just for this we can get everyone aloft for long enough to cross the forest. You said it was a two-day hike through it, so if we fly over, that should be doable in one day." "Er, um, the ogres have nets and drag you down into the forest for the encounter." "They can hurl nets hundreds of feet into the air, through a canopy of trees?" "They have special net-launching ballistae in the clearings."

Or, "As you skirt the outside of the forest, you come across an ogre who is tromping around out here, too." That's a more classic variation of the quantum ogre.

The trouble with each of these is, again, the violation of player agency. No matter what they try, they WILL encounter the ogre.

BRC
2017-10-30, 02:38 PM
I suppose that's one way to look at it. I would quibble that it really is about the agency, though.

Players want their actions to have meaning. It's one thing to try and fail because the dice were against you, or you made a poor tactical or strategic decision. It's another when it didn't matter what choices you made, the result was inevitable. The inevitable ogre is a problem when, despite the players deliberately working to avoid it, it shows up. No matter how well they did.

"Ogres are known to haunt these forests, exacting tolls in coin and blood from those who pass through." "Okay, we'll take the long way around the forest."

The DM may not have intended that, and really wants them to encounter these ogres. "The forest is too wide. You, um, can't." "Okay, we'll fly over it; ogres aren't known for flying, and if we prep spells just for this we can get everyone aloft for long enough to cross the forest. You said it was a two-day hike through it, so if we fly over, that should be doable in one day." "Er, um, the ogres have nets and drag you down into the forest for the encounter." "They can hurl nets hundreds of feet into the air, through a canopy of trees?" "They have special net-launching ballistae in the clearings."

Or, "As you skirt the outside of the forest, you come across an ogre who is tromping around out here, too." That's a more classic variation of the quantum ogre.

The trouble with each of these is, again, the violation of player agency. No matter what they try, they WILL encounter the ogre.

But is Violating Player Agency worse than Denying Player Agency.

"There is one path, and it's full of Ogres" is denying the players any agency in the situation, as is "There is one path, you take it, SURPRISE! OGRES!".


The Quantum Ogre is Violating their agency. It's not just that they have no agency in this situation, but they were led to believe that they did.

Segev
2017-10-30, 02:56 PM
But is Violating Player Agency worse than Denying Player Agency.

"There is one path, and it's full of Ogres" is denying the players any agency in the situation, as is "There is one path, you take it, SURPRISE! OGRES!".


The Quantum Ogre is Violating their agency. It's not just that they have no agency in this situation, but they were led to believe that they did.

I would say the latter is only worse sometimes, and those times are when it's done deliberately to fool players who object to the first one.

Players can buy into a railroad if they know it's there.

But if the players didn't want the rails, it doesn't matter if they're visible or hidden by quantum ogres; they're equally bad.

Pleh
2017-10-30, 03:10 PM
Nuance 1: Your post was trying to split Quantum Ogre and Inevitable Ogre into two different concepts. They are the old/current and new names for the same concept.

However since Inevitable Ogre merely exists as a proposed new name for the perceived misnomer "Quantum" Ogre, there is no distinction to be found between Quantum Ogre and Quantum Ogre (Axiom: Everything is the same as itself).

Segev's post did not try to force a differentiation between Quantum/Inevitable Ogre and Inevitable/Quantum Ogre. Instead it detailed some of the implementations/uses of the Quantum Ogre and discussed how they did or did not impact Player Agency:


Players decide not to have a choice ("Hey DM, you choose which way we went") & the DM moves the encounter to in front of them: No agency lost because not a choice is not a meaningful choice.
Players make an uninformed choice (a Blind Choice to go North without knowing the encounter was East) & the DM moves the encounter to in front of them: No agency lost because a blind choice is not a meaningful choice. Still an Inevitable/Quantum Ogre, just not in an agency harming way.
Players make an informed choice to avoid the encounter & the DM moves the encounter to in front of them: Agency was lost* because the choice to avoid was a meaningful choice before the DM moved the encounter.


*Assuming it is still a Quantum Ogre rather than an encounter with an in game reason for being able to move in reaction to the PC's choice of direction.

Nuance 2:
While your split definition (once we move past the nuance that Quantum Ogre = Inevitable Ogre) does have a good definition for Segev's case 3, the other definition does not map to case 1 & 2.

Nuance 3: I don't think you are missing this one but it is a nuance to mention.
Case 1 and Case 2 have only 1 difference, that being the Players giving up their blind choice to the DM vs making the blind choice. This difference has no impact on the topic of Player Agency, but can impact verisimilitude. One could argue case 1 is not a quantum/inevitable ogre at all. But that nuance is off topic with regards to this thread's topic of Player Agency.

Thank you. I think that clarifies my problem somewhat.

I still feel my split definitions could be applicable, though.

I've run out of time for the moment. I'll post again soon to elaborate on my thoughts.

Frozen_Feet
2017-10-30, 04:22 PM
And thus much more time-consuming because it's not reusable. That's the inevitable (rimshot) trade-off.


*shrug*

I suppose it depends on how you look at it. I view this issue in terms of how much output you get for your input.

From this perspective, writing fifty lines for a list of set encounters is as much work as writing fifty lines for a combinational random generator. The difference is that the former gets you one playable set of events, while the latter gives you multiple.

Note that "less reusable" is not equal to "not reusable". Most obviusly you can rerun predefined events for different player groups or different character groups. Or once you have some such event lists spared, you can feed them into combinational random generator and get more out of your work.

Talakeal
2017-10-30, 06:48 PM
You know, I do think that the Quantum Ogre needs a new name, because it is really unclear if people are talking about modular content that can be dropped into different locations as needed or railroading encounters that evade all attempts to avoid them.

Darth Ultron
2017-10-30, 06:54 PM
Ultron, I'm honestly sorry to say this but my willingness to assume you're approaching these discussions with anything even remotely resembling good faith has run over several topics ago. I'm never going to engage in discussion with you, so replying specifically to my posts is probably going to be an utter waste of time for you.

The 'Net is an utter waste of time, so Keep the Faith.



It comes down to whether it interferes with player agency. If the players and their characters had no agency to begin with, it's not a problem (unless the lack of agency is, itself, problematic; this is best avoided by having it be an information lack rather than a lack of choices).

This all sounds good to me: Keep the players and characters clueless in the dark and there is no agency.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-30, 07:32 PM
You know, I do think that the Quantum Ogre needs a new name, because it is really unclear if people are talking about modular content that can be dropped into different locations as needed or railroading encounters that evade all attempts to avoid them.


I'm under the impression that we need two different terms, to divide the two.

It seems to me that there's a lot of conflation between the two concepts, some of it honest confusion, some of it agenda-driven, and some of it based on rejection of nuance and context.

OldTrees1
2017-10-30, 08:09 PM
I'm under the impression that we need two different terms, to divide the two.

It seems to me that there's a lot of conflation between the two concepts, some of it honest confusion, some of it agenda-driven, and some of it based on rejection of nuance and context.

Yes, to divide the two, you would need two new terms. Currently they both fall under the term that is defined as the mechanism they share. Although don't we already have two new terms: Modular design(coined several threads ago) and Railroading(coined forever ago)?

Although based on the previous thread most dominated by discussing Quantum Ogres, I think very few conflate the two subcategories as being identical.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-30, 08:14 PM
Yes, to divide the two, you would need two new terms. Currently they both fall under the term that is defined as the mechanism they share. Although don't we already have two new terms: Modular design (coined several threads ago) and Railroading (coined forever ago)?


That's not bad, really.

The actual Inevitable Ogre -- the otherwise smallish encounter that gets dropped in no matter what even if the players engage in massive amounts of effort to avoid it -- is just an example of actual railroading.

jayem
2017-10-31, 02:22 AM
That's not bad, really.

The actual Inevitable Ogre -- the otherwise smallish encounter that gets dropped in no matter what even if the players engage in massive amounts of effort to avoid it -- is just an example of actual railroading.

Agree in a split. Not sure if it can be done cleanly in practice.

The teleportation can be done 'swapping' 'similar groups' (which is strictly speaking undetectable)
By representing a movement/reactions in a single step (which may have some oddities)
By choosing from possibilities (which leaks like hell, it's a bit like saying the bandit's rolling a fair D6 needing a 6 saying he 'passes' 'passes', it's definitely acting like he has a +4 of something somewhere)

It can be small, medium or quest related. (again the latter hits suspension of disbelief, whereas the former not so much)

The amount of mechanical ogre/non-ogre can be partial (consider the goblin/kobald example) to full

The amount of fluff ogre/non-ogre can be partial (consider the goblin/kobald example) to full

[The resistance to player action/information can be low, medium or high] (which can be justified or not)

Lorsa
2017-10-31, 03:57 AM
Agency is a concept that in philosophy seems to be related to the capacity to act within a given context. It's a term used in many other fields like economy, sociology and psychology. It also seems like there has been plenty of debate over the concept throughout the millennia, so I doubt we will reach a consensus in just a couple of weeks.

Nevertheless, I will try to answer the questions as well.

Using the strict definition from philosophy, it seems as the agency of players diminish as we move away from the players being able to do just about anything within the fictional world to be constrained by the rules of the game and the decisions of the GM. Since we are talking about a fictional world in a game, I doubt the philosophical definition is all that useful, especially since the majority of the games exist on the "the players are constrained by the rules of the game and the decisions of the GM" end of the spectrum. It is hardly useful to characterize the majority of the games as low agency games.

Therefore, I think of player agency in terms of number of choices with an impact on the progression of the game in the fictional world (or the outcome of events if you will).

In order for choices to have an impact on the outcome of events, both the players and the GM needs to be in rough agreement on what the outcomes are before the choice is made, and both parties need to adhere to the agreement. In the simplest of cases one can view it as:

GM: "You arrive at a fork in the road, the sign to the right says 'City X' whereas the left sign says 'City Y'".
Players: "We take the right road to City X".
GM: "After walking some distance along the right road, you arrive at City X".

vs. the case with no agency:

GM: "You arrive at a fork in the road, the sign to the right says 'City X' whereas the left sign says 'City Y'".
Players: "We take the right road to City X".
GM: "After walking some distance along the left road, you arrive at City Y".

It is not a requirement for player agency that the players know exactly what will happen when they make the choice. In that regard I think of it as simulating reality to some degree. You often know roughly the outcome of a choice but rarely the exact nature. There is always some wiggle room for the GM inside the "agency box", even though it does have boundaries.

I think it is important to note that not all choices lead to player agency, even though they in the strictest sense do have options to choose from that will change the narrative slightly. This is because, to me, in order for a choice to be one which grants "player agency", there can't be "a default solution". If there is really nothing to think about or no important decision to be made in the choice, it isn't a high agency game.

For example, let's take a scenario where the players are presented with a simple locked wooden door and their listen checks tell them there's probably nothing on the other side. It is quite obvious here that the sneaky thief will try to pick the lock whereas the burly thug will try to smash it. That's not really a choice, neither player has to think or evaluate the options. They will (rightfully) default to their best strengths.

Similarly, when a choice can be broken down into a simple algoritm to determine the "best option", it is not really a choice either. For a choice to grant players agency, it needs to be one where at least two options are fairly equal in "good" or "bad", just in different ways. If there is a clearly definable "best choice", it really isn't a decision anymore.

In order to continue the hypothetical example of the door; consider a group with one thief and one thug. If they reach a locked wooden door and find out that there are guards on the other side, they now have two options. Either they can attempt to pick the lock and if successful get a surprise round, but if they fail the guards might be alerted to the attempt and place themselves in a more tactically advantageous position. If they bash the door in (in one go), the guards will jump to their feet startled, no side will get a surprise round but the guards won't have time to find a better tactical position. The choice now becomes one between "take a chance between a good or bad outcome or go for a neutral one". It is not so obvious anymore.

I am sure I could go on in length to give more examples, at different levels of the game, and clarify myself even more. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to write essay-length posts these days. Basically I think player agency involves the ability to make decisions in regards to choices (as presented in a scenario devised by the GM) with more than one "best solution" that will affect the continuation of the game and the events in the fictional world.

So, how do you measure it? Basically I think the best measure stick is the time it takes for the players to make the decision. Generally speaking, the harder something is to evaluate, the longer time (most people) will spend in making it. Obviously the reference is each individual player, as some people are quicker to make decisions than others. With a group of players, you can judge agency by the length of discussion involved in making a choice. If different players have different ideas as to what is "the best" choice, then it's fairly safe to say that agency is high.

A more complicated way to measure would be how much "decision fatigue" people suffer from after your games. Higher fatigue means higher agency. Even that needs an individual reference though, and interestingly enough people don't seem to suffer as much from decision fatigue in a roleplaying game as they do in the real world. Which means that perhaps one could set up scenarios where people could evaluate their choices in a fictional world setting and then simply use that as a template for their real world decisions.

At last I would like to say that many players (me included) likes to be able to make decisions in the game. Not all does, but many do. Therefore, being able to run high agency games should be on the training list for all GMs. Otherwise you need to find the certain subset of players who dislike advanced decision making, which is a bit restrictive.

Frozen_Feet
2017-10-31, 04:43 AM
It is hardly useful to characterize the majority of the games as low agency games.

Wrong. It is useful - it's just trivial on a level of "most games have limited legal movespace".

A bigger issue is the way you reach this observation. You start counting down from near-infinity. That's stupid. Of course most games will appear "low" on whatever scale if your calibration point is set arbitrarily high!

Do like you would do with most real things. Set your calibration point at zero and start counting up. "Low agency" is when you can count number of valid game moves with one hand on every turn. "Medium agency" is when you need both. "High agency" is when you can't easily enumerate valid game moves in a closed form.

Likewise, I contest your idea that "if best option is known, there's no real choice". I consider that to be BS in the most trivial way if nothing's stopping the player from picking a suboptimal option. If anything, choosing the suboptimal option is often more meaningfull than choosing between equal options.

Delicious Taffy
2017-10-31, 05:21 AM
Right, I am 200% lost on the bulk of this discussion, so correct me if I'm wrong, here.

If I've read properly, player agency is simply the capacity of a player to influence the outcome of a given situation, is it not? If that's the case, I'd say that the importance of player agency actually is on a sort of spectrum, which is susceptible to change from game to game, and even moment to moment. In some cases, it's probably perfectly reasonable for a player to expect a vast array of choices, and in others, it's probably extremely important that the player please proceed through the blue door, due to an imminent and otherwise-unavoidable flood of flesh-dissolving acid.

I don't know if this is just because I'm relatively new to the hobby, but it seems to me that player agency isn't such a nebulous concept that's just far enough beyond comprehension that it requires quite this much forethought and paranoid second-guessing. Read the situation, see what's going to produce the most fun within the established game setting, and present your situation. If your group has agreed to play a game in which their characters are attempting to survive a death maze, it's probably not a bad thing if they have very few choices of how to handle the current trap.

Lorsa
2017-10-31, 08:03 AM
Wrong. It is useful - it's just trivial on a level of "most games have limited legal movespace".

A bigger issue is the way you reach this observation. You start counting down from near-infinity. That's stupid. Of course most games will appear "low" on whatever scale if your calibration point is set arbitrarily high!

Do like you would do with most real things. Set your calibration point at zero and start counting up. "Low agency" is when you can count number of valid game moves with one hand on every turn. "Medium agency" is when you need both. "High agency" is when you can't easily enumerate valid game moves in a closed form.

In which way is it useful to classify basically all games as having low agency? Even you yourself seem to think that low to high agency is on the far end of one side of the spectrum.

I mean, we seem to reach the same conclusion, even if we approach it from different angles. I wanted to acknowledge that the agency scale is extremely wide, but since most games only exist on one far end, that is the side we need to "zoom into" so to speak. It is on this side we need to be able to make distinctions between low and high agency games.



Likewise, I contest your idea that "if best option is known, there's no real choice". I consider that to be BS in the most trivial way if nothing's stopping the player from picking a suboptimal option. If anything, choosing the suboptimal option is often more meaningfull than choosing between equal options.

You can't contest ideas without calling them bull****? Does that usually buy you argument points?

So, your claim is that it is often more meaningful to choose a suboptimal option? Sometimes that is true, but many times it is not.

What I am thinking about is especially a type of devious form of railroading that takes the shape of having adventure design where at any point only one choice actually make sense, even if technically speaking, the players had more options available.

Sort of like (in the very extreme sense):

GM: "You stand in front of a giant chasm filled with lava. There's a bridge over."
Player: "Uh, I take the bridge?"
GM: "Are you sure? You COULD jump down in the lava?"
Player: "No thanks, I'll take the bridge..."

which isn't really a high agency game to me. An adventure that follows this procedure in most of the "choices" is still very low on agency (oh, you chose to BARGAIN with the super powerful mage rather than try to fight him *GM snickering* etc). Setting up situations where any idiot can see that even if there are technically choices, only one of them is really good isn't really what I think of when one wants to promote player agency.

I think of player agency as being present when the player actually have to engage their brain and think what option to choose. If they're presented with options and go "well duh, I pick A", I can't really call that a high agency game.

Why do you think that choices with obvious answers still quality as high agency?

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-31, 08:36 AM
IMO, a game that presents a series of decision points with one optimal choice versus one or more clearly suboptimal choices isn't doing a good job of being an RPG, and isn't doing a good job of presenting a fictional reality that works like an actual reality.

Pleh
2017-10-31, 08:56 AM
Yes, to divide the two, you would need two new terms. Currently they both fall under the term that is defined as the mechanism they share. Although don't we already have two new terms: Modular design(coined several threads ago) and Railroading(coined forever ago)?

Although based on the previous thread most dominated by discussing Quantum Ogres, I think very few conflate the two subcategories as being identical.

Ok, so I would say I was a person who saw the same things, but wasn't 100% up on the discussion being held in various threads.

See, when I hear, "Quantum Ogre" my bachelor's in Physics tells me the primary mechanic in play is the directly unknown quantity. It is precisely the fact that something about the Ogre isn't known that allows it to act in a non-classical manner. Intuitively, this means it can teleport anywhere in the world as long as no one yet knows for sure where it is. Hence the description you suggest, "Modular Design."

When I hear, "Inevtiable Ogre" having been previously familiar with the Quantum Ogre, I didn't realize it was just a rebranding of an existing term, so I defaulted to the understanding that it was an intentional attempt to establish a clarifying distinction. While a Quantum Ogre has the power to be anywhere until it is in some way encountered (including the act of doing research that would remotely identify the Ogre's approximate location), an Inevitable Ogre isn't even acting in a Quantum manner. It's just plain *magically* appearing wherever it needs to be regardless of any previously established known quantities about the Ogre that might contradict the Ogre's sudden appearance.

Yes, "Modular Design" and "Railroading" are probably better terms for general application, but my background in science tells me that it's often best to use nesting global and local terminology.

The Quantum Ogre is a great term because it rather visually describes a specific example that can be easily seen applied in a variety of similar scenarios. The problem with its general use is that it's rather specific to a common roleplaying scenario, so there might be other game design problems that have the same mechanical flaw that might be difficult to identify due to not appearing to be visually similar.

Modular Design is a great term because it incorporates all game mechanics that pertain to a certain structure, but the ambiguity of the phrase is both its strength and weakness. It's easiest to understand the principle through an example of one of the structures that fits the structure, while just examining the principle itself can easily leave students wondering how to get from knowing the principle to employing it.

Hence, I would say that: "A Non-Railroading Quantum Ogre is an example of Modular Design."

From there, I would define the Inevitable Ogre as all variants of the Quantum Ogre that fall under the Railroading construction.

Hence a Quantum Ogre is a subset of Modular Design (where the "non-railroading" is implied by the definition of the Inevitable Ogre as all Quantum Ogres would already be Inevitable Ogres if they were used under Railroading systems).
And an Inevitable Ogre is a subset of Railroading (by definition).

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-31, 09:00 AM
Unfortunately, the well of "quantum" has been poisoned in common parlance because of pop-science journalism and bad science fiction technobabble... a lot of people associate it with sloppy misinterpretations of uncertainty, etc. I've run into people who literally believe and insist that nothing exists until we perceive it, because they don't understand that "observed" is a very oddly used term of art in the field.

Maybe that's actually appropriate for the way some games are run, IDK... personally I want the setting to function more like a fictional reality and less like an contrivance of collapsing waveforms and "observer effect".

Segev
2017-10-31, 09:00 AM
This all sounds good to me: Keep the players and characters clueless in the dark and there is no agency.We've established, in the Railroading thread, that you don't actually run by this philosophy; you are misusing terms in a manner that creates an argument where there need be none. You actually do run what most would consider relatively normal games, if your "deal with D'rk" scenario is an accurate representation of how you typically run a game. Your players are not operating in a dearth of information about which they can do nothing, and they are permitted to make choices. You are still a little higher on the railroad scale than most on this forum would prefer - you dismiss ideas such as "find a way to dig into the lair from another angle" as "obviously silly" when I can think of a few ways to do it even with just low-level resources - but that only reduces your game's differentiation from a cRPG by a little. It's still quite playable with meaningful player agency.


You know, I do think that the Quantum Ogre needs a new name, because it is really unclear if people are talking about modular content that can be dropped into different locations as needed or railroading encounters that evade all attempts to avoid them.

The quantum/inevitable ogre is a subset of "modular content." It differs in that modular content can be dropped in anywhere, but non-quantum-ogre modular content will not spring up inevitably. It springs up as a way to populate a world with reasonable encounters. As players make choices about what they're going to do, the kind of modular content that makes sense to encounter will shift. In a sense, the ogre-on-the-road-to-the-forest is an encounter the players are dealing with by choosing not to go to the forest. It has had impact on the game and setting by shaping the players' actions. It is a module that's already been placed rather than something to drop in wherever.

The issue with the quantum ogre is not that it's modular; it's that it isn't placed until the players make a choice they intend to impact the likelihood of encountering it. It's like playing three-card monte and the dealer changing the card the player indicates so that it will never be the right card (or always will be the right card). The player's participation is no longer actually important to the game.

There's nothing wrong with modular content, until it's used to diminish or remove player agency. There's nothing wrong with pre-set content, until IT is used to remove player agency. (The scenario set up so that there are proverbial infinitely high, impenetrable, unscalable walls in every direction but the one that leads to the solution the GM has planned out, for instance.)

wumpus
2017-10-31, 09:40 AM
That's not bad, really.

The actual Inevitable Ogre -- the otherwise smallish encounter that gets dropped in no matter what even if the players engage in massive amounts of effort to avoid it -- is just an example of actual railroading.

I think a less strawman approach would be the quantum NPC (assume a wide definition of NPC that includes ogres).

In reality, there is little reason to expect that an NPC you encounter is an NPC you have ever encountered before or encounter again, assuming you aren't bumbling around the same village forever (of course with the typical band of murderhobos this is true: at least most NPCs that can be stretched to qualify as "monsters" are killed by the PCs and never encountered again).

In most works of fiction (prose, movies, theater, whatever), it is highly likely that you are familiar with that character and that fewer characters are introduced as time goes on.

I would assume that player agency really only happens when either that NPC has already been encountered or is otherwise missing due to player action (dead, possibly happily tilling his own farm because the player paid the mortgage instead of leading a group of bandits, etc.). Which NPC you meet depends on the player.

The catch is that most of the "deep preparation" requirements of avoiding illusionism will require creating a new character on the spot. Unless a the NPC has specific goals highly similar to your quest you will simply have to roll up a random character to avoid the branding of "illusionism and railroading", while in practice you are destroying the very player agency you are demanding.

Granted, working this type of fictional trope into the game might make player agency a bit of a caricature compared to reality, where the "chosen PCs" bend reality as they move through it, but I suspect it is a better way to play.

Frozen_Feet
2017-10-31, 09:42 AM
In which way is it useful to classify basically all games as having low agency? Even you yourself seem to think that low to high agency is on the far end of one side of the spectrum.

I mean, we seem to reach the same conclusion, even if we approach it from different angles. I wanted to acknowledge that the agency scale is extremely wide, but since most games only exist on one far end, that is the side we need to "zoom into" so to speak. It is on this side we need to be able to make distinctions between low and high agency games.

Again, it useful in the exact same way as "all games have limited legal movespace". It's a very basic aspect of games that you must understand to get anywhere when discussing games. Your observation and the conclusion you're drawing from it is essentially correct, it's just the way you got there that's backwards.


1) You can't contest ideas without calling them bull****? 2) Does that usually buy you argument points?

1) Yes, I just chose not to.
2) Obviously not.


So, your claim is that it is often more meaningful to choose a suboptimal option? Sometimes that is true, but many times it is not.

No, my claim is that when player deliberately chooses a weak option, that typically influences flow of the game more than when a player chooses between two equally powerful options. An obvious example is when a player picks an option which will lose them the game, versus picking one of several non-conclusive options.

It's not a hard rule, sometimes the sub-optimal solutions are such because they are non-conclusive or do not impact the game much.


What I am thinking about is especially a type of devious form of railroading that takes the shape of having adventure design where at any point only one choice actually make sense, even if technically speaking, the players had more options available.

You're thinking of the wrong thing.

Basically, in situations like your example, the GM is not intenting to give the players options. The non-sensical things they "could" do are mere rhetoric to dissuade players from taking or seeking any other course. If the character actually jumped into the lava, in zero-agency game this "technical choice" would be prevented from mattering - the GM would weasel a way for the character to survive and place them right where they started. (Or they would simply refuse to accept such game move.)

In a game where its a real choice, the character hits the lava, burns and now either the game for that character/player combination is over or the game is now about rescuing them from the consequences.

A better example would be: Character A is in jail. Character B is called in to pay their bail, a nominal sum. Paying is obviously the optimal choice: it gets A out right way, with minimum real and game time spent, and has no negative consequence aside the money spent.

Or, B could leave A in jail, leaving A's abilities inaccessible for most of the scenario. Or B could get drunk and get their own ass hauled in the jail, so they can buddy up with them there. Or B could device a "cunning plan" to get A out, risking getting caught and much more serious consequences for that. Or A could flatly refuse to accept the bail, staying in jail of their own volition. Or A and B could agree to wait a couple of days for A to be released.

It doesn't matter if none of these options would "make sense" to you. If nothing stops a player from choosing them, they are real nonetheless, as they would all influence flow of the game, and hence count towards player agency. The fact that one option is better than others is irrelevant.


which isn't really a high agency game to me. An adventure that follows this procedure in most of the "choices" is still very low on agency (oh, you chose to BARGAIN with the super powerful mage rather than try to fight him *GM snickering* etc). Setting up situations where any idiot can see that even if there are technically choices, only one of them is really good isn't really what I think of when one wants to promote player agency.

Again, you're thinking of the wrong thing.

In a no-agency game, the bargaining can only serve as a prelude to a fight: the GM will play their character directly in a way which nullifies choice of the player.

In a game with agency, bargaining will definitely screw over the player's character, but this will still get them out of the fight.

It doesn't matter if choices with negative consequences, or inferior choices in general, don't appeal to you. They're still examples of player agency when allowed to be taken. Even a No-Win scenario can be high agency, if there are several different ways to fail and you get to choose your poison.


I think of player agency as being present when the player actually have to engage their brain and think what option to choose. If they're presented with options and go "well duh, I pick A", I can't really call that a high agency game.

Why do you think that choices with obvious answers still quality as high agency?

I already answered: I measure agency by number of choices that impact the game. How obvious, easy, hard, slow or fast those choices are in the subjective view of the player is irrelevant. A choice of whether to hang yourself today may be obvious to you, but if nothing compels either option, it's still your choice.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-31, 11:15 AM
I think a less strawman approach would be the quantum NPC (assume a wide definition of NPC that includes ogres).

In reality, there is little reason to expect that an NPC you encounter is an NPC you have ever encountered before or encounter again, assuming you aren't bumbling around the same village forever (of course with the typical band of murderhobos this is true: at least most NPCs that can be stretched to qualify as "monsters" are killed by the PCs and never encountered again).

In most works of fiction (prose, movies, theater, whatever), it is highly likely that you are familiar with that character and that fewer characters are introduced as time goes on.

I would assume that player agency really only happens when either that NPC has already been encountered or is otherwise missing due to player action (dead, possibly happily tilling his own farm because the player paid the mortgage instead of leading a group of bandits, etc.). Which NPC you meet depends on the player.

The catch is that most of the "deep preparation" requirements of avoiding illusionism will require creating a new character on the spot. Unless a the NPC has specific goals highly similar to your quest you will simply have to roll up a random character to avoid the branding of "illusionism and railroading", while in practice you are destroying the very player agency you are demanding.

Granted, working this type of fictional trope into the game might make player agency a bit of a caricature compared to reality, where the "chosen PCs" bend reality as they move through it, but I suspect it is a better way to play.


I'm not sure what you're saying... could you unpack that a bit?

Talakeal
2017-10-31, 12:39 PM
Likewise, I contest your idea that "if best option is known, there's no real choice". I consider that to be BS in the most trivial way if nothing's stopping the player from picking a suboptimal option. If anything, choosing the suboptimal option is often more meaningfull than choosing between equal options.

If only other players felt that way. In my experience, both on the forums and IRL, making a sub-optimal choice because it is more fun / better RP is considered to be sabotaging the rest of the groups chance to win, and therefore fun, and makes you "that guy".

Frozen_Feet
2017-10-31, 02:29 PM
Talakeal, I know.

That's an example of players allowing metagame concerns and peer pressure to restrict their agency. As long as the sub-optimal choice(s) is/are not prohibited by the person running the game, that's not an issue with game design or player agency. A choice can exist independent of whether any player at a table is willing to make it.

jayem
2017-10-31, 05:54 PM
A game without meaningful choices, is by definition fundamentally a game like snake&ladders, solitaire.
However I don't think it follows that all choices have to be fully meaningful and the ones that aren't can put the meaningful choices into relief.

Personally taking deliberately clearly suboptimal choices 'just because', sounds ugly. I'd much rather it was rooted in something. The way it's reported it feels like the players just ends up with split loyalties they can't meet. The other players end up feeling railroaded by the player. The only other way I can think of it, leaves the character with split controllers, which has also been reported to be sucky to the player the other way.
I love the principle, my life wouldn't be my life if I didn't have to recover from making mistakes, but it's also not my life if I chose to make them [or others make them for me].


A few choices that don't match the meaningful definition gives that opportunity to make a choice based on the personality. With the option of taking it either way. It may make negligible game consequences (or be a trivial choice determined at character creation) whether I delicately pick the lock or kick it open, but it allows me to be me.

If I don't have the information to decide if going onwards or backwards is best then it allows the cowards to be cowardly (without having to have the player want to lose) and the brave to be brave (without having to have the player want to lose) but it can still have consequences. There's limited agency as there is no way to chose between them, even if the game branches.

While conversely if one option is, in practice, much better than the other, then they have to think about it, and take the losses for if they make the wrong choice. There's limited agency as there's no reason to chose the weaker choice.

While a true meaningful choice has a mixture of both of these. The players get to have a complex strategy [but don't get the full benefits of the other options] .

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-31, 06:17 PM
A few choices that don't match the meaningful definition gives that opportunity to make a choice based on the personality. With the option of taking it either way. It may make negligible game consequences (or be a trivial choice determined at character creation) whether I delicately pick the lock or kick it open, but it allows me to be me.

If I don't have the information to decide if going onwards or backwards is best then it allows the cowards to be cowardly (without having to have the player want to lose) and the brave to be brave (without having to have the player want to lose) but it can still have consequences. There's limited agency as there is no way to chose between them, even if the game branches.


Both of these illustrate that agency is a path-dependent phenomena. What you do at time T affects what you can do at time T+X. And that's a good thing. Otherwise, consequences aren't binding. At character creation you chose that you'd be one to pick locks instead of kicking them by choosing to play a character who excels in the games "pick locks" related ability instead of the "kick doors" ability (choosing a rogue vs barbarian in D&D, for example). That meaningful choice affects how you approach the rest of the game. You might say that your agency is thus constrained, but it's constrained by you, not by some other force. Agency is something you can choose to give away--doing so doesn't give you the right to complain later that you're lacking that agency.

In the second one, you have enough information to decide whether forward or back is brave or cowardly. Both have consequences, so the choice is meaningful. There is no requirement of perfect information, after all. Just enough to make a reasonable guess--maybe going forward is short-term dangerous, but you believe it will have better results if you succeed long-term. And conversely for going backward. At that point, you have to balance the two.

In some way, having perfect information and being able to calculate exact probabilities gets in the way of playing a character who cannot calculate those probabilities. It's better for agency if there the options provided by the system default to a reasonably narrow range of first-order power. Basically, there has to be some form of balance. Not between classes, but between choices. A choice like "eat cake...or die!" (presented in a way that makes it clear that the outcomes are that simple) is a false choice, because the consequences are disproportionate to the choice. As a consequence of this idea, most defeats should not be TPKs, most successes should be partial. If failure = death, then sub-optimal choices become much worse and optimization is the only reasonable strategy. If failure = a closed door or an embarrassing defeat, some lost items and pride (or time), the optimization isn't as required for survival.

I understand that lots of people like riding on a knife's-edge where everything is high-risk, high-reward. And as long as those players and the types who don't relish such optimization-heavy play-style don't play together, everything's fine. It's something that has to be knowingly chosen at session 0, because it has serious consequences for the upcoming play. Springing it on people unaware destroys agency.

...I'll stop rambling now.

NichG
2017-10-31, 11:09 PM
There's no real paradox here. What you feel your options are is going to determine how you feel about the situation, even if your actual options are greater/different/etc. Similarly, psychologically it can be a lot more salient to experience an external force changing your options than to just experience having few or many options.

I'd guess that the thing that makes 'low agency' feel bad is not actually that there are few real options, but rather that something the player believed to have been an option suddenly stops being one due to the influence of an agent against whom they have no in-character redress (e.g. the DM). From the character point of view, personalized reductions of agency often correspond to the actions of an antagonist - someone arrests the character, or attacks their allies, or creates an emergency they have to respond to, or knocks them out, or... The ensuing conflict is then a battle over seizing agency back or denying agency to the antagonist.

When the antagonist is an out of character actor, it feels unfair, impossible, etc.

This could happen just as much in an objectively high agency game as in a low one. It's a known quirk of human psychology that people put more weight on losing something they think of as theirs than on gaining that same thing. So giving players a lot of agency in one place but removing a little bit somewhere else is still likely to feel bad for those players who considered those removed options something they had. On the other hand, a player is far less likely to feel antagonistic to themselves when they voluntarily discard options (e.g. when they make one-way decisions) though it can still be a source of stress.

Similarly, options gained by being given them will be experienced differently than options gained by seizing them.

That's not to say that a player can't actually also just like for there to be many (or few) options. But the really strong negative reaction to e.g. the inevitability of the ogre is more likely to be due to that feeling that the world is an active antagonist than due to 'do we fight the ogre?' tipping the option count from above to below some absolute threshold of 'necessary amount of agency'. The kind of objection associated with absolute agency level is more like what you feel during a long DM cutscene or when another player has had the spotlight for a long time and you're just waiting, IMO.

Lorsa
2017-11-01, 05:40 AM
Again, it useful in the exact same way as "all games have limited legal movespace". It's a very basic aspect of games that you must understand to get anywhere when discussing games. Your observation and the conclusion you're drawing from it is essentially correct, it's just the way you got there that's backwards.

I went there in that way in order to avoid the argument of "high player agency is only possible if the players can directly control the fictional world".



You're thinking of the wrong thing.

Basically, in situations like your example, the GM is not intenting to give the players options. The non-sensical things they "could" do are mere rhetoric to dissuade players from taking or seeking any other course. If the character actually jumped into the lava, in zero-agency game this "technical choice" would be prevented from mattering - the GM would weasel a way for the character to survive and place them right where they started. (Or they would simply refuse to accept such game move.)

In a game where its a real choice, the character hits the lava, burns and now either the game for that character/player combination is over or the game is now about rescuing them from the consequences.

The point that I was trying to get across is that in a game where jumping into lava is a real choice, it is still not a choice I (or most players I imagine) would consider. If we go by the logic that high agency is that the players are allowed to perform any technical actions they are allowed inside the game, then basically all games are high agency games.

Even if you are walking down a corridor in a dungeon, you can always choose to stand on your head, run into the wall, hit yourself with a knife or any other near-infinite number of actions. That doesn't mean that these are choices you are contemplating in your head. In the view of the player, you are practically speaking restricted to either walking forward in the corridor or go back. And since we can assume that the player ventured into the dungeon for a reason, the choice is most likely only one; to go forward.

The way I think of agency is how many actual decisions I have to make that will affect the course of the game. If the decisions basically "make themselves", it is not really making a decision as far as I am concerned. This is why I want to measure it in the amount of thought process that takes place in making choices in the game.

Choosing between lava death or walking over a bridge is such a trivial choice I don't see how it can even create a ping on the agency scale.



A better example would be: Character A is in jail. Character B is called in to pay their bail, a nominal sum. Paying is obviously the optimal choice: it gets A out right way, with minimum real and game time spent, and has no negative consequence aside the money spent.

Or, B could leave A in jail, leaving A's abilities inaccessible for most of the scenario. Or B could get drunk and get their own ass hauled in the jail, so they can buddy up with them there. Or B could device a "cunning plan" to get A out, risking getting caught and much more serious consequences for that. Or A could flatly refuse to accept the bail, staying in jail of their own volition. Or A and B could agree to wait a couple of days for A to be released.

It doesn't matter if none of these options would "make sense" to you. If nothing stops a player from choosing them, they are real nonetheless, as they would all influence flow of the game, and hence count towards player agency. The fact that one option is better than others is irrelevant.

Actually, I think that was more an example of a scenario where there isn't one "optimal" choice. Apart from splitting up the party (which has more bad OOC consequences mind you), there are at least three decent options to consider. Paying the bail, the "cunning plan" and simply waiting. The choice here really depends mostly on the personality of the character than anything else.

In any case, I think choices presented to the players should not be "obvious", in a way that the basically both the GM and the player knows in advance what they will choose.



Again, you're thinking of the wrong thing.

In a no-agency game, the bargaining can only serve as a prelude to a fight: the GM will play their character directly in a way which nullifies choice of the player.

Unless the GM has made the encounter in such a way that the players' only real choice is to bargain, which was my point. By devising an encounter that you as a player knows is unbeatable, and then offer a bargaining choice, it's a no-brainer what the player will do and thus, in my opinion, not very high in agency.



In a game with agency, bargaining will definitely screw over the player's character, but this will still get them out of the fight.

It doesn't matter if choices with negative consequences, or inferior choices in general, don't appeal to you. They're still examples of player agency when allowed to be taken. Even a No-Win scenario can be high agency, if there are several different ways to fail and you get to choose your poison.

So you're saying that a game is high in agency as long as the GM allows me to do [whatever], even if the scenario design is set up in such a way that at any decision-point, I only really consider one option? What do you think I should call my differentiation then? Higher "decision-require" games?



I already answered: I measure agency by number of choices that impact the game. How obvious, easy, hard, slow or fast those choices are in the subjective view of the player is irrelevant. A choice of whether to hang yourself today may be obvious to you, but if nothing compels either option, it's still your choice.

So basically all games with a decent GM are "high agency" games? Even if the scenario designs have clear signs that say "go here"? It doesn't seem all that useful to me as it lumps together vastly different games.

Darth Ultron
2017-11-01, 06:26 AM
If only other players felt that way. In my experience, both on the forums and IRL, making a sub-optimal choice because it is more fun / better RP is considered to be sabotaging the rest of the groups chance to win, and therefore fun, and makes you "that guy".

This is just one example of how games, even Role Playing ones, are not reality or some form of substitute or alternative reality. Yet, people still want to ''play the game like real life'', and you simply can't do that.

Cluedrew
2017-11-01, 07:11 AM
Personally taking deliberately clearly suboptimal choices 'just because', sounds ugly. I'd much rather it was rooted in something.How about this: Take the optimal choice, but your character might change what optimal means.

"Optimization" means to maximize or minimize some parameter. At the highest level you should probably be trying to maximize fun, but that is a hard thing to aim for. So people seem to try and aim for some out-of-game concept of "winning", but really that is an out of game concept. Yes your character want to do well, they want to survive this fight and the world not to end, but there are lots of little differences in their too. What those are will depend on the character, and what optimal is depends on the character too.

Max_Killjoy
2017-11-01, 08:37 AM
If only other players felt that way. In my experience, both on the forums and IRL, making a sub-optimal choice because it is more fun / better RP is considered to be sabotaging the rest of the groups chance to win, and therefore fun, and makes you "that guy".



Talakeal, I know.

That's an example of players allowing metagame concerns and peer pressure to restrict their agency. As long as the sub-optimal choice(s) is/are not prohibited by the person running the game, that's not an issue with game design or player agency. A choice can exist independent of whether any player at a table is willing to make it.


From my point of view, if the game system consistently presents single optimal choices against clearly detrimental alternatives at each decision point, whether we're talking about character design or in gameplay, then that's a failure of the game system.

And if the GM is consistently presenting all decision situations as having a single optimal choice against clearly detrimental alternatives, that's a failure on the part of the GM.

(Note the word consistently -- before anyone misses that and starts giving examples of specific situations where it's reasonable and logical to have a single good choice.)

Frozen_Feet
2017-11-01, 09:08 AM
1) The point that I was trying to get across is that in a game where jumping into lava is a real choice, it is still not a choice I (or most players I imagine) would consider. 2) If we go by the logic that high agency is that the players are allowed to perform any technical actions they are allowed inside the game, then basically all games are high agency games.

1) Again, a choice can exist independent of anyone at the table being willing to make it.
2) You're missing two important bits of my argument if you think that's the case. The first is that to count towards agency, a choice has to have impact. Majority of "technical actions" you think belong in that category are there because you yourself don't believe they alter the flow of the game. The second is that in real games, GMs frequently refuse to accept such "technical actions".

I would hence ask you to unpack your assumptions of what a "technical choice" is. Because right now, it appears to me you are conflating two very different categories: choices which a player ignores because they have no impact, and choices which a player ignores because they have impact the player does not like.


1) The way I think of agency is how many actual decisions I have to make that will affect the course of the game. If the decisions basically "make themselves", it is not really making a decision as far as I am concerned. 2) This is why I want to measure it in the amount of thought process that takes place in making choices in the game.

1) how easy you find a choice to be has no bearing on whether it exists. If it's you who thinks the "choice makes itself" and you who is taking action based on that, then very straightforwardly you are the choosing agent and you are exercising your agency.
2) measuring how much players think of the choices they are presented is fine, but unpack that from your assumption of what player agency is. Player agency is the ability of players to act in the game, measured by number of choices of impact they have, AKA legal movespace of the game. How much or how little thought they need to spent on each choice has nothing to do with it, when you measure that, you are measuring something else, such as game difficulty or player decision making ability.


Choosing between lava death or walking over a bridge is such a trivial choice I don't see how it can even create a ping on the agency scale.

You are right but for the wrong reason. It barely creates a ping because it is one choice with (as presented here) two outcomes. If we extrapolated a whole game from here, it would be really boring, with the player only having one binary choice every turn, with one of the outcomes being "death" every time. If you drew a flowchart of the structure of such a scenario, it would be a straight arrow. If you made it into a computer game, the command line could read "Press [enter] to continue or [Esc] to quit".

The choice is real, but you cannot build a high-agency game from a string of such choices.


1) Actually, I think that was more an example of a scenario where there isn't one "optimal" choice. [ . . .] 2) The choice here really depends mostly on the personality of the character than anything else.

1) "Decent" =/= "optimal". I can think of an arbitrary number of scenarios where there are several decent options but still a single best one. If it's not a choice if the best option is known, then no number of decent solutions can increase agency in presence of the best one. This can also be formulated as "Perfect is the enemy of Good". This is strict logical follow-up to your exact words. If you wanted to preserve the spirit of your sentiment, you could loosen your position to "all options that have at least some positive outcome count towards a choice". But I'd consider that poor substitute to the simpler position of "any available action with impact is an option regardless of whether that action is good or bad".
2) This does not actually support your position, because an arbitrarily large amount of different personalities include traits which would make a character with that personality unable or unwilling to pick whatever's the best option in some circumstances. To get around that, you would have to bake "fits a character's personality" in the definition of "best option"/"optimal choice", and you can't make me buy that crap. Like, for example, for an alcoholic character in a game, it might be most fitting to drink all their money, leaving none for other pursuits. Why should I acknowledge that as "best choice" or "optimal"?


In any case, I think choices presented to the players should not be "obvious", in a way that the basically both the GM and the player knows in advance what they will choose.

There are two different things you are talking about here.

One is the sort of manipulative behaviour I outlined earlier in respect to your "bridge or lava" example. I agree, that sucks. It shouldn't be done.

The second is a player being so god-damn predictable that a GM can virtually read their mind. This can happen in absence of manipulation, in fact, in can happen even in a situation where a GM is taking effort to remind the player that they have other choices than what they usually pick.

Cases of the second type do not signify lack of player agency. They aren't an issue of game design. They aren't an issue of there being no real choices. They are an issue of the choosing agent being a boring person.


[Your definition of agency] doesn't seem all that useful to me as it lumps together vastly different games.

I already outlined above what you missed and how that makes you think my way of measuring agency has less power for distinquishing different games than you claim.

But in general? Yes, you can have extremely different games with same total amount of agency. Not because my concept of agency is uselessly broad, but because the ability to make choices with impact is really god-damn basic aspect of games, sitting right there with such general traits as "the player has turns" and "the player can move their play piece".

Where you argument fails, is that "ability to make choices with impact which require though" is just as basic and just as common. Like, seriously, there are people who think a long time before rolling dice in Snakes & Ladders, a game where the only real choice you have is whether to roll the dice or quit the game. More importantly, how much a choice requires thought varies dramatically between players.

I mean, I've had loads of players who, without thought, would jump into the lava, break into the prison, bargain with the Wizard, or many other silly things. By a standard where agency is measured by amount of thought spent on a choice, these players never had a real choice to walk that bridge, pay that bail or fight that Wizard. That may be an interesting statement about the player, but I find it to be horse crap when said about a game or the holder of the game.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-11-01, 09:14 AM
From my point of view, if the game system consistently present single optimal choices against clearly detrimental alternatives at each decision point, whether we're talking about character design or in gameplay, then that's a failure of the game system.

And if the GM is consistently presenting all decision situations as having a single optimal choice against clearly detrimental alternatives, that's a failure on the part of the GM.

(Note the word consistently -- before anyone misses that and starts giving examples of specific situations where it's reasonable and logical to have a single good choices.)

This works best with explicit, irreducible tradeoffs--choice X is quicker, but noisier (and that noise counts, as does time). Choice Y deals better with situation A but worse at situation B (than Choice Z). And so on. This enlarges the number of variables needed to optimize to the point that there's no clear-cut best or worst choice. There are just different strategies.

A failure of that comes when the tradeoffs are illusory--mainly if there's a simple work-around to avoid having to deal with them. An "alcoholic" flaw in a system that imposes no penalties for drunkenness. Small numeric penalties to things that don't matter. These are not real tradeoffs. Balancing this is hard, but worth it.

NB: I'm agreeing with you here, just amplifying. Repeated, clearly-optimal solutions verge way too close to denial of meaningful agency, if it's not already over my personal line. A choice where either "You stop playing (character dies) or you do it a certain way" is not a meaningful choice, assuming you want to keep playing. It's a threat to keep you on rails.

kyoryu
2017-11-01, 10:19 AM
Ultimately, I view agency as the ability for my choices to shape what happens in the game, and the end result. That is, given a problem or a situation, my choices (or the choices of the party as a whole) should determine the outcome of the situation. The larger in scope this is, the more agency is available.

As a simple metric, the more the GM knows what will happen, the less agency there is. (By "know" I don't mean "guesses correctly", though I still argue that prep can lead to GMs subtly railroading in a given direction).

Any game will have sections of low agency. This is expected. Sometimes the choices you make will lead to situations where your choices are heavily constrained. Ideally, the GM did not know that these sections would occur until they came about.

Note that I also think that low player agency games are fine, even if they're not my cuppa. Adventure Paths sell. Organized play (which leans heavily on prewritten modules that, in my experience, are pretty railroady) is popular. Low agency is not inherently a bad thing. It's just a thing that some people will like and others dislike.

BRC
2017-11-01, 10:20 AM
From my point of view, if the game system consistently presents single optimal choices against clearly detrimental alternatives at each decision point, whether we're talking about character design or in gameplay, then that's a failure of the game system.

And if the GM is consistently presenting all decision situations as having a single optimal choice against clearly detrimental alternatives, that's a failure on the part of the GM.

(Note the word consistently -- before anyone misses that and starts giving examples of specific situations where it's reasonable and logical to have a single good choice.)

Part of this can come from a misunderstanding of priorities between GM and players.

Often, the players will be asked to choose between two decisions, one with a Mechanical reward, and one with a Narrative reward.

Something like "The Bandit King offers to tell you the location of his secret treasure if you let him go".

Mechanical Reward: The Treasure
Narrative Reward: Bringing the Bandit King to justice.

This kind of a choice can often be good, but different player groups can read it a different way.

A group that cares mostly about the state of their character sheet might not view that as a choice of all, seeing it as Treasure vs Not Treasure. Turning in the Bandit King is strictly a worse decision.

Another group might view this from another direction. Releasing the Bandit King is unthinkable. The treasure may as well not exist. I'll admit, this response is pretty rare. There are plenty of groups that will reject the offer without considering it, but they'll usually recognize that it WAS a valid choice.

Finally, you can get situations where the players feel like they're being punished for sticking to their guns. Their character would never accept the bribe, so the presence of the choice merely makes them feel like they're being punished for somebody with such strong convictions.

Lorsa
2017-11-01, 10:55 AM
1) Again, a choice can exist independent of anyone at the table being willing to make it.
2) You're missing two important bits of my argument if you think that's the case. The first is that to count towards agency, a choice has to have impact. Majority of "technical actions" you think belong in that category are there because you yourself don't believe they alter the flow of the game. The second is that in real games, GMs frequently refuse to accept such "technical actions".

I would hence ask you to unpack your assumptions of what a "technical choice" is. Because right now, it appears to me you are conflating two very different categories: choices which a player ignores because they have no impact, and choices which a player ignores because they have impact the player does not like.

You are right that my assumption of a technical choice contains more than one category. I put them together like that as I believe they both have a detrimental impact to the enjoyment of the game, nor does any of them make me feel like I have an impact on the game.

Let's see if I can split the choices up into different parts.

1) The choices presented have no real impact on the game whatsoever (I guess the choice between walking or jumping down a corridor counts here unless the game has a fatigue mechanic).

2) The choices presented have a real impact, but only one of them has an impact desired (which includes the bridge vs. lava example but can also be more complicated).

3) The choices presented have a real impact, with two or more having desired impacts but only one can be selected (like say, choosing between two magical items that are both desired).

4) The choices presented involve two or more choices with a real but undesired impact (as an extreme, say choose between losing sight or hearing).

My argument comes from a place that when in games with only choices of the type 1) or 2), I don't really feel that I, as a player, actually affects the game in any meaningful way. The GM has already decided where the game will go by the very nature of the type of choices that are being presented.

However, if I am presented with type 3) or 4) choices, where there is no clear "right" or "wrong" answer, then I feel like my choice actually matters and that I can drive the direction of the game, that I have some agency.



1) how easy you find a choice to be has no bearing on whether it exists. If it's you who thinks the "choice makes itself" and you who is taking action based on that, then very straightforwardly you are the choosing agent and you are exercising your agency.
2) measuring how much players think of the choices they are presented is fine, but unpack that from your assumption of what player agency is. Player agency is the ability of players to act in the game, measured by number of choices of impact they have, AKA legal movespace of the game. How much or how little thought they need to spent on each choice has nothing to do with it, when you measure that, you are measuring something else, such as game difficulty or player decision making ability.

1) Well, like I said above, I don't feel like a choosing agent. I feel as though the GM has presented a scenario with an illusion of choice, where only one of them is actually real, even if I would be allowed to take the other ones.

2) If you think what I am talking about is something different than agency, you can always help me come up with a better term?



You are right but for the wrong reason. It barely creates a ping because it is one choice with (as presented here) two outcomes. If we extrapolated a whole game from here, it would be really boring, with the player only having one binary choice every turn, with one of the outcomes being "death" every time. If you drew a flowchart of the structure of such a scenario, it would be a straight arrow. If you made it into a computer game, the command line could read "Press [enter] to continue or [Esc] to quit".

The choice is real, but you cannot build a high-agency game from a string of such choices.

Well, you could easily make the choice with more outcomes. Like at every turn you can select 1) Proceed, 2) Take damage, 3) Suffer humiliation, 4) Die. In such a scenario (if we assume it is a roleplaying game where I care about the character), I will select 1). And even if I have 4 choices at every turn, all of which will have an impact on the game, it's a very trivial choice every time.



1) "Decent" =/= "optimal". I can think of an arbitrary number of scenarios where there are several decent options but still a single best one. If it's not a choice if the best option is known, then no number of decent solutions can increase agency in presence of the best one. This can also be formulated as "Perfect is the enemy of Good". This is strict logical follow-up to your exact words. If you wanted to preserve the spirit of your sentiment, you could loosen your position to "all options that have at least some positive outcome count towards a choice". But I'd consider that poor substitute to the simpler position of "any available action with impact is an option regardless of whether that action is good or bad".
2) This does not actually support your position, because an arbitrarily large amount of different personalities include traits which would make a character with that personality unable or unwilling to pick whatever's the best option in some circumstances. To get around that, you would have to bake "fits a character's personality" in the definition of "best option"/"optimal choice", and you can't make me buy that crap. Like, for example, for an alcoholic character in a game, it might be most fitting to drink all their money, leaving none for other pursuits. Why should I acknowledge that as "best choice" or "optimal"?

1) When I think of "optimal" I think in terms of having an algoritm making the choice for me, as I tried to say in my first post. If I can input a simple set of variables (for example my goals in the game) and receive the optimal choice from a simple calculation. It is one of the reason why I dislike optimization in character creation, for example. When that is the goal, I am no longer making any choices myself, I am just following a strict algoritm laid forward by the game rules. I can optimize just fine, but it quickly becomes quite boring.

Similarly I think that GMs presenting games where a simple optimization algoritm can give me the right answer to be boring. It is better if the choices are such that it is hard to tell which is best, or that all of them are good in some ways (and perhaps bad in some), or that the variables I have to put into the algoritm are so many that the answer can't be easily calculated.

Also, you are right that I am more concerned with the spirit of my sentiment than the exact wording of it.

2) I can see why you think that is problematic. But from the perspective of a player playing the character, it does make some measure of sense. If the GM is continually presenting an alcoholic character with the choice of "drink up all your money" or "stay sober for the evening", the player (if intending to stay true to the character) will drink up all their money at every decision point. It's not really a choice but a logical conclusion of the character's given personality trait. Better would be to find another personality trait or character motivation and pit that against the character's desire to drink. Then suddenly there is no optimal choice anymore, as both involves something that is desired.




There are two different things you are talking about here.

One is the sort of manipulative behaviour I outlined earlier in respect to your "bridge or lava" example. I agree, that sucks. It shouldn't be done.

The second is a player being so god-damn predictable that a GM can virtually read their mind. This can happen in absence of manipulation, in fact, in can happen even in a situation where a GM is taking effort to remind the player that they have other choices than what they usually pick.

Cases of the second type do not signify lack of player agency. They aren't an issue of game design. They aren't an issue of there being no real choices. They are an issue of the choosing agent being a boring person.

The manipulative behavior I talked about seems to be far too common though. I mean, if we just move slightly away from the extreme "bridge or lava" example, we can still remain in games where all choices involve one good vs. many bad options (even if the bad is not death). This is why I think that the number of choices is a rather poor measure for agency in games and want to move to only caring about choices that the players actually consider. I don't like it that manipulative GMs can hide under "well, according to the definition, this IS a high agency game", when the players never really feel like they can make useful choices.

Predictable people can still be presented with choices where neither party knows what the choice will be. Well, I suppose there are cases with people being extremely super predictable, but if that is the case then making decisions is probably not a big goal of that player's desire to play RPGs anyway.



I already outlined above what you missed and how that makes you think my way of measuring agency has less power for distinguishing different games than you claim.

1) But in general? Yes, you can have extremely different games with same total amount of agency. Not because my concept of agency is uselessly broad, but because the ability to make choices with impact is really god-damn basic aspect of games, sitting right there with such general traits as "the player has turns" and "the player can move their play piece".

2) Where you argument fails, is that "ability to make choices with impact which require though" is just as basic and just as common. Like, seriously, there are people who think a long time before rolling dice in Snakes & Ladders, a game where the only real choice you have is whether to roll the dice or quit the game. More importantly, how much a choice requires thought varies dramatically between players.

3) I mean, I've had loads of players who, without thought, would jump into the lava, break into the prison, bargain with the Wizard, or many other silly things. By a standard where agency is measured by amount of thought spent on a choice, these players never had a real choice to walk that bridge, pay that bail or fight that Wizard. That may be an interesting statement about the player, but I find it to be horse crap when said about a game or the holder of the game.

1) What do you think I am trying to measure then? As you say, having agency present, by your definition, is really such a basic thing that any sane GM will have it. However, some GMs prefer to give choices that are in the lines of "1 good + 15 bad", whereas others devise scenarios with "5 good" or "3 bad" choices. What concept should we use to tell them apart if I can't use agency?

2) This is why I said we have to use each individual player as a reference frame. Do they spend shorter or longer than what is typical for them when making the decision?

3) It is a quite interesting statement about the player. However, when faced with such a player, perhaps the best is to provide more than one option that is "silly"? Like "do you want to jump into the lava or the bottomless pit?" or "do you want to break your friend out of prison using this stupid plan or that stupid plan". Yes, you are right that there are two sides of the equation, player and GM. And, in the way I wanted to think of agency, the GM can present the exact same scenario to two different players and arrive at two different amounts of involved player agency. I guess you think that is bull**** as a scenario should be measured on a neutral scale and not be player dependent?

Segev
2017-11-01, 11:16 AM
Part of this can come from a misunderstanding of priorities between GM and players.

Often, the players will be asked to choose between two decisions, one with a Mechanical reward, and one with a Narrative reward.

Something like "The Bandit King offers to tell you the location of his secret treasure if you let him go".

Mechanical Reward: The Treasure
Narrative Reward: Bringing the Bandit King to justice.

This kind of a choice can often be good, but different player groups can read it a different way.

A group that cares mostly about the state of their character sheet might not view that as a choice of all, seeing it as Treasure vs Not Treasure. Turning in the Bandit King is strictly a worse decision.

Another group might view this from another direction. Releasing the Bandit King is unthinkable. The treasure may as well not exist. I'll admit, this response is pretty rare. There are plenty of groups that will reject the offer without considering it, but they'll usually recognize that it WAS a valid choice.

Finally, you can get situations where the players feel like they're being punished for sticking to their guns. Their character would never accept the bribe, so the presence of the choice merely makes them feel like they're being punished for somebody with such strong convictions.

The solution I like to use in these situations is to make sure that the reputation, even if not mechanically represented, of the characters who do the "right" thing is held in high regard by the NPCs of the setting. King Bob of Miniontopia is very pleased that you captured Wicked Bandit Princess Grusibelle. Even if Grusibelle's treasure remains lost, your brownie points with King Bob mean that he is likely to trust you when you come to him about the problem posed by Dark Queen Agness's cutesy demonic unicorns.

There's also the possibility of finding clues that will let you start to hunt for Grusibelle's loot hoard, even if it's not as easy as just following her directions.

Max_Killjoy
2017-11-01, 12:13 PM
Part of this can come from a misunderstanding of priorities between GM and players.

Often, the players will be asked to choose between two decisions, one with a Mechanical reward, and one with a Narrative reward.

Something like "The Bandit King offers to tell you the location of his secret treasure if you let him go".

Mechanical Reward: The Treasure
Narrative Reward: Bringing the Bandit King to justice.

This kind of a choice can often be good, but different player groups can read it a different way.

A group that cares mostly about the state of their character sheet might not view that as a choice of all, seeing it as Treasure vs Not Treasure. Turning in the Bandit King is strictly a worse decision.

Another group might view this from another direction. Releasing the Bandit King is unthinkable. The treasure may as well not exist. I'll admit, this response is pretty rare. There are plenty of groups that will reject the offer without considering it, but they'll usually recognize that it WAS a valid choice.

Finally, you can get situations where the players feel like they're being punished for sticking to their guns. Their character would never accept the bribe, so the presence of the choice merely makes them feel like they're being punished for somebody with such strong convictions.

Interesting and useful observation.

For comparison, I'd be looking at that as two competing Character rewards, with trade-offs that the character has to decide between.

Floret
2017-11-01, 12:26 PM
You did not answer the question. I did not ask if the blind choice had player agency (we both know blind choices are not meaningful choices). I asked if the meaningful choice they had later was hurt by the DM not revealing the hidden information about the blind choice not taken. This was a specific question to Quertus addressing subtle differences between their definition of meaningful choices ("all information must be learnable") vs my definition of meaningful choices ("to be a meaningful choice, the PCs know the relevant details").

So:
A) Did the meaningful choice to "engage or slink away from the creature" get hurt by the information of the other path of the blind choice before not being revealed OOC?
B) Did the meaningful choice of "go right to follow the slime or left to avoid the slime" get hurt by the information of the other path of the entangled blind choice of (unknown to the players, there is a lab to the right and a library to the left) not being revealed OOC.

PS: Previously, and especially now that Darth Ultron has dropped in, I will stick to discussing actual rather than perceived agency.

Sorry this response is so late, I didn't find the time until now...
I seem to have misunderstood your post a bit, if it didn't answer your question. As to your follow-ups...
A) No, it doesn't. The meaningfulness of a choice depends on the choice itself - the fact that other paths would have led to other meaningful choices is about as relevant as the result of a dieroll is to the one made after it with the same die.
B) As far as I can tell, you are asking "Does the fact that a choice has (unknown) consequences beyond the known reasons why it is made influence how meaningful it is"? If so... sort of. It did carry a meaning, but it didn't carry as much as it would have if they knew which path led to which room. I don't think "meaningful" is an on-off switch in that regard, basically.
(Having potentially conflicting motivations for each path would be more meaningful of a choice; but the choice to evade or follow the enemy would be meaningful in and of itself. However, if there somehow was a goal of the characters to find the library; they chose the "wrong" path for that based on a completely different choice - I think they'd be rightfully angry if the GM tried to convince them they "chose" to abandon their search for the library, even though the choice of path was meaningful in a different way.)

As to your PS - fair. I do think there is value in discussing what makes players feel like they have agency; but since I think we both agree one of the central ways is "give agency", I can understand the point feeling moot, especially in our company.


3) It is a quite interesting statement about the player. However, when faced with such a player, perhaps the best is to provide more than one option that is "silly"? Like "do you want to jump into the lava or the bottomless pit?" or "do you want to break your friend out of prison using this stupid plan or that stupid plan". Yes, you are right that there are two sides of the equation, player and GM. And, in the way I wanted to think of agency, the GM can present the exact same scenario to two different players and arrive at two different amounts of involved player agency. I guess you think that is bull**** as a scenario should be measured on a neutral scale and not be player dependent?

I think actual agency needs to be considered on a neutral scale. People percieve different things differently, yes, but that doesn't actually change how many choices they do have - just how many they consider. Any measuring device that measures percieved agency and says it measures actual agency is deeply flawed.
Also, people want different things from games. Want different things than their characters want. The vast majority of humans do not want to suffer, yet the emotional impact of having your character suffer in a game can be something a player might strive for. For some players, nothing but the narratively optimal choice will do, and mechanical considerations absolutely irrelevant. For some players, the other way around. A choice between narrative and mechanics, to both, wouldn't be a choice at all. Some players care about both, and might be torn. Some might think narrative more important, but still feel cheated by having to discard their "powerup".
And, to boot, even if there is a "clear" choice, some players might not complain about a lack of agency. You might give the Narrative-focussed person the choice, for them being clear, and them actually feeling their agency mattered, because they were given the opportunity to clearly reject the mechanical reward, despite the choice being immediately clear. People are complicated, is what I'm trying to say, and trying to measure agency on a scale that depends on them will get you a muddled mess of a tool. (Exploring what things can serve to help create or dissuade the perception of agency would be, as I said, a valuable discussion, sure, but a wholly different one.)


I don't like it that manipulative GMs can hide under "well, according to the definition, this IS a high agency game", when the players never really feel like they can make useful choices.

Thing is, it might well be. Actual agency and percieved agency are two different things, and might well differ - a player being on a railroad might not notice (Though most people will, and might object if they didn't agree to it); but conversely it's also possible for a player in a sandbox to feel pressured onto one single path - by the choices being, from their perspective, "obvious", for example.* It would be hardly fair to blame a GM in the case such a thing happens. But it might still be worthwhile to have a talk and see how this situation came about.

*It is a trapping I do sometimes notice in RPGs (Though more often in Larps, funnily enough), that the way a person built their character, they can only see one "logical" choice. It is rarely this simple, there are nearly always multiple things that would be logical, and consistent to do. Being very close to a character can be somewhat blinding to that.

BRC
2017-11-01, 12:39 PM
Interesting and useful observation.

For comparison, I'd be looking at that as two competing Character rewards, with trade-offs that the character has to decide between.

Right.

It depends on the player, and how they view "Practical" rewards.

From the perspective of Numbers on the Character Sheet? From the perspective of Ability to Make Things Happen In-Game? Or from the perspective of what a character wants.

The first is easy. Numerical Bonuses on the character sheet. A new magic item, or whatever.

The second, something like "The Duke Owes you a Favor". That doesn't go on the character sheet, but it will certainly be useful when it comes to achieving some goal.

The Third might be something like "Clear your mother of the false charges against her". There may be no mechanical benefit to this (Congratulations, a 3rd level commoner is now out of jail). It doesn't help you achieve any further goals, but it may be vitally important to your character.


generally speaking, anything at a Higher tier applies to all things.

The first two are both some form of "More Power", which is a pretty safe bet any PC wants. The only issue at hand is how much the player values that sort of Narrative power vs strictly mechanical bonuses.

OldTrees1
2017-11-01, 02:39 PM
Sorry this response is so late, I didn't find the time until now...
I seem to have misunderstood your post a bit, if it didn't answer your question. As to your follow-ups...
A) No, it doesn't. The meaningfulness of a choice depends on the choice itself - the fact that other paths would have led to other meaningful choices is about as relevant as the result of a dieroll is to the one made after it with the same die.
B) As far as I can tell, you are asking "Does the fact that a choice has (unknown) consequences beyond the known reasons why it is made influence how meaningful it is"? If so... sort of. It did carry a meaning, but it didn't carry as much as it would have if they knew which path led to which room. I don't think "meaningful" is an on-off switch in that regard, basically.
(Having potentially conflicting motivations for each path would be more meaningful of a choice; but the choice to evade or follow the enemy would be meaningful in and of itself. However, if there somehow was a goal of the characters to find the library; they chose the "wrong" path for that based on a completely different choice - I think they'd be rightfully angry if the GM tried to convince them they "chose" to abandon their search for the library, even though the choice of path was meaningful in a different way.)

As to your PS - fair. I do think there is value in discussing what makes players feel like they have agency; but since I think we both agree one of the central ways is "give agency", I can understand the point feeling moot, especially in our company.

A) I agree.
B) My question was very slightly different, but you answered it as well. I was presenting the known consequences as a meaningful choice within a larger choice with both known and unknown consequences. You replied that the choice between the known consequences is still a meaningful choice despite the larger choice containing some unknown consequences but that the choice between the unknown consequences remained a blind choice. I agree.

PS: We both agree in the value of and the value of discussing that other related topic.
Sidenote: While this thread is not a dissection of that other related topic, the social signaling back and forth between the people in this thread is a sign that the consensus is that the other related topic is highly valued and generally agreed upon.

Talakeal
2017-11-01, 02:44 PM
From my point of view, if the game system consistently presents single optimal choices against clearly detrimental alternatives at each decision point, whether we're talking about character design or in gameplay, then that's a failure of the game system.

And if the GM is consistently presenting all decision situations as having a single optimal choice against clearly detrimental alternatives, that's a failure on the part of the GM.

(Note the word consistently -- before anyone misses that and starts giving examples of specific situations where it's reasonable and logical to have a single good choice.)

Agreed, however outside of the wildly imbalanced 3.X or the ultra-competitive levels of certain MMOs this is rarely a problem.

Typically the problem is that the players (and their characters) have different motives.

To use an example from a previous thread, say a woman who is probably an enemy spy wants to seduce the PCs; PC A is motivated by completing the mission, while PC B is motivated by sleeping with hot women. Their goals, and thus their reactions to the situation, are at odds, and in a team game the players (not the characters, but the players) will often get mad at one another for their choice with the majority bullying the outliers into compliance.



Part of this can come from a misunderstanding of priorities between GM and players.

Often, the players will be asked to choose between two decisions, one with a Mechanical reward, and one with a Narrative reward.

Something like "The Bandit King offers to tell you the location of his secret treasure if you let him go".

Mechanical Reward: The Treasure
Narrative Reward: Bringing the Bandit King to justice.

This kind of a choice can often be good, but different player groups can read it a different way.

A group that cares mostly about the state of their character sheet might not view that as a choice of all, seeing it as Treasure vs Not Treasure. Turning in the Bandit King is strictly a worse decision.

Another group might view this from another direction. Releasing the Bandit King is unthinkable. The treasure may as well not exist. I'll admit, this response is pretty rare. There are plenty of groups that will reject the offer without considering it, but they'll usually recognize that it WAS a valid choice.

Finally, you can get situations where the players feel like they're being punished for sticking to their guns. Their character would never accept the bribe, so the presence of the choice merely makes them feel like they're being punished for somebody with such strong convictions.

Pretty much, yeah.

Darth Ultron
2017-11-01, 06:44 PM
Let's see if I can split the choices up into different parts.



Your choices seem odd as your just counting if the player can choose anything, it counts. Does a player deciding their character has fish for dinner really count as agency? The same is true for potion or spell selection. Or deciding how the character will do something.

Do you really count all that above as ''agency''? Just set the bar very low and be happy?

A single character, or a small group, can't ''effect the world'' all the time. Sure, from time to time for a second or two, they might be at the right place at the right time to effect an event that effects maybe a whole country...maybe. But that is a rare thing, like once every couple games.

And even if as a player you have a character ''do something'', it is the DM who decides what happens. Like even if your character does something extreme, like kill the king, then sulks away. Then they come back expecting the kingdom to now be a post apocalyptic horror, but the DM is just like ''well the prince became king''. So do you feel you had no agency as the DM did not do things ''only your way?"

And how willing are you to accept the consequences of a bad choice? The tunnel splits into a ''y'', one is an exit, one is a trap. You pick the trap. So you blame no one but yourself and just accept what happens?

Frozen_Feet
2017-11-01, 06:54 PM
You are right that my assumption of a technical choice contains more than one category. I put them together like that as I believe they both have a detrimental impact to the enjoyment of the game, nor does any of them make me feel like I have an impact on the game.

Let's see if I can split the choices up into different parts.

1) The choices presented have no real impact on the game whatsoever (I guess the choice between walking or jumping down a corridor counts here unless the game has a fatigue mechanic).

2) The choices presented have a real impact, but only one of them has an impact desired (which includes the bridge vs. lava example but can also be more complicated).

[. . .]

My argument comes from a place that when in games with only choices of the type 1) or 2), I don't really feel that I, as a player, actually affects the game in any meaningful way. The GM has already decided where the game will go by the very nature of the type of choices that are being presented.


I can get that you feel like that, in fact, I already addressed that very feeling earlier. I'm not denying your feelings. It's just that player feelings are not a good measure of agency, just like my mother's opinion on what barbells are "too heavy" is not a good measure of how much things weigh.

Like, of course a player will be bummed if no option they desire is available. But that's variable and could contain or exclude virtually anything. Hence trying to exclude undesired option from player agency is a fool's errand, you can't do that unless you have a specific player whose desires are already known.

Player agency itself is not guarantee nor measure of enjoyment, nor of fun, nor of how good a game is. In fact, it can be proven that too much choice can lead to decision paralysis and loss of feeling of agency even as actual agency increases. It's valid to argue that some sorts of decisions don't add to a game for you (or for someone else), and why so, but those arguments should be kept separate and made separately from the question of what agency is.

And here's where we get to the part I underlined. Yeah, it's true, but again sort of trivial. For example, if a GM chooses to run a Hard Sci-Fi game, this will naturally restrict space of available game moves, and if you wanted Sword & Sorcery instead, the total amouny of agency is more or less irrelevant to you - you wouldn't want to play anyways. However, this tells you next to nothing of how much another player would have agency within the Hard Sci-Fi parameters. Focusing on the types of choices which are not available may be a good measure of whether you would like to play in a given game, but it's a piss-poor measure for agency.



2) If you think what I am talking about is something different than agency, you can always help me come up with a better term?

When measuring how much thought a player spends on a decision, you need several other terms, because there are multiple different reasons why a player is taking their time.

However, the primary thing you'll be measuring is game difficulty, in few different variations.

For trivial choices, that is, choices which can be understood in whole quickly and have only few options, you are measuring player attentiveness and player reaction time. A player who paid attention and has good reaction time will respond faster. The game gets harder as the speed with which choices must be made increases.

For operative choices, that is, choices where all the relevant options and factors can fit in the working memory of a typical human, you are measuring the ability of the person to hold items in mind and perform mental operations fast. Note: a human's working memory usually can hold from five to nine independent items, with seven being typical. People with high general intelligence will respond faster. The game gets more difficult the closer the number of items is to the limit of the human's working memory, hence a decision taking more time to think.

For complex choices, that is, choices with more options and factors than can fit into human working memory, you are now measuring such abilities as long-term memory, ability to prioritize and break a problem into less complex sub-problems, ability to identify which factors are relevant, ability to ignore factors of minute effects etc. As the numbers of options and relevant factors increase, each decision gets more difficult and hence takes more time.


Well, you could easily make the choice with more outcomes. Like at every turn you can select 1) Proceed, 2) Take damage, 3) Suffer humiliation, 4) Die. In such a scenario (if we assume it is a roleplaying game where I care about the character), I will select 1). And even if I have 4 choices at every turn, all of which will have an impact on the game, it's a very trivial choice every time.

First, let me nitpick the example a bit: if taking enough damage eventually leads to death, and taking damage changes the situation in no other way, then options 2) and 4) are actually identical. So at each turn you only have three options.

In any case, your conclusion is right but again for wrong reason. Since each turn two choices converge on the same two outcomes, humiliation and death, if we drew a flowchart of this scenario, it'd be almost as much of an arrow as the earlier one, just with loops of humiliation on the lower edge. Compared to the earlier model, we are actually adding just one outcomes: NI loop of humiliation instead of death. (That is the only function with impact that option 3) can have if humiliation advances the game in no other way.)

So we've gone from agency rating of 2 per turn, to 3 per turn.

However, I contest the notion in parentheses: that in an RPG where you care about your character, you will always choose 1). That is contingent on the contents of that options, as it is the only thing that can conceivably change. You could make a fairly simple game out of this. Let's called it "Eat this cake OR DIE!"

The rules are simple: the player is handed a character with some description of personality. For example: "You are Kylo Ren". After this, the GM will proceed to give them imperatives of escalating inanity and moral repulsiveness. For each imperative, the player must choose to follow it, to suffer endless humiliation, or to die after optional number of humiliations. These imperatives start with "Eath this cake!" and continue to, for example, "kill your dad!"

Game ends at death or after player expresses they would rather be endlessly humiliated than proceed.


1) When I think of "optimal" I think in terms of having an algoritm making the choice for me, as I tried to say in my first post.

If it is you who made the algorithm based on your goals and the only thing enforcing it is you choosing to follow it, then it is still you who is the choosing agent. If you still feel it reduces your agency, it's because you are engaging in self-deception.

The root of this deception ought to be easy to see, though. If the algorithm was made by someone else, or based on someone else's goals, or enforced by someone else, then you'd be factually surrendering some or all of your agency to an external entity. The trick is that an algoritm existing in your mind because you put it there is not an external entity, even though it feels like one.


Similarly I think that GMs presenting games where a simple optimization algoritm can give me the right answer to be boring. It is better if the choices are such that it is hard to tell which is best, or that all of them are good in some ways (and perhaps bad in some), or that the variables I have to put into the algoritm are so many that the answer can't be easily calculated.

This is a valid statement of preference, but not good for measuring agency.


2) I can see why you think that is problematic. But from the perspective of a player playing the character, it does make some measure of sense.

Of course it does. The whole point of roleplaying is to act as if you are this person in that situation. It comes with that package that you try to emulate the actions of that person based on their motives, even if both the actions and motives are bad from a more objective viewpoint. It is intuitive to hence think that picking the flawed option is "good roleplaying", and that for a roleplaying game, the "optimal/best solution" is to pick the option that emulates your role best.

However, I choose to terminate that thought halfway and simply accept that "good roleplaying" means taking suboptimal choices when those emulate the role accurately. What's optimal is measured by comparison to less personal values. For example, the alcoholic's choice to drink all their money is deemed unoptimal due to the lack of wealth making the alcoholic less succesfull in other fields of life, including their ability to buy more alcohol.


1) The manipulative behavior I talked about seems to be far too common though. 2) I don't like it that manipulative GMs can hide under "well, according to the definition, this IS a high agency game", when the players never really feel like they can make useful choices.

1) I know it is and it is a sorry state of things. But it's commonality is separate topic to what agency is.
2) Once more, you are actually talking of two different things. The first is when a genuinely manipulative GM is trying to divert attention away from the fact that they wouldn't have actually allowed the alternative and were always counting on the players choosing the thing they wanted. The second is a case where the GM is honest and just made a game that's not to your liking, like the Hard Sci-fi example above.

Or to put it differently: "Dishonesty for Dummies: a lie must sound plausible to your victim or they won't buy it". The reason why a manipulative GM can hide behind the technical definition is because an honest person could say such a thing and be correct.


Predictable people can still be presented with choices where neither party knows what the choice will be. Well, I suppose there are cases with people being extremely super predictable, but if that is the case then making decisions is probably not a big goal of that player's desire to play RPGs anyway.

It doesn't generalize in quite that way. Some of the most predictable players I've seen insisted on making decisions, it's just that they always did so from a pretty narrow archetype (for example, zealous goody-two-shoes hero), so once I could pin down the archetype, I could always tell how they would react to different situations. In fact, I've tested this with such players, by presenting them with scenarios where other possible choices were specifically emphasized, just to see if they would surprise me.

Note: these sorts of player will be especially unhappy if their favored choice and options are not on the menu, regardless of how many other choices and options there are. For such a player, the abundance of other choices just serves to give more weight to their favored one. If this sounds too abstract... think of a guy who prides himself in how he would never cheat on his girlfriend, but still tries to be appealing to other women because he can make a show of turning those other women down to affirm his One True Love.


However, some GMs prefer to give choices that are in the lines of "1 good + 15 bad", whereas others devise scenarios with "5 good" or "3 bad" choices. What concept should we use to tell them apart if I can't use agency?

Just summing the choices does tell them apart. Knowing which game has more agency is just not the answer you want.

Additional metrics which could help you, are: game difficulty (see above) and structure of the scenario. You are doing the latter already, by counting the ratio of good-to-bad options. Based on those two things and player skill, you can approximate how your player will react. (Seriously, in actual psychology there is a two-dimensional grid with task difficulty on one axis and performer skill on another. I can't remember its name right now, sadly.)



It is a quite interesting statement about the player. However, when faced with such a player, perhaps the best is to provide more than one option that is "silly"?

This type of players tend to crash and burn in their select way faster than I can enumerate different options. Sometimes they jump to the crazy conclusion before I've finished explaining the situation and asked them what they will do.

So to practically do what you suggest, I would have to force them to hear all the options before I let them act. Whether this improves the game is situational. Sometimes, telling the Happy Fun Ball to hold their horses will lead to them doing something different after hearing an extended explanatlon. Other times, they already made their decision, so it doesn't matter how long you hold still the Happy Fun Ball, it will still roll off the cliff when allowed to.


Yes, you are right that there are two sides of the equation, player and GM. And, in the way I wanted to think of agency, the GM can present the exact same scenario to two different players and arrive at two different amounts of involved player agency. I guess you think that is bull**** as a scenario should be measured on a neutral scale and not be player dependent?

There is an actual way for two players running through the same scenario to end up with different amounts of agency even under my definition. It's a function of scenario structure: how choices lead to other choices, primarily whether they diverge or converge. It'd take a flowchart to properly explain, so I won't do that today.

jayem
2017-11-02, 03:04 AM
Your choices seem odd as your just counting if the player can choose anything, it counts. Does a player deciding their character has fish for dinner really count as agency? The same is true for potion or spell selection. Or deciding how the character will do something.

Do you really count all that above as ''agency''? Just set the bar very low and be happy?

If I read her correctly, she is listing choices that will include ones that are beneath the bar and [above] the bar. With the ones you listed being those she explicitly considers beneath the bar.


A single character, or a small group, can't ''effect the world'' all the time....

I'll have to think about this a bit more. I suspect I possibly partially agree, though it definitely should affect the 'game', or the worlds relation to the players.


And how willing are you to accept the consequences of a bad choice? The tunnel splits into a ''y'', one is an exit, one is a trap. You pick the trap. So you blame no one but yourself and just accept what happens?
This is why people talk about Meaningful-Informed-Choices. If you had an informed choice, more or less. However if they've made the choice to go down the trapped path to avoid the trap then something is clearly wrong somewhere (almost by definition if they pick the trap, it wasn't a M-I-C). (NB it would be different if they had a choice between whirlpool and monster)

If you explicitly had no information, then you aren't to blame but no-one expects you to take blame. Ideally there probably should be a meaningful-informed-choice before the trap becomes inescapable. If so then in my opinion this is fine (a game isn't a game if sometimes you aren't unlucky).

If it's quantum-ogred or otherwise railroaded (either fork, but particularly into the trap) you are blamed falsely. This is ugly

Mordaedil
2017-11-02, 04:49 AM
Don't post replies to people posting in bad faith.

Pleh
2017-11-02, 05:08 AM
Part of this can come from a misunderstanding of priorities between GM and players.

Often, the players will be asked to choose between two decisions, one with a Mechanical reward, and one with a Narrative reward.

Something like "The Bandit King offers to tell you the location of his secret treasure if you let him go".

Mechanical Reward: The Treasure
Narrative Reward: Bringing the Bandit King to justice.

This kind of a choice can often be good, but different player groups can read it a different way.

A group that cares mostly about the state of their character sheet might not view that as a choice of all, seeing it as Treasure vs Not Treasure. Turning in the Bandit King is strictly a worse decision.

Another group might view this from another direction. Releasing the Bandit King is unthinkable. The treasure may as well not exist. I'll admit, this response is pretty rare. There are plenty of groups that will reject the offer without considering it, but they'll usually recognize that it WAS a valid choice.

Finally, you can get situations where the players feel like they're being punished for sticking to their guns. Their character would never accept the bribe, so the presence of the choice merely makes them feel like they're being punished for somebody with such strong convictions.

In my group, the players would likely grin and say, "oh, so you have treasure hidden away somewhere? Good to know."

They would find the right spell to getting the treasure, then turn the bandit in to justice.

Darth Ultron
2017-11-02, 07:08 AM
I'll have to think about this a bit more. I suspect I possibly partially agree, though it definitely should affect the 'game', or the worlds relation to the players.


In most cases, when the PC is just an adventurer, they really can't effect the world much on a day to day basis. And for the most part they can really only have a very small bit of effect on the local area. As the PC's are the stars, they will once in a while, get to be in some big, dramatic, turning point event that can change the shape of at least the local area....but only once in a while. Real change takes time and effort and a plan and even more effort. A character can't just take a single action and then sit back and watch things go crazy....plus things might or might not go the way that is wanted. A character that has more influence or control, like say a mayor, guild leader or a king can do a lot more day to day, but they generally don't the big events either.




This is why people talk about Meaningful-Informed-Choices.

So where is the balance between clueless and knowing everything? A lot of choices should be made with no fore knowledge. It really does break the idea of a game reality if the DM will tell the players about everything so they can all ways make an informed, meaningful choice(and exploit that knowledge, of course).

Would true Player Agency then just be: Everyone is a Player. I know this is said a lot as it sounds cool, or something to some people, but I mean playing the game like this:

The DM tells the players everything about the game...every single detail. Then the players have their characters act on all that information, but they sort of pretend the characters ''don't know''. This would be like Player Bob knows the pit trap is at Square 1-A, then he role plays character Zorg ''pretending'' not to know that, but ultimately Player Bob makes the informed meaningful decision and choice of if or not character Zorg falls into the pit trap or not.

Max_Killjoy
2017-11-02, 08:02 AM
Scale errors.

"Affect the world" does not mean "with this action I shake the pillars of reality". Picking up a glass of water and moving it from one end of a table to the other is affecting the world. Making a child happy by finding their lost toy is affecting the world. Saving a village is affecting the world. Killing another character is affecting the world. Deposing a king or slaying Smaug is affecting the world.

Perfect knowledge is not required for agency to be valid. I can choose which restaurant I want to go to. I know some things about the food at each place, I know some things about the traffic on the routes to either of them, etc. I don't need to know that halfway between where I am and one of them there's an accident blocking traffic tonight, and I don't need to know that the other one just added items to their menu, to exercise agency in choosing a restaurant.

Pleh
2017-11-02, 08:27 AM
So where is the balance between clueless and knowing everything? A lot of choices should be made with no fore knowledge. It really does break the idea of a game reality if the DM will tell the players about everything so they can all ways make an informed, meaningful choice(and exploit that knowledge, of course).

You've touched on the key word here: Balance.

There isn't going to be a "one size fits all solution" to every case. At best, there will be a set of "best practices" to guide every scenario.

And let's not stray into Hyperbole; DM's telling players too much about the game *CAN* break the idea of game reality, *BUT* it doesn't have to in every instance.


The DM tells the players everything about the game...every single detail. Then the players have their characters act on all that information, but they sort of pretend the characters ''don't know''. This would be like Player Bob knows the pit trap is at Square 1-A, then he role plays character Zorg ''pretending'' not to know that, but ultimately Player Bob makes the informed meaningful decision and choice of if or not character Zorg falls into the pit trap or not.

For one thing, this is not *balance*. This is the DM tells the player absolutely EVERYTHING in the setup, which is just swinging the pendulum way off to one side (presumably to make swinging the pendulum off to the other extreme somehow seem more reasonable when it isn't). That's not so much "balancing" the problem of knowledge as it is just rigging it up a certain way. The game can be played this way just fine if everyone is still enjoying the game, but it's really not talking about balance. Maybe Player Bob's group prefers playing this way. It's fine enough if that's the game they want.

A more typical approach to the balance of meta knowledge is:
The DM divulges all information the characters will reasonably notice automatically
Then prompts them to make checks to notice things that they would reasonably have a chance of noticing
Then keep anything unlikely to be noticed withheld until the player specifically asks about the subject, prompting a more difficult check to notice such things Finally keeping anything that couldn't reasonably be known or noticed withheld and reminding players not to utilize meta knowledge in their actions if the player guesses something out of character that their character really could not reasonably have known.

This is a good "best practice" for balance of knowledge in the game that assigns and honors Player Agency. Do note that this can be abused by DMs who go out of their way to hide information from players by making important details imperceptible to their characters. While it's reasonable for this to happen in games from time to time, it should not be a consistent problem for the characters. If the problem becomes chronic, the players will attempt to adapt by spending more resources (whether Actions in combat or even character resources like spell selection) to improve their ability to notice threats and other important information. The DM needs to not be dragged into an arms race with the players over game knowledge (or anything else, really).

In short, while a DM should try to keep the dispensation of knowledge to players on an As Needed basis, they really shouldn't go out of their way to hide things unless they have an NPC doing the same in the story. Even then (or especially then), there has to be a reasonable chance that the Players might catch the signs that something is being concealed. Otherwise, the players are playing against the DM's omnipotent force against which there is no defense. This is not balanced or typically even acceptable.

If its something the players *can't* know, don't construct the story such that they need to know it. That's not a game, that's a Trap Cutscene. Those are bitter enough for players to be accepted sparingly, but only *very* sparingly, if at all.

Lorsa
2017-11-02, 10:31 AM
I think actual agency needs to be considered on a neutral scale. People percieve different things differently, yes, but that doesn't actually change how many choices they do have - just how many they consider. Any measuring device that measures percieved agency and says it measures actual agency is deeply flawed.

Also, people want different things from games. Want different things than their characters want. The vast majority of humans do not want to suffer, yet the emotional impact of having your character suffer in a game can be something a player might strive for. For some players, nothing but the narratively optimal choice will do, and mechanical considerations absolutely irrelevant. For some players, the other way around. A choice between narrative and mechanics, to both, wouldn't be a choice at all. Some players care about both, and might be torn. Some might think narrative more important, but still feel cheated by having to discard their "powerup".
And, to boot, even if there is a "clear" choice, some players might not complain about a lack of agency. You might give the Narrative-focussed person the choice, for them being clear, and them actually feeling their agency mattered, because they were given the opportunity to clearly reject the mechanical reward, despite the choice being immediately clear. People are complicated, is what I'm trying to say, and trying to measure agency on a scale that depends on them will get you a muddled mess of a tool. (Exploring what things can serve to help create or dissuade the perception of agency would be, as I said, a valuable discussion, sure, but a wholly different one.)



Thing is, it might well be. Actual agency and percieved agency are two different things, and might well differ - a player being on a railroad might not notice (Though most people will, and might object if they didn't agree to it); but conversely it's also possible for a player in a sandbox to feel pressured onto one single path - by the choices being, from their perspective, "obvious", for example.* It would be hardly fair to blame a GM in the case such a thing happens. But it might still be worthwhile to have a talk and see how this situation came about.

*It is a trapping I do sometimes notice in RPGs (Though more often in Larps, funnily enough), that the way a person built their character, they can only see one "logical" choice. It is rarely this simple, there are nearly always multiple things that would be logical, and consistent to do. Being very close to a character can be somewhat blinding to that.

The problem that I have tried to lift with this neutral scale is that it is very easy to achieve player agency yet have a game that in essence feels very restrictive.

If a player then says "I want to have player agency", that sentiment becomes essentially useless. Or if not useless at least not descriptive enough. That is, you can have neutral agency but still feel like you aren't allowed to make any choices that direct the course of the game. Which seems a bit counter-productive to the desired goal.



Your choices seem odd as your just counting if the player can choose anything, it counts. Does a player deciding their character has fish for dinner really count as agency? The same is true for potion or spell selection. Or deciding how the character will do something.

Do you really count all that above as ''agency''? Just set the bar very low and be happy?

Eh. My list includes low impact and high impact choices. If you feel my short examples are somehow wrong for the categories, we can discuss and come up with new ones. But it doesn't take away the differentiation nor that I was requesting agency that goes beyond the trivial choices that you described.



A single character, or a small group, can't ''effect the world'' all the time. Sure, from time to time for a second or two, they might be at the right place at the right time to effect an event that effects maybe a whole country...maybe. But that is a rare thing, like once every couple games.

You don't need to affect the world in order to effect the game. That's a misunderstanding you seem to have. If I got a choice between ally myself with either a noble or a criminal, that choice might not affect the world but certainly will effect the game (in the sense that it will, for example, lead to different adventures).



And even if as a player you have a character ''do something'', it is the DM who decides what happens. Like even if your character does something extreme, like kill the king, then sulks away. Then they come back expecting the kingdom to now be a post apocalyptic horror, but the DM is just like ''well the prince became king''. So do you feel you had no agency as the DM did not do things ''only your way?"

Maybe you should go back to read my first post. The answer to your question might be there.



And how willing are you to accept the consequences of a bad choice? The tunnel splits into a ''y'', one is an exit, one is a trap. You pick the trap. So you blame no one but yourself and just accept what happens?

In the absence of information to tell the two tunnels apart, it is essentially no choice at all. Nevertheless, I will accept it, but I would hardly call it "using player agency".

As a general rule of thumb, of course I accept the negative consequences of a bad choice. However, if the GM is continually "screwing me over" with negative consequences that I could impossibly see at every decision point, I won't play the game for long. There is a point where the GM merely becomes a jerk.



I can get that you feel like that, in fact, I already addressed that very feeling earlier. I'm not denying your feelings. It's just that player feelings are not a good measure of agency, just like my mother's opinion on what barbells are "too heavy" is not a good measure of how much things weigh.

Like, of course a player will be bummed if no option they desire is available. But that's variable and could contain or exclude virtually anything. Hence trying to exclude undesired option from player agency is a fool's errand, you can't do that unless you have a specific player whose desires are already known.

Player agency itself is not guarantee nor measure of enjoyment, nor of fun, nor of how good a game is. In fact, it can be proven that too much choice can lead to decision paralysis and loss of feeling of agency even as actual agency increases. It's valid to argue that some sorts of decisions don't add to a game for you (or for someone else), and why so, but those arguments should be kept separate and made separately from the question of what agency is.

I think my problem then is that the whole discussion of player agency becomes rather meaningless. It is then not sufficient anymore to say "I want a high agency game", because that is, in fact, not what I am after.

Or well, it isn't meaningless per se, it is just not enough.



And here's where we get to the part I underlined. Yeah, it's true, but again sort of trivial. For example, if a GM chooses to run a Hard Sci-Fi game, this will naturally restrict space of available game moves, and if you wanted Sword & Sorcery instead, the total amouny of agency is more or less irrelevant to you - you wouldn't want to play anyways. However, this tells you next to nothing of how much another player would have agency within the Hard Sci-Fi parameters. Focusing on the types of choices which are not available may be a good measure of whether you would like to play in a given game, but it's a piss-poor measure for agency.

That example doesn't really cover what I was talking about though. Even if the GM runs a S&S game, which in this example I want, they can still set up the adventures in such a way that the course of the game is decided more by the GM than by me, even if there is agency (using your neutral definition). Basically, my complaint is that with a "neutral" measure of agency, one can adhere to the "word of the law" (in this case agency) but still violate the spirit of it. My concern is more with the spirit of agency than its strict definition.



When measuring how much thought a player spends on a decision, you need several other terms, because there are multiple different reasons why a player is taking their time.

However, the primary thing you'll be measuring is game difficulty, in few different variations.

For trivial choices, that is, choices which can be understood in whole quickly and have only few options, you are measuring player attentiveness and player reaction time. A player who paid attention and has good reaction time will respond faster. The game gets harder as the speed with which choices must be made increases.

For operative choices, that is, choices where all the relevant options and factors can fit in the working memory of a typical human, you are measuring the ability of the person to hold items in mind and perform mental operations fast. Note: a human's working memory usually can hold from five to nine independent items, with seven being typical. People with high general intelligence will respond faster. The game gets more difficult the closer the number of items is to the limit of the human's working memory, hence a decision taking more time to think.

For complex choices, that is, choices with more options and factors than can fit into human working memory, you are now measuring such abilities as long-term memory, ability to prioritize and break a problem into less complex sub-problems, ability to identify which factors are relevant, ability to ignore factors of minute effects etc. As the numbers of options and relevant factors increase, each decision gets more difficult and hence takes more time.

A discussion about game difficulty seems like it could be quite interesting actually, especially if it leads to higher understanding of the psychology of decision making and how it interacts with RPGs.

It appears that I might be attracted to games with higher difficulty, but that assumption might not hold true if examined thoroughly.



First, let me nitpick the example a bit: if taking enough damage eventually leads to death, and taking damage changes the situation in no other way, then options 2) and 4) are actually identical. So at each turn you only have three options.

In any case, your conclusion is right but again for wrong reason. Since each turn two choices converge on the same two outcomes, humiliation and death, if we drew a flowchart of this scenario, it'd be almost as much of an arrow as the earlier one, just with loops of humiliation on the lower edge. Compared to the earlier model, we are actually adding just one outcomes: NI loop of humiliation instead of death. (That is the only function with impact that option 3) can have if humiliation advances the game in no other way.)

So we've gone from agency rating of 2 per turn, to 3 per turn.

Alright, so I successfully expanded the scenario to "forward", "slow death", "immediate death" and "humiliation". I would note that in this case I assumed both slow death and humiliation moved the game forward and not just back to the original point. It's just that at the next decision point, the same type of decision occurs again (although under a different guise as the adventure will be different).

One could further extend these choices though, with options such as "commit a morally atrocious action" or "sacrifice a loved one". The point being that if there is a way forward without any cost and several ways forward with a very high cost, it's a no-brainer to pick the no cost one. It might still be a game with high agency according to your definition, but it isn't a very interesting one (unless you want to test how long it takes for people to be bored with the easy way forward).



However, I contest the notion in parentheses: that in an RPG where you care about your character, you will always choose 1). That is contingent on the contents of that options, as it is the only thing that can conceivably change. You could make a fairly simple game out of this. Let's called it "Eat this cake OR DIE!"

The rules are simple: the player is handed a character with some description of personality. For example: "You are Kylo Ren". After this, the GM will proceed to give them imperatives of escalating inanity and moral repulsiveness. For each imperative, the player must choose to follow it, to suffer endless humiliation, or to die after optional number of humiliations. These imperatives start with "Eath this cake!" and continue to, for example, "kill your dad!"

Game ends at death or after player expresses they would rather be endlessly humiliated than proceed.

This scenario is a bit different to the one I listed. In this scenario, the [forward] option has an increasing cost attached to it. A scenario such as this can be said to serve the question of what the character thinks is worse than humiliation or death. While it would be horrible to experience in real life, these type of choices do serve a purpose in an RPG. They let you explore the character's personality and find out what they value. Basically; what is worth dying for?

If the scenario was a continuous loop of "receive 10 dollars and continue" or "die", it doesn't serve any real purpose whatsoever (unless to highlight characters who are so worried about inflation that they would rather die...).



If it is you who made the algorithm based on your goals and the only thing enforcing it is you choosing to follow it, then it is still you who is the choosing agent. If you still feel it reduces your agency, it's because you are engaging in self-deception.

The root of this deception ought to be easy to see, though. If the algorithm was made by someone else, or based on someone else's goals, or enforced by someone else, then you'd be factually surrendering some or all of your agency to an external entity. The trick is that an algoritm existing in your mind because you put it there is not an external entity, even though it feels like one.

It is correct that in many cases, I made the algorithm. For example, during character creation I choose my character's personality and skill set. As I am playing a roleplaying game, following my character's personality is part of playing it. So it is safe to assume that my algorithm is based on the character I created.

If the GM then creates a game where, at ever decision point, I can either go with an option in line with my character's personality or skill set or a number of other options, I will no doubt choose to go with the one in line with my character.

In this type of game, it appears to me that I only really have agency at character creation, where I can select which game I want from a list of paths. After that, the game will follow this path. I would rather have a game where I can influence it at more than one point, so that the game branches out from the first choice of character.

For example, if I am presented with options that all target my character's motivations or personality, but in different ways. Then the choice is not so obvious anymore and I have to decide which to go with. In some sense, this becomes an extension of character creation, or rather character development. Same goes for choices where I have to choose which of my proficient skills to use for solving a problem, or which of my non-proficient skills to use.

If my whole input lies at character creation, after which the GM creates scenarios in such a way that, given the character created, there is always one very obvious choice, I don't really see it as a high agency game anymore. Rather, it is a railroad disguised as a high agency game.



This is a valid statement of preference, but not good for measuring agency.

Well, as I tried to explain above, if all choices are obvious given the created algorithm, then it is really the person that presents the choices that is determining the outcome of the game (i.e. the GM). Since the point of player agency is to let players have an impact on the outcome of the game, can this really be stated to go with the spirit of giving player's agency?

Basically my whole argument is "I do not think it is sufficient merely to supply options as a GM, they also need to be a specific type of options". The outcome should be determined by the person making the choice, not already decided by the presentation of options.



1) I know it is and it is a sorry state of things. But it's commonality is separate topic to what agency is.
2) Once more, you are actually talking of two different things. The first is when a genuinely manipulative GM is trying to divert attention away from the fact that they wouldn't have actually allowed the alternative and were always counting on the players choosing the thing they wanted. The second is a case where the GM is honest and just made a game that's not to your liking, like the Hard Sci-fi example above.

Or to put it differently: "Dishonesty for Dummies: a lie must sound plausible to your victim or they won't buy it". The reason why a manipulative GM can hide behind the technical definition is because an honest person could say such a thing and be correct.

Unless we change the definition in such a way as to immediately reveal the dishonest and manipulative GMs. Why stick to a definition that dishonest people can hide behind, when we can have one which they can't?



1) It doesn't generalize in quite that way. Some of the most predictable players I've seen insisted on making decisions, it's just that they always did so from a pretty narrow archetype (for example, zealous goody-two-shoes hero), so once I could pin down the archetype, I could always tell how they would react to different situations. In fact, I've tested this with such players, by presenting them with scenarios where other possible choices were specifically emphasized, just to see if they would surprise me.

2) Note: these sorts of player will be especially unhappy if their favored choice and options are not on the menu, regardless of how many other choices and options there are. For such a player, the abundance of other choices just serves to give more weight to their favored one. If this sounds too abstract... think of a guy who prides himself in how he would never cheat on his girlfriend, but still tries to be appealing to other women because he can make a show of turning those other women down to affirm his One True Love.

1) Did you ever try to give them two options of equal weight for their given archetype, but only one was possible? For example, save the orphanage or save the Cleric of Good-and-Right?

2) I understood the abstract just fine, and I can see the psychology behind it. In such instance though, I don't think it is the player's motivation to really have an impact on the outcome of the game, but rather experience a fantasy where they get to be the hero (or a villain since the same type of choice could be made in reverse).



Just summing the choices does tell them apart. Knowing which game has more agency is just not the answer you want.

Additional metrics which could help you, are: game difficulty (see above) and structure of the scenario. You are doing the latter already, by counting the ratio of good-to-bad options. Based on those two things and player skill, you can approximate how your player will react. (Seriously, in actual psychology there is a two-dimensional grid with task difficulty on one axis and performer skill on another. I can't remember its name right now, sadly.)

As I mentioned somewhere above, while it is possible I am looking for additional metrics (and indeed think they in that case are more important than agency), I AM looking at it from a view of "who determines the outcome of events in the game". If the answer is "the GM who sets up the scenarios", I tend to think agency is lower.

That is, I am concerned not only with the presence of choices, but also their quality.



This type of players tend to crash and burn in their select way faster than I can enumerate different options. Sometimes they jump to the crazy conclusion before I've finished explaining the situation and asked them what they will do.

So to practically do what you suggest, I would have to force them to hear all the options before I let them act. Whether this improves the game is situational. Sometimes, telling the Happy Fun Ball to hold their horses will lead to them doing something different after hearing an extended explanation. Other times, they already made their decision, so it doesn't matter how long you hold still the Happy Fun Ball, it will still roll off the cliff when allowed to.

This is a bit of a tangent, but do you know what drives these people to prefer jumping into lava over walking across a bridge?



There is an actual way for two players running through the same scenario to end up with different amounts of agency even under my definition. It's a function of scenario structure: how choices lead to other choices, primarily whether they diverge or converge. It'd take a flowchart to properly explain, so I won't do that today.

I think I understand. It depends on how many new choices spawn from a previously made choice.

So in your flowchart, one branch might further branch out into five more whereas another only into two.

Sometimes it can actually be possible to tell that one choice will limit your selection of choices in the future, so that future agency might be part of the weighing of the options.

Cosi
2017-11-02, 11:00 AM
Often, the players will be asked to choose between two decisions, one with a Mechanical reward, and one with a Narrative reward.

Something like "The Bandit King offers to tell you the location of his secret treasure if you let him go".

Mechanical Reward: The Treasure
Narrative Reward: Bringing the Bandit King to justice.

I sort of disagree here. The treasure is a narrative reward too. You get some gold, and you can (presumably) buy something with that gold that will help you achieve your goals. That's a narrative reward. I agree with your broad thesis (that different people having different goals can change what choices are meaningful), but I don't think the binary you're trying to invoke here is reasonable. Particularly because in a well-designed game "bring the Bandit King to justice" would also have mechanical impacts, either directly (trade is safer because there are less bandits) or indirectly (as suggested, you might gain reputation).


Finally, you can get situations where the players feel like they're being punished for sticking to their guns. Their character would never accept the bribe, so the presence of the choice merely makes them feel like they're being punished for somebody with such strong convictions.

I agree that this is a problem, particularly because there are some people who feel the exact opposite way, and will be unsatisfied if there is always an option that gets them the maximally good result (so you can both get the gold and imprison the Bandit King). However, I'm not sure there's any really general solution. If you expect that some people will want A and some people will want not-A, you can't make both of those groups happy.


Don't post replies to people posting in bad faith.

I don't think this is strictly correct. Ultron might be arguing in bad faith, but that doesn't mean there aren't (at least nominally) persuadable people with similar views who have meaningful concerns that its worth trying to address. You shouldn't engage with him, but there are a lot of cases where someone saying something that is stupid or trolling is a good basis for starting a valuable discussion.

BRC
2017-11-02, 11:44 AM
I sort of disagree here. The treasure is a narrative reward too. You get some gold, and you can (presumably) buy something with that gold that will help you achieve your goals. That's a narrative reward. I agree with your broad thesis (that different people having different goals can change what choices are meaningful), but I don't think the binary you're trying to invoke here is reasonable. Particularly because in a well-designed game "bring the Bandit King to justice" would also have mechanical impacts, either directly (trade is safer because there are less bandits) or indirectly (as suggested, you might gain reputation).

I described my views of reward tiers in this post


Right.

It depends on the player, and how they view "Practical" rewards.

From the perspective of Numbers on the Character Sheet? From the perspective of Ability to Make Things Happen In-Game? Or from the perspective of what a character wants.

The first is easy. Numerical Bonuses on the character sheet. A new magic item, or whatever.

The second, something like "The Duke Owes you a Favor". That doesn't go on the character sheet, but it will certainly be useful when it comes to achieving some goal.

The Third might be something like "Clear your mother of the false charges against her". There may be no mechanical benefit to this (Congratulations, a 3rd level commoner is now out of jail). It doesn't help you achieve any further goals, but it may be vitally important to your character.


generally speaking, anything at a Higher tier applies to all things.

The first two are both some form of "More Power", which is a pretty safe bet any PC wants. The only issue at hand is how much the player values that sort of Narrative power vs strictly mechanical bonuses.


And, like I noted, it's very very rare to find players who DON'T view the treasure as a valid choice, since the utility of a pile of gold is pretty obviously apparent.

Quertus
2017-11-02, 01:55 PM
Fortunately, the site has eaten several longer posts, and I've had time to ponder my position. I realize now why I define agency the way I do: because I am (and, this, my definition is) only concerned with the GM removing it.

It makes everything I've posted on the topic make sense: I don't feel loss of Agency that I impose by having a personality, I don't care about the existence or loss of Agency that is beyond the character's capabilities, etc. The only agency I care about is that the character be allowed to do anything that the character realistically could do.

Another thing I've thought about is that more capable characters can do more, and, thus, have more agency. So, if Agency was the only good, then in D&D, we should clearly all start at epic level, and things like E6 should be an abomination.

Regarding the bridge over lava... IMO, the true test of Agency is whether I can craft wax wings, use a hot air balloon (note that both of those should probably result in lava death), jump across, build my own bridge, use water to cool the lava, or otherwise do anything else that is within the character's capabilities.

I was in a game where the entire party ate poison. Only one PC made their save. The conscious PC fought off the invisible assassin (using a strategic withdraw to the kitchen for flour, IIRC) while the rest of us slept.

The GM had us all roll 2d6 for the number of hours we slept. IIRC, despite the party being large enough to fit in a Tolken novel, everyone else rolled in the 8-11 range. So, the GM began narrating, "11 hours later, when you all wake up...". I immediately interrupted with, "no, 3 hours later, when my character wakes up, he ties everyone to their horses, and we leave town." Because my character had no intention of putting innocent townsfolk at risk.

Now, the GM had already told us that those 8 hours in town would have been uneventful. The GM has several options at this point. He could deny my action, saying he's already moved on. He could alter reality, saying that my character stays KO'd for 11 hours in order to preserve his reality. He could allow my action, even though it's pointless and gives the party "what if" information that they wouldn't otherwise have, and have nothing bad happen during those 8 hours, either. Or he could allow my action, then have something bad happen while we're on the road.

How do different people's definitions of Player Agency rate those responses?

jayem
2017-11-02, 02:52 PM
So where is the balance between clueless and knowing everything? A lot of choices should be made with no fore knowledge. It really does break the idea of a game reality if the DM will tell the players about everything so they can all ways make an informed, meaningful choice(and exploit that knowledge, of course).


I don't know (and suspect it varies) but I think it's actually highlighted an interesting 'conflict' between the two aspects.

If you tell them everything "Door X leads out with no issues, Door Y leads to a Tiger" then it's a highly informed question but not really a meaningful choice.
If you tell them nothing "There are 2 identical Doors (behind one of them is a Tiger, one leads out)" is a meaningful choice but not informed.*

Both have railroading opportunities (Walls in the first, QOgres in the second). For any of the first style the player could be replace by a robot going 'I want to win", for any of the second the player could be replaced by a robot with a RNG. A game made out of either would be broken. There would be minimal player agency.
In the first the players won't make a wrong choice to take the consequences of (and if they feel they did they will feel lied to). In the latter the players had not chance to avoid the consequences.

Alternating both, suddenly has the potential to start to give agency. "You have a choice between going to doors X&Y one of which leads straight out the other to the tiger, or door Z which leads out past a more beatable dog.". A player that gets wounded by the dog, accepts the consequences as being his choice to avoid the gamble. A player that gets mauled by the tiger accepts the consequences of having taken and lost the gamble. A player that gets out in perfect health celebrates the consequences of a meaningful choice. (Unless of course they feel the doors have got switched). But they don't have to be split like that. Maybe path X has something that is clearly a dog, path Y clearly had a Tiger (lets get the tracker to look at those prints more carefully)...

PhoenixPhyre
2017-11-02, 03:00 PM
Fortunately, the site has eaten several longer posts, and I've had time to ponder my position. I realize now why I define agency the way I do: because I am (and, this, my definition is) only concerned with the GM removing it.

It makes everything I've posted on the topic make sense: I don't feel loss of Agency that I impose by having a personality, I don't care about the existence or loss of Agency that is beyond the character's capabilities, etc. The only agency I care about is that the character be allowed to do anything that the character realistically could do.


Internally-caused changes in agency aren't agency violations. They're the effect of consequences. By choosing character X, you're voluntarily abandoning the ability to choose the capabilities of character Y. Otherwise, the choice of X wouldn't have consequences. This means that agency is not unlimited--the choice of things that are beyond the capabilities of the actor isn't a valid choice at all, so the apparent loss is not really a loss at all. You already made that choice and have to live with the consequences.

Consequences are binding, otherwise they're not consequences. This is why ret-cons have to be taken carefully and why save-scumming can be a problem in some games. They allow you to ignore the consequences of your actions and try again, but this time with increased knowledge. As a side note, it's why I'm not fond of "player learning" scenarios that involve the player getting better at things that the character wouldn't know about. Yes, the last character you ran through here died to that trap. That doesn't mean your new character knows anything about it unless they're told in-game or see it for themselves. That's meta-gaming.



Another thing I've thought about is that more capable characters can do more, and, thus, have more agency. So, if Agency was the only good, then in D&D, we should clearly all start at epic level, and things like E6 should be an abomination.


I don't think anyone has stated that maximizing agency is the only (or even the highest) good. Simply that external restrictions on agency (ie not counting choices that you voluntarily gave away) should be minimized.



Regarding the bridge over lava... IMO, the true test of Agency is whether I can craft wax wings, use a hot air balloon (note that both of those should probably result in lava death), jump across, build my own bridge, use water to cool the lava, or otherwise do anything else that is within the character's capabilities.


Agreed. A restriction of choice to "do as I wish or stop playing" (or anything that severe) requires significant foreshadowing and in-universe justification so that your character's capabilities are really restricted to those choices. And even then there's often a better way to design the scenario.



I was in a game where the entire party ate poison. Only one PC made their save. The conscious PC fought off the invisible assassin (using a strategic withdraw to the kitchen for flour, IIRC) while the rest of us slept.

The GM had us all roll 2d6 for the number of hours we slept. IIRC, despite the party being large enough to fit in a Tolken novel, everyone else rolled in the 8-11 range. So, the GM began narrating, "11 hours later, when you all wake up...". I immediately interrupted with, "no, 3 hours later, when my character wakes up, he ties everyone to their horses, and we leave town." Because my character had no intention of putting innocent townsfolk at risk.

Now, the GM had already told us that those 8 hours in town would have been uneventful. The GM has several options at this point. He could deny my action, saying he's already moved on. He could alter reality, saying that my character stays KO'd for 11 hours in order to preserve his reality. He could allow my action, even though it's pointless and gives the party "what if" information that they wouldn't otherwise have, and have nothing bad happen during those 8 hours, either. Or he could allow my action, then have something bad happen while we're on the road.


That's a mistake on the DM's part by not checking for the shortest wake-up time and thus revealing too much. I would have gone with the proposed alteration, just sacrificing the extra information. Both denying the action and allowing it then punishing it both seem to me to be agency violations (to one degree or another)--the first of choice, the second of knowledge. You knew nothing was supposed to happen, but then something did. Ugh.

jayem
2017-11-02, 03:05 PM
How about this: Take the optimal choice, but your character might change what optimal means.

"Optimization" means to maximize or minimize some parameter. At the highest level you should probably be trying to maximize fun, but that is a hard thing to aim for. So people seem to try and aim for some out-of-game concept of "winning", but really that is an out of game concept. Yes your character want to do well, they want to survive this fight and the world not to end, but there are lots of little differences in their too. What those are will depend on the character, and what optimal is depends on the character too.
That definitely does for a bit. I don't think it does so good when in control of fails. E.g. if it were soley up to Quertus to decide if his character was too distracted by a fascinating intellectual problem to notice the assassin. [Oh he wasn't the will save, he rolled a 3, while everyone else rolled 8-11]

kyoryu
2017-11-02, 03:21 PM
Another thing I've thought about is that more capable characters can do more, and, thus, have more agency. So, if Agency was the only good, then in D&D, we should clearly all start at epic level, and things like E6 should be an abomination.

For those of us who like agency in our games, I think the point is that the level of agency should be appropriate to what the game is about.

Or, to put it in a different way, if you frame the point of the game as a question, do your choices impact the answer? If the question of the game is "do we stop the BBEG?" then your decisions should impact whether that answer is a "yes" or a "no", along with the other minor questions asked. If the question of the game is "can we get the little girl her teddy bear back?" then you need to be able to impact that - and whether or not you can stop the BBEG is irrelevant.

So E6 is an abomination *if and only if* the "point" of the game is to do something that an E6 character can't really impact. If you're doing something that E6 characters can do, then it's utterly fine.

And if the answer to "will we beat the BBEG" is "yes", regardless of what I do, then I also feel that's a loss of agency.

Talakeal
2017-11-02, 04:18 PM
Fortunately, the site has eaten several longer posts, and I've had time to ponder my position. I realize now why I define agency the way I do: because I am (and, this, my definition is) only concerned with the GM removing it.

It makes everything I've posted on the topic make sense: I don't feel loss of Agency that I impose by having a personality, I don't care about the existence or loss of Agency that is beyond the character's capabilities, etc. The only agency I care about is that the character be allowed to do anything that the character realistically could do.

Another thing I've thought about is that more capable characters can do more, and, thus, have more agency. So, if Agency was the only good, then in D&D, we should clearly all start at epic level, and things like E6 should be an abomination.

Regarding the bridge over lava... IMO, the true test of Agency is whether I can craft wax wings, use a hot air balloon (note that both of those should probably result in lava death), jump across, build my own bridge, use water to cool the lava, or otherwise do anything else that is within the character's capabilities.

I was in a game where the entire party ate poison. Only one PC made their save. The conscious PC fought off the invisible assassin (using a strategic withdraw to the kitchen for flour, IIRC) while the rest of us slept.

The GM had us all roll 2d6 for the number of hours we slept. IIRC, despite the party being large enough to fit in a Tolken novel, everyone else rolled in the 8-11 range. So, the GM began narrating, "11 hours later, when you all wake up...". I immediately interrupted with, "no, 3 hours later, when my character wakes up, he ties everyone to their horses, and we leave town." Because my character had no intention of putting innocent townsfolk at risk.

Now, the GM had already told us that those 8 hours in town would have been uneventful. The GM has several options at this point. He could deny my action, saying he's already moved on. He could alter reality, saying that my character stays KO'd for 11 hours in order to preserve his reality. He could allow my action, even though it's pointless and gives the party "what if" information that they wouldn't otherwise have, and have nothing bad happen during those 8 hours, either. Or he could allow my action, then have something bad happen while we're on the road.

How do different people's definitions of Player Agency rate those responses?

I think most people would agree with you here.

IMO the main point of contention is what constitutes the DM taking away your agency in ways that are perfectly legal from both a rules and setting perspective.

For example, retroactively adjusting the enemy's plan retroactively to counter the players actions or having an NPC threated / mind control a PC into doing what they want.

pwykersotz
2017-11-02, 05:03 PM
I was in a game where the entire party ate poison. Only one PC made their save. The conscious PC fought off the invisible assassin (using a strategic withdraw to the kitchen for flour, IIRC) while the rest of us slept.

The GM had us all roll 2d6 for the number of hours we slept. IIRC, despite the party being large enough to fit in a Tolken novel, everyone else rolled in the 8-11 range. So, the GM began narrating, "11 hours later, when you all wake up...". I immediately interrupted with, "no, 3 hours later, when my character wakes up, he ties everyone to their horses, and we leave town." Because my character had no intention of putting innocent townsfolk at risk.

Now, the GM had already told us that those 8 hours in town would have been uneventful. The GM has several options at this point. He could deny my action, saying he's already moved on. He could alter reality, saying that my character stays KO'd for 11 hours in order to preserve his reality. He could allow my action, even though it's pointless and gives the party "what if" information that they wouldn't otherwise have, and have nothing bad happen during those 8 hours, either. Or he could allow my action, then have something bad happen while we're on the road.

How do different people's definitions of Player Agency rate those responses?

If I had been the GM, I would have paused and asked for your permission to just continue with the narration. Something like "Since I already revealed it under the assumption that no actions to the contrary would happen, would it be okay to just continue instead?" If you the player had responded with "Well, I guess since nothing happens that's okay. But if you hadn't started in on the narrative, that's how I would have acted" then that would have been gravy. On the other hand, if you the player had said "I would prefer to take my action. I know it won't have a massive impact given what you've told us, but I really want to play through what my character would do" then I would go with that decision.

To me, it's all about the shared narrative.

Floret
2017-11-02, 06:55 PM
The problem that I have tried to lift with this neutral scale is that it is very easy to achieve player agency yet have a game that in essence feels very restrictive.

If a player then says "I want to have player agency", that sentiment becomes essentially useless. Or if not useless at least not descriptive enough. That is, you can have neutral agency but still feel like you aren't allowed to make any choices that direct the course of the game. Which seems a bit counter-productive to the desired goal.

The statement is useless in this case, as this is not actually what they want. They don't want control, they want to feel like they have control (want percieved agency); and no matter how much agency you give them they might not feel satisfied. (Or, they want control, but if they don't actually feel like they have it, that won't satisfy their desire.)
Why do I feel like this distinction is helpful? Because it carries different meaning for how to approach the situation. Giving more agency itself might not be the solution, and in fact a GM might be frustrated - They are giving that much power over their game, are perfectly willing to accept curveballs thrown their way and work them in, and yet the players complain that they have no way to influence things?
If the problem, however, is a feeling of not having control, the solution might just be to highlight the control already there. Or to not deal with the number of choices, but with what choices. To give more information, to increase the ability for more informed choices (that feel like exercising agency). Or, to have their choices have consequences that you hadn't actually tied to their action previously, but now happen because of them.

(One time, in a L5R game, a player cast a spell to detect hidden objects in a room - a reasonable action, given the circumstances, but not one I had anticipated. Now, in my plans, I didn't have anything hidden in the room, so nothing for her to find. I decided there and then to move the plot-important item (That was simply standing on a shelf in my notes, but noone had found yet) into a hidden compartment somewhere. Her decision was ultimately irrelevant to the flow of the game; but it changed how the players percieved the events. A bit of illusionism, sure, but I'd argued justified and ultimately beneficial one.)

To take the example of choices on how to move forward further below: Maybe instead of presenting any number of options, when facing them with a problem, just starting by asking: What do you do? How do you want to approach this? Answering their questions to clarify situation details (Some you might not have thought of) as honestly as possible - within the bounds of their characters abilities to percieve and know. And then... Just letting them try. Maybe even having them suggest on what to roll for (maintaining veto right.)*
Even if the choice they make is exactly one you would have laid out to them, the fact that they chose it, and came up with it themselves first can make a massive difference.

*In one game one of my fellow players wanted to figure out how old a burned corpse was. Now, she argued how she might apply her (immense) cooking skill to that test, considering "Hey, I know how burned meat rots". The GM's plans would have called for a roll on Medicine, but he gave her approach a chance to work - it seemed only logical, after all, given her explanation.


Fortunately, the site has eaten several longer posts, and I've had time to ponder my position. I realize now why I define agency the way I do: because I am (and, this, my definition is) only concerned with the GM removing it.

It makes everything I've posted on the topic make sense: I don't feel loss of Agency that I impose by having a personality, I don't care about the existence or loss of Agency that is beyond the character's capabilities, etc. The only agency I care about is that the character be allowed to do anything that the character realistically could do.

I mean, this is why I have argued that percieved agency is the relevant measure - it matters that you feel in control of what happens, not that you are in control. If you, under your control, decide to forgo some other form of control, you don't actually percieve yourself as having less - but an outside entity taking choices that seem logically possible to you (aka. GM arbitration) does.
(Which is, while we're somewhat on the topic of what to do with the discussion, why I always try to make sure to explain why something the PCs come up with wouldn't work, and try to be ready to hear their conterexplanations of why it does. It's not about the number of choices, but of feeling that you could do everything you should be able to do.)


Another thing I've thought about is that more capable characters can do more, and, thus, have more agency. So, if Agency was the only good, then in D&D, we should clearly all start at epic level, and things like E6 should be an abomination.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Agency is the amount of control over the game; in a railroading high-power-safe-the world game, the characters have more control over what happens to the world; compared to a low-power village-building sandbox - but the latter would have far more agency. To measure it in literal capabilities of the PCs is a red herring, I think.


The GM had us all roll 2d6 for the number of hours we slept. IIRC, despite the party being large enough to fit in a Tolken novel, everyone else rolled in the 8-11 range. So, the GM began narrating, "11 hours later, when you all wake up...". I immediately interrupted with, "no, 3 hours later, when my character wakes up, he ties everyone to their horses, and we leave town." Because my character had no intention of putting innocent townsfolk at risk.

Now, the GM had already told us that those 8 hours in town would have been uneventful. The GM has several options at this point. He could deny my action, saying he's already moved on. He could alter reality, saying that my character stays KO'd for 11 hours in order to preserve his reality. He could allow my action, even though it's pointless and gives the party "what if" information that they wouldn't otherwise have, and have nothing bad happen during those 8 hours, either. Or he could allow my action, then have something bad happen while we're on the road.

How do different people's definitions of Player Agency rate those responses?

On actual agency? The GM did take some agency away, namely the ability to decide what to do in the 8 hours before the rest woke up (As well as the 11 hours for the guy who didn't sleep at all); and rather directly at that.
Now, denying your action would be sticking to that. Sticking to "no, this agency isn't something you get". Altering reality would be a justification for that, not taking literal agency at that point - he did that already - but by taking even the percieved agency you thought you had before his statement took it. Effectively the same, feeling a bit worse - to me. (If the "everyone sleeps 11 hours" had been the state from the beginning, the actual agency would remain the same, but percieved agency different - you probably wouldn't think you had any opportunity to act while your character is asleep (Outside of games where such is a thing, I guess.))
If he allows your action, he gives you agency back - admitting that taking it wasn't all that fair. It should have effects down the road (Leaving town 8 hours earlier would mean getting to the next 8 hours earlier, or more time spent on hunting on the road; but less eyes for detecting ambushes while on the road.), but simply the narrative change constitutes a handing back of agency and control.
If he had something bad happen on the road... It really, really depends. If there was a plan to have something happen to you after you left town? It would be a violation of your (actual) agency to have that now not happen. You decided to go for the road, the choice carried meaning beyond what you intended; but such are non-fully informed choices.
If he didn't have something planned... It would depend on how much it is intended to **** you over, and how much it is just logical conclusion of leaving town so early - depending on the factors, enemies might stick around for 3 hours, but not for 11; or something. Granted, even the "I will **** you over for this" would only violate your agency in the sense that it put an uninformed consequence AFTER the choice was made - a punitative ogre, maybe, just arising after a choice was made the GM disliked. The agency of what to do after waking up would be left intact.

As for percieved agency... I think it depends on how organic the happenings on the road feel in regards to cohesion and other things going on if the happenings feel like they are punishement for interrupting; or if they feel like they are the "natural" response to the choice.

NichG
2017-11-02, 11:02 PM
I was in a game where the entire party ate poison. Only one PC made their save. The conscious PC fought off the invisible assassin (using a strategic withdraw to the kitchen for flour, IIRC) while the rest of us slept.

The GM had us all roll 2d6 for the number of hours we slept. IIRC, despite the party being large enough to fit in a Tolken novel, everyone else rolled in the 8-11 range. So, the GM began narrating, "11 hours later, when you all wake up...". I immediately interrupted with, "no, 3 hours later, when my character wakes up, he ties everyone to their horses, and we leave town." Because my character had no intention of putting innocent townsfolk at risk.

Now, the GM had already told us that those 8 hours in town would have been uneventful. The GM has several options at this point. He could deny my action, saying he's already moved on. He could alter reality, saying that my character stays KO'd for 11 hours in order to preserve his reality. He could allow my action, even though it's pointless and gives the party "what if" information that they wouldn't otherwise have, and have nothing bad happen during those 8 hours, either. Or he could allow my action, then have something bad happen while we're on the road.

How do different people's definitions of Player Agency rate those responses?

This is a situation where you believed you had agency but didn't really, and the DM gave misleading indicators of that. You didn't have agency because when you left town makes no difference to what happens - you cannot alter any meaningful outcome by making that choice. Yet going through the motions of rolling how long each person sleeps suggests to the players that that amount of time is meaningful - e.g. that what you choose to do in those hours matters. Then, narrating 'okay, you all get up now' is giving up on maintaining that illusion.

So it feels like agency is being taken away, but it's actually agency that was never there to begin with, meaning that it's kind of a no-win situation at that point. Illusion backfire.

Better to have not rolled the sleep time at all.

Mordaedil
2017-11-03, 02:15 AM
I don't think this is strictly correct. Ultron might be arguing in bad faith, but that doesn't mean there aren't (at least nominally) persuadable people with similar views who have meaningful concerns that its worth trying to address. You shouldn't engage with him, but there are a lot of cases where someone saying something that is stupid or trolling is a good basis for starting a valuable discussion.
Maybe it's because I've sat through 32 pages of the trite arguments, but you can't reason with someone who still holds a viewpoint that isn't actually a real position held by anyone but their own imagination. If somebody reads the conversation, sees Darth Ultron's posts and find themselves agreeing with him, they are possessing a serious block on reading comprehension.

I won't argue that they don't exist. But I will argue that they can't be reasoned with. Because their position is ever-shifting.

Cluedrew
2017-11-03, 06:40 AM
Maybe it's because I've sat through 32 pages of the trite arguments [...]{Laughing} A mere 32 pages? That one thread? I've seen a lot more than that from him. The fact I still try to have a serious conversations with him probably makes me insane, but I've never claimed otherwise.

Mordaedil
2017-11-03, 08:25 AM
{Laughing} A mere 32 pages? That one thread? I've seen a lot more than that from him. The fact I still try to have a serious conversations with him probably makes me insane, but I've never claimed otherwise.
I mean, stubborness is a weakness in face of a wall. I can certainly relate, but I think I've kind of got an excuse and I've learned to kinda steer away from discussions that go nowhere with people nowadays.

I did read the thread, and I've read his posts in other threads, but it's all kind of nicely collected in that thread, all of his spectrum. I mean, it's pretty one-note, even if it does surprise me how hard it is for that person to put a stake anywhere.

Darth Ultron
2017-11-03, 08:31 AM
You don't need to affect the world in order to effect the game. That's a misunderstanding you seem to have. If I got a choice between ally myself with either a noble or a criminal, that choice might not affect the world but certainly will effect the game (in the sense that it will, for example, lead to different adventures).

Now see this is where I see very little difference or just slight flavor difference. There is an war between the orcs and elves, what side the characters join does not really matter much. The war will go onward no matter what side the characters choose. If the characters are present for a big turning point, they can act and maybe change the course of the whole war or even end it, but it does not matter what side they are on. After all, even if they did pick the elf side...they can still do (or try) *anything*.

And a lot of the time it won't effect the overall plot anyway. You have the noble baron fighting the criminal guild. The baron is good and the criminals bad. Both more then welcome the help of the ''unknown outsider'' characters. And both intend to use and then get rid of the characters. OR it is possible both intend to thank the characters and give them a ton of treasure. OR they both might just ''cut them loose''. Or one might do one thing and the other might do another. It is impossible to just ''guess'' what might happen, even in vague terms.

So ''one'' choice like this, won't matter at all for the future of the game: anything can happen. But then it is just *one* choice, and if you make it and forget about it...then things can spin in any direction. Though if you keep the choice more active, and keep and eye on your allies, you might have much more say in what happens.

Like:

Game A: The characters pick the criminal side (''crime is cool") and forget about it and just have fun being bad. It is no surprise to anyone, except the players and characters, that the criminals attempt to kill the characters once they have no more use.

Game B: The characters pick the Good Baron side (''Good is cool'') and forget about it and just have fun being good guys. The good baron is more then happy to keep his hands clean and let the characters do the dirty work, and once it is done...arrest the characters (''well, it does seem you all have been using deadly weapons to commit murder without a written charter from the baron. So just surrender and go to jail, you will have your chance to sort this out in court. Don't worry I appointed Judge Jones myself and he has been a life long friend, I'm sure we will clear this up in no time.")

Game C is the same choice as A, but the characters keep watch on the criminals that they never trust...so they don't get caught by surprise and are ready for the attack.

Game D is the same choice as B, but the characters again don't trust the baron, and are ready if he tries anything (''well, we found these finical scrolls of yours baron and unless you want us to release them to the public, you will let us go.")

So it is not really about that *one* choice....it is more about a *choice of gameplay*. It is not so much the guessing of what might happen in the games future...but more just being ready for it. It's not ''Player Agency choices matter'' it is more ''it matters how you play the game''.

Lorsa
2017-11-03, 09:00 AM
Fortunately, the site has eaten several longer posts, and I've had time to ponder my position. I realize now why I define agency the way I do: because I am (and, this, my definition is) only concerned with the GM removing it.

This is true for me as well, although I might have a broader definition of what counts as the GM removing agency.



It makes everything I've posted on the topic make sense: I don't feel loss of Agency that I impose by having a personality, I don't care about the existence or loss of Agency that is beyond the character's capabilities, etc. The only agency I care about is that the character be allowed to do anything that the character realistically could do.

I agree that I don't feel a loss of agency for having a personality or limited character capabilities. I can, however, feel a loss of agency if the scenario or adventure design is set up in such a way that with the personality or capabilities I do have, there is only one practical choice. In effect, what I want to avoid is scenarios with intersections cluttered with big signs that say "go here!".



Another thing I've thought about is that more capable characters can do more, and, thus, have more agency. So, if Agency was the only good, then in D&D, we should clearly all start at epic level, and things like E6 should be an abomination.

I think kyoryu answered this question very well. It depends what the game is about, but even low level characters can effect the outcome of events.



Regarding the bridge over lava... IMO, the true test of Agency is whether I can craft wax wings, use a hot air balloon (note that both of those should probably result in lava death), jump across, build my own bridge, use water to cool the lava, or otherwise do anything else that is within the character's capabilities.

If I had been the GM my question would be "what do you do to find the raw materials" and "what skills do you have that would make sure you character can build these things". If you want to try and defeat an obstacle in some creative way, you are quite welcome to try. It won't always work, but that's to be expected.



I was in a game where the entire party ate poison. Only one PC made their save. The conscious PC fought off the invisible assassin (using a strategic withdraw to the kitchen for flour, IIRC) while the rest of us slept.

The GM had us all roll 2d6 for the number of hours we slept. IIRC, despite the party being large enough to fit in a Tolken novel, everyone else rolled in the 8-11 range. So, the GM began narrating, "11 hours later, when you all wake up...". I immediately interrupted with, "no, 3 hours later, when my character wakes up, he ties everyone to their horses, and we leave town." Because my character had no intention of putting innocent townsfolk at risk.

Now, the GM had already told us that those 8 hours in town would have been uneventful. The GM has several options at this point. He could deny my action, saying he's already moved on. He could alter reality, saying that my character stays KO'd for 11 hours in order to preserve his reality. He could allow my action, even though it's pointless and gives the party "what if" information that they wouldn't otherwise have, and have nothing bad happen during those 8 hours, either. Or he could allow my action, then have something bad happen while we're on the road.

How do different people's definitions of Player Agency rate those responses?

Personally I think the GM should allow your action. Not doing so is a clear violation of agency under most definitions I think.

Whether or not the GM has something bad happen during those 8 hours (which now take place outside of town) is not really relevant to the question of your agency. Both are fine in my opinion.

Personally, I would ask you if you plan on continuing on the road until everyone has woken up, or if you are going to hide in some forest glen or whatever just outside. For the case of you continuing on the road, I would probably roll a die where low numbers mean nothing happens, high numbers mean something interesting (read problematic) happen and medium numbers is just "something happens".

So for medium numbers you might have a short encounter with a farmer traveling in the opposite direction and being a bit worried if something happened to your group and why you have so many people tied to horses. High numbers would mean a group of guards ask the same questions with the belief that you are, in fact, a kidnapper, perhaps demanding you surrender to them until the others have woken up and your story can be corroborated.

In any case, the GM was far too haste with assuming everyone would just stay put. Negating your wish to leave town is an act of agency violation.

Segev
2017-11-03, 09:38 AM
The notion that a war is won on "big turning points" may be dramatic, but it's generally one of the less-believable tropes in fantasy warfare fiction. Wars are won and lost on accumulations of victories and defeats, on thousands of logistical problems and morale triumphs. The PCs can shift the course of a war by being PCs involved in dozens of encounters. They might protect the outpost that would otherwise have fallen for lack of a team of spec ops worthies being present. They might take out the lieutenant who would otherwise have risen through the ranks on the other side as a tactical mastermind. Some of these things will be obvious victories they won that helped shift the tide of war; others may be less obvious.

The PCs don't have to single-handedly win the war to impact it. They just have to have pivotal impact on individual encounters and battles within it. And they will tend to have higher impact than foot soldiers just by virtue of being a spec ops team. A lot of spec ops missions look similar to shadowruns or dungeon crawls, and that's what PCs tend to be good at.

Lorsa
2017-11-03, 02:14 PM
Now see this is where I see very little difference or just slight flavor difference. There is an war between the orcs and elves, what side the characters join does not really matter much. The war will go onward no matter what side the characters choose. If the characters are present for a big turning point, they can act and maybe change the course of the whole war or even end it, but it does not matter what side they are on. After all, even if they did pick the elf side...they can still do (or try) *anything*.

First off, if the players can't change the war in any way, then the game isn't really about the war, it is about what happens during the war (or something else). Read kyoryu's post for more description about this.

Secondly the game should look very different depending on which of these sides you do missions for. If you do missions for Orcs, you might end up raiding civilian communities, raping women and gather slaves. If you do missions for the Elves, there might be more skirmishes against their patrols or small outposts and involve missions to rescue slaves.

I mean, just the questions regarding rape will be different. In one case, there might be a question of whether or not the characters can stand being passive or active participants, whereas in the other they might deal with issues as to what to do with half-orc babies or pregnant women wanting to do dangerous abortions, let alone deal with trauma. The choices the players will face during the game will (or should) depend strongly on which side they choose.

Also, if the main plot of the game is the war, then the characters really should be able to determine the outcome of it. Otherwise it's a really crappy railroading game. And if the players can determine the outcome of the war, they can effect the world. I mean seriously, you can't tell me the world looks identical in the two cases of Orcs winning a bit war vs. Elves winning a big war. That should have a clear impact on the lives of the people living in that general area.



And a lot of the time it won't effect the overall plot anyway. You have the noble baron fighting the criminal guild. The baron is good and the criminals bad. Both more then welcome the help of the ''unknown outsider'' characters. And both intend to use and then get rid of the characters. OR it is possible both intend to thank the characters and give them a ton of treasure. OR they both might just ''cut them loose''. Or one might do one thing and the other might do another. It is impossible to just ''guess'' what might happen, even in vague terms.

You make several errors here.

A good baron wouldn't use and then get rid of characters. And even if so, the characters should be able to find some historical information to shed light on the various characters they are planning on "jumping into bed with". Which means it's not a choice in the dark, but one slightly illuminated.

If you set up a scenario where both choices are functionally identical, you are in effect railroading the players and denying them any form of agency. That's on YOU, it doesn't make the idea of player agency useless or players unable to effect the game in meaningful ways in what you consider "normal games". I mean seriously, the type of adventures the players will do for a criminal should be very different from the ones they do for a good baron. So will the choices they will face during those adventures. If they're not different, then you're running a very bad game.



So ''one'' choice like this, won't matter at all for the future of the game: anything can happen. But then it is just *one* choice, and if you make it and forget about it...then things can spin in any direction. Though if you keep the choice more active, and keep and eye on your allies, you might have much more say in what happens.

You're right that the game isn't only about one choice. It is about many choices piling up and making the game (and the world), different.



Like:

Game A: The characters pick the criminal side (''crime is cool") and forget about it and just have fun being bad. It is no surprise to anyone, except the players and characters, that the criminals attempt to kill the characters once they have no more use.

Game B: The characters pick the Good Baron side (''Good is cool'') and forget about it and just have fun being good guys. The good baron is more then happy to keep his hands clean and let the characters do the dirty work, and once it is done...arrest the characters (''well, it does seem you all have been using deadly weapons to commit murder without a written charter from the baron. So just surrender and go to jail, you will have your chance to sort this out in court. Don't worry I appointed Judge Jones myself and he has been a life long friend, I'm sure we will clear this up in no time.")

Game C is the same choice as A, but the characters keep watch on the criminals that they never trust...so they don't get caught by surprise and are ready for the attack.

Game D is the same choice as B, but the characters again don't trust the baron, and are ready if he tries anything (''well, we found these finical scrolls of yours baron and unless you want us to release them to the public, you will let us go.")

So it is not really about that *one* choice....it is more about a *choice of gameplay*. It is not so much the guessing of what might happen in the games future...but more just being ready for it. It's not ''Player Agency choices matter'' it is more ''it matters how you play the game''.

Characters choosing to be vigilant or not is part of player agency. It's a choice, and, AS YOU YOURSELF PUT IT, it will effect the game in quite drastic ways (with them being dead or alive).

Secondly, as I said before, making two choices functionally identical when there is really absolutely no reason whatsoever that they should be, is just poor DMing.

Darth Ultron
2017-11-04, 10:10 AM
Secondly the game should look very different depending on which of these sides you do missions for. If you do missions for Orcs, you might end up raiding civilian communities, raping women and gather slaves. If you do missions for the Elves, there might be more skirmishes against their patrols or small outposts and involve missions to rescue slaves.

This is only true if your in a Simple Game. So just to be Clear: A Simple Game is Black and White, like a cartoon or anything made by Disney or made for kidz. In such a game the evil bad orcs will only do evil bad thing as they are evil bad monsters. Always. The good nice elves will only do good nice things as they are good nice paragons. Always. In a Simple Game, the players choice is just about all ways right and things go exactly the way the player thinks they might, with only a very rare and very small chance of anything else happening.

Now, note there is nothing wrong with this sort of game.

In the complex game: anything can happen. The evil bad orcs ''only kill warriors with weapons and never, ever hurt innocents'', the good nice elves will ''slaughter some innocents for a greater good'', and so on to infinity. In a Complex Game the players choice might be right and things might go the way the player thinks about half of the time, but more often then not: anything can happen.

So, this puts a huge restriction on Player Agency: it only is possible in a Simple Game.



Also, if the main plot of the game is the war, then the characters really should be able to determine the outcome of it. Otherwise it's a really crappy railroading game. And if the players can determine the outcome of the war, they can effect the world. I mean seriously, you can't tell me the world looks identical in the two cases of Orcs winning a bit war vs. Elves winning a big war. That should have a clear impact on the lives of the people living in that general area.

This gets back to Game Zero stuff. If before the game, it is agreed by everyone that the game will be a tailor made war plot for the whole games ''main plot''...then it is. However if the war is an event that just happens in the game play, then it won't be a ''main plot''.

And ''looking different'' is exactly my point. If the Orcs or Elves win the war, the land will look different....but how much will it be different? Is the world so different if the bar at the end of the street is the Bloody Axe or the Golden Tree? A lot of things can look and even feel different, but they won't be all that different really.



A good baron wouldn't use and then get rid of characters. And even if so, the characters should be able to find some historical information to shed light on the various characters they are planning on "jumping into bed with". Which means it's not a choice in the dark, but one slightly illuminated.

Of course, as I noted, the Good Baron will only be an Absolute Beacon of Pure Good in a Simple Game. And it is true the characters can get information before making any choice or descision, but this is all on the players to do this.



If you set up a scenario where both choices are functionally identical, you are in effect railroading the players and denying them any form of agency. That's on YOU, it doesn't make the idea of player agency useless or players unable to effect the game in meaningful ways in what you consider "normal games". I mean seriously, the type of adventures the players will do for a criminal should be very different from the ones they do for a good baron. So will the choices they will face during those adventures. If they're not different, then you're running a very bad game.

Though your saying here the DM must do things that only the players will like. The ''same outcome'' from two choices is very common: if you ally yourself with crime group A or group B...both will not too surprisingly betray you.

And, again, your talking only about a Simple Game.



Secondly, as I said before, making two choices functionally identical when there is really absolutely no reason whatsoever that they should be, is just poor DMing.

The thing is: this is just how Reality is...even game Reality.

Max_Killjoy
2017-11-04, 10:23 AM
If you set up a scenario where both choices are functionally identical, you are in effect railroading the players and denying them any form of agency. That's on YOU, it doesn't make the idea of player agency useless or players unable to effect the game in meaningful ways in what you consider "normal games". I mean seriously, the type of adventures the players will do for a criminal should be very different from the ones they do for a good baron. So will the choices they will face during those adventures. If they're not different, then you're running a very bad game.



Though your saying here the DM must do things that only the players will like.


????

It's like a master class in non sequitur...

Quertus
2017-11-04, 10:29 AM
In the complex game: anything can happen. The evil bad orcs ''only kill warriors with weapons and never, ever hurt innocents'', the good nice elves will ''slaughter some innocents for a greater good'', and so on to infinity. In a Complex Game the players choice might be right and things might go the way the player thinks about half of the time, but more often then not: anything can happen.

That's what you mean by simple vs complex game?! That's what you meant by "Anything can happen"?!

DU, honest question, are you significantly worse at explaining things in writing than you are in person? Because, on the forums, you don't use your words to mean what everyone else means by them, and your explanations rarely actually get to the point of explaining what you mean.

As a GM, you are the eyes and ears of the characters. You are the filter through which the players experience the world. If you are as incomprehensible IRL as you are here, I strongly encourage you to work on your communication skills. Your game will presumably be much more enjoyable if your players understand it.

Max_Killjoy
2017-11-04, 10:44 AM
That's what you mean by simple vs complex game?! That's what you meant by "Anything can happen"?!

DU, honest question, are you significantly worse at explaining things in writing than you are in person? Because, on the forums, you don't use your words to mean what everyone else means by them, and your explanations rarely actually get to the point of explaining what you mean.

As a GM, you are the eyes and ears of the characters. You are the filter through which the players experience the world. If you are as incomprehensible IRL as you are here, I strongly encourage you to work on your communication skills. Your game will presumably be much more enjoyable if your players understand it.

He says that, and then turns around to make the claim that railroading results in a complex game, while not-railroading results in a simple game.

Problem for that position is, railroading does result in a game in which only one thing can happen... a simple game.

While a game adjudicated from the context and circumstances and characters at hand can result in a game where many many different things might happen... a complex game (and not just in the sense that he tries to impose on the term).

Cluedrew
2017-11-04, 11:03 AM
Funny, I feel we actually answered the main question of "What is Player Agency" on page one. Define agency (ability to make meaning full choices which means using knowledge and having consequences) and then apply it to a player in a game. That is to say player agency is agency a player has. The same can be said of GM agency or player^ agency.

So I think both the player part and the agency part have been covered. Is there anything left besides stress testing the definition by smashing it against Darth Ultron? If there is we should probably cover that before getting to the stress testing.

^ Marks uses of the word player that exclude the GM, who is after all playing the game and is a player in the general sense.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-11-04, 11:06 AM
Funny, I feel we actually answered the main question of "What is Player Agency" on page one. Define agency (ability to make meaning full choices which means using knowledge and having consequences) and then apply it to a player in a game. That is to say player agency is agency a player has. The same can be said of GM agency or player^ agency.

So I think both the player part and the agency part have been covered. Is there anything left besides stress testing the definition by smashing it against Darth Ultron? If there is we should probably cover that before getting to the stress testing.

^ Marks uses of the word player that exclude the GM, who is after all playing the game and is a player in the general sense.

I agree that the definition is well covered. I'd be interested in seeing discussion of common pitfalls, especially unconscious ones. What do DMs do to diminish player^ agency without intending to? What can I as a DM recognize and avoid to be better at encouraging agency?

I'm not interested in bashing things against DU. It's just noise to me.

Cluedrew
2017-11-04, 11:43 AM
Someone else actually copied that? Umm... maybe I should put a bit more thought into that if other people might use it. I mean for one it changes the current common usage of player. I mean it is more accurate, have a short hand for "players minus GM" while players means players, but the convention of players excluding the GM has been around so long I don't think I can uproot it. Although I was trying to call that implicate bias into focus by jarring that standard originally, which may or may not have helped my point, but is a bad reason for a general standard.

You could have two: players+ explicitly includes the GM while players- explicitly excludes the GM. Players on its own would be ambiguous and depend on context as it usually does. Or just add one for players including the GM, players^ or all players if we want to get away from symbols, and accept the slightly inaccurate but history use of players as not including all players.

I like to be sure I am saying what I mean.
On Agency Pitfalls: Sending players in blind is a big thing I've had some issues with before. Even if discovery is an intentional part of the game it is easy to actually leave them with so little knowledge that they can't even ask the right questions, completely cutting out the knowledge part of the equation. Discovery can make for some interesting stories, which is why I think people try for it, but translating it into a game doesn't seem to work as well.

The other is I think of right now is placing too many arrows forward. At a certain point there is an obligation to follow them, even if the characters wouldn't. And even if the characters would to that, because of a single path of least resistance, you get a situation where 99% of people would do that. So you only can interestingly talk about the remaining 1%, which tends to be a Chaotic Neutral Rogue who throws the campaign out the window.

Quertus
2017-11-04, 12:17 PM
On Agency Pitfalls: Sending players in blind is a big thing I've had some issues with before. Even if discovery is an intentional part of the game it is easy to actually leave them with so little knowledge that they can't even ask the right questions, completely cutting out the knowledge part of the equation. Discovery can make for some interesting stories, which is why I think people try for it, but translating it into a game doesn't seem to work as well.

The other is I think of right now is placing too many arrows forward. At a certain point there is an obligation to follow them, even if the characters wouldn't. And even if the characters would to that, because of a single path of least resistance, you get a situation where 99% of people would do that. So you only can interestingly talk about the remaining 1%, which tends to be a Chaotic Neutral Rogue who throws the campaign out the window.

I find that Discovery is not a problem so long as it is rooted in an understandable base. Going in blind is fine, so long as the GM builds up trust that there is a reason for everything. Calvin ball discovery isn't worthwhile.

Where I have personally run into problems, however, is with players who don't seem to know how to ask questions / how to investigate beyond rolling something on their character sheet, or those who just aren't interested in discovery. I have neither the skills not the inclination to run a game that would solve the former, although I'm usually fine with the latter.

Similarly, I've had great experiences with "too many arrows forward". What problems do you see with a high option, high agency sandbox?

OldTrees1
2017-11-04, 12:47 PM
This is only true if your in a Simple Game. So just to be Clear: A Simple Game is Black and White, like a cartoon or anything made by Disney or made for kidz. In such a game the evil bad orcs will only do evil bad thing as they are evil bad monsters. Always. The good nice elves will only do good nice things as they are good nice paragons. Always. In a Simple Game, the players choice is just about all ways right and things go exactly the way the player thinks they might, with only a very rare and very small chance of anything else happening.

Now, note there is nothing wrong with this sort of game.

In the complex game: anything can happen. The evil bad orcs ''only kill warriors with weapons and never, ever hurt innocents'', the good nice elves will ''slaughter some innocents for a greater good'', and so on to infinity. In a Complex Game the players choice might be right and things might go the way the player thinks about half of the time, but more often then not: anything can happen.

So, this puts a huge restriction on Player Agency: it only is possible in a Simple Game.

Thank you for proving that Player Agency creates complex games.

In a complex game the players may be faced with a meaningful choice between joining the disciplined cruel orcs or the zealous benevolent elves, such a choice would have different outcomes depending on which option the players choose to take.

In a complex game the players may be faced with making choices under imperfect information. In such cases only the informed part of the choice is a meaningful choice, but said part does exist. If you had to cross a mountain range, you might be faced with a choice to go over the mountain through a pass, or under the mountain through a dwarven mine. You might know that the pass would be faster but will soon become impassible. You expect you could make it through the pass if you packed light. So you make your choice based upon if you think your gear is worth more than the time you would save by going through the pass rather than the mines. You knew nothing about the Worgs at the pass or the Balrog in the dwarven mines. Despite there being a blind choice entangled with the meaningful choice, there was a meaningful choice and there was player agency.


Unless "complex game" is just your current keyword for "the DM randomly decides the Players will stick to the script".

jayem
2017-11-04, 01:17 PM
Funny, I feel we actually answered the main question of "What is Player Agency" on page one. Define agency (ability to make meaning full choices which means using knowledge and having consequences) and then apply it to a player in a game. That is to say player agency is agency a player has. The same can be said of GM agency or player^ agency.

So I think both the player part and the agency part have been covered. Is there anything left besides stress testing the definition by smashing it against Darth Ultron? If there is we should probably cover that before getting to the stress testing.

^ Marks uses of the word player that exclude the GM, who is after all playing the game and is a player in the general sense.

We established several locations of potential Agency.
Short-term & Mid-term & Long-term
Small-scale & Mid-scale & Large-scale (I'm using this to distinguish between Village and World events)
In-character & As-player & Meta-game (these are what PP called small scale/large scale)

I don't think we've established whether (partial/full) agency in each of them is needed or even (always/ever) good. Perhaps we should?
But it showed that a low agency game required (ironically) not just a choice by the game-controller but multiple ones.

I think (thanks, actually to various responses one of DU's comments) we found that perfect information stops providing agency. And probably ought to discuss the various factors that affect how we actually balance that?

jayem
2017-11-04, 01:33 PM
This is only true if your in a Simple Game. So just to be Clear: A Simple Game is Black and White, like a cartoon or anything made by Disney or made for kidz. In such a game the evil bad orcs will only do evil bad thing as they are evil bad monsters. Always. The good nice elves will only do good nice things as they are good nice paragons. Always. In a Simple Game, the players choice is just about all ways right and things go exactly the way the player thinks they might, with only a very rare and very small chance of anything else happening.

A Black and White game is indeed a simple game, there we agree.
The interactions with one interesting person say (angelic/good/bad/evil) (lawful/...chaotic) (int ... ext) (ignorant ... clever) (wise ...foolish) (hasty ... cautious) (posh ... ) (poor ... wealthy) (cowardly ... brave) (strong ... weak)(pragmatic..dogmatic) may be 1000 times more complex than 10 black and white ones.
However a 10 person B/W game is 1000 times more complex than the RGB=888 one you describe being in favour of. That is not a complex game, it is a hyper simple game.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-11-04, 02:04 PM
We established several locations of potential Agency.
Short-term & Mid-term & Long-term
Small-scale & Mid-scale & Large-scale (I'm using this to distinguish between Village and World events)
In-character & As-player & Meta-game (these are what PP called small scale/large scale)

I don't think we've established whether (partial/full) agency in each of them is needed or even (always/ever) good. Perhaps we should?
But it showed that a low agency game required (ironically) not just a choice by the game-controller but multiple ones.

I think (thanks, actually to various responses one of DU's comments) we found that perfect information stops providing agency. And probably ought to discuss the various factors that affect how we actually balance that?

The bold part reminds me of related theological comments, but I'll refrain due to forum rules. In game terms, the important agency-preserving information is proximal, true, and character accessible.

Proximality is the idea that the information should concern first-order consequences. "If you take action X, the result will be (conditionally) Y." This requires not giving information about 2nd and further order consequences. Give information about the action they're doing now so that they can make an informed choice. Don't elaborate on the longer-term/larger-level consequences unless the characters would be able to deduce them*.

Truth requires that the information be valid if presented as 3rd-person narration. Questionable facts should be flagged as such in some consistent manner. Remember that the characters are there and would have much more information than can be presented in words.

Character accessibility requires that the information be the sort of thing that the characters could know. Giving too much meta knowledge can impact agency as it makes some choices obvious. It does mean that the DM should err on the side of making things character accessible even if it may not be--the click of a door latch is very soft and can be lost in ambient noise. But telling the players about it gives them important information about the state of the world.

Note--these thoughts are scattered because I'm too busy debugging an application...perils of multi-tasking.

Darth Ultron
2017-11-04, 02:37 PM
DU, honest question, are you significantly worse at explaining things in writing than you are in person? Because, on the forums, you don't use your words to mean what everyone else means by them, and your explanations rarely actually get to the point of explaining what you mean.


The thing is that in person I can say more, but I can only type so much. And I don't have the Book of Words that ''everyone'' has.


He says that, and then turns around to make the claim that railroading results in a complex game, while not-railroading results in a simple game.


Well, I was not doing that ''trap''....that is what you do. I'd point out you'd need Railroading in any detailed game with a plot, simple or complex.


Funny, I feel we actually answered the main question of "What is Player Agency" on page one.

I have a point to make and questions...

So Player Agency is when a player feels that their decisions and input have an impact on the events, outcome, and tone of the game; and make meaningful decisions.

I guess some threw ''freedom'' in there, but that is a bit vague to be meaningless. And any time a player might say they are denied ''freedom'', they would also be saying at best the game should not make sense or at worst the game should all ways go their way.

And ''Consequences'' is tossed in there, but that is a bit vague to be meaningless. Other then the very basic ''if your characters rob a bank the cops will come after them'', the players won't really know the ''Consequences'' or not...unless the DM tells them.

So everyone seems to be talking like there is Path A where the game world moves along down that path. Then, as soon as a character takes any big action the path suddenly becomes the different path B. This makes the player happy as they have done something meaningful and made a new path.

But how does this work in an RPG again? I see three ways for a game like D&D with unequal players and a DM:

1.The DM has a plan, story, plot or other framework that is strong and stable so a player can't overly change or alter anything most of the time with a single action of a character. Things in the game reality are set and not subject to quick changes on whims. To really change anything would take some effort by the player, time, and several actions by the character....and ultimately whatever happens is decided by the DM.

2.The DM has some vague idea of a plan, or some notes or something of substance that is a least a bit firm so a player can't overly change or alter anything most of the time with a single action of a character. To really change anything would take some effort by the player, time, and several actions by the character.....but only from the handful of vaguely set things. But as most things in the game reality are not set, there is nothing for for the player to effect or change. And ultimately whatever happens is decided by the DM.

3.The DM has nothing. The game is pure improv. As everything in the game reality is not set, there is nothing for for the player to effect or change. And ultimately whatever happens is decided by the DM.

Set Up-The characters are in a city with a dragon moving around it attacking folks. The players want to get out of the city and avoid the dragon.

So first we have the Lack of Information Trap: If the players fool themselves into thinking the dragon is north of the city they might try and make a run out the south road OR just try and randomly/clueless make a run for it.....then anything can and might happen. But this lack of information is all on the players. Then we get:

1.The Dragon Siege of Wayhaven adventure. So the DM has a whole detailed adventure written here. So there is a whole story and plot as to why the dragon is even there. The dragon is looking for it's stolen egg, and has spies and agents inside the city working for it. The DM has details on everything. The adventure plot here is, of course, is to ''find the dragon egg, give it to the dragon and save the city'', so the players by just ''having their characters run away like sad cowards'' is not following that plot...but that does not matter for this example. To try and make a good escape from the dragon the players would need to take the effort, time and many actions of the players to do so, based on all the details of the adventure.....and ultimately whatever happens is decided by the DM.

2.The Dragon Encounter. The DM here only has vague ideas and some handful of notes. The DM has a vague idea that ''it is a cool idea to have the dragon looking for something'', but has no idea what it is, and the DM has a couple of dragon thug guys to encounter, but every little else about them. The DM has the vague idea that the characters might find or use something in the city to stop the dragon, but has not committed to any details. To try and make a good escape from the dragon the players would need to take the effort, time and many actions of the players to do so, based on nothing except the vague ideas the DM has.....and ultimately whatever happens is decided by the DM.

3.The Game. The DM randomly picks a dragon to simply be there. DM thinks maybe ''there is a reason'' and some dragon cult like people might be fun, but again has not details on anything. The non-plot here is more ''the characters react to the dragon'', and the DM just can't wait to react to whatever the players choose to do...but the DM really has no idea what that reaction might be. To try and make a good escape from the dragon the players would need to take the effort, time and many actions of the players to do so, based on absolutely nothing.....and ultimately whatever happens is decided by the DM.

As the page show: everyone hates #1, thinks #2 is a good ''middle ground'' and thinks #3 is the Best Game Ever.

But it is odd as:

Well #1 allows the players to use the game information and detail to potentially change and alter the things in the game in meaningful ways based on using that information and detail........and ultimately whatever happens is decided by the DM.

And #2 allows the players to use the bits and pieces of the vague information and ideas to potentially change and alter the few things in the game in meaningful ways based on using that vague information and detail........and ultimately whatever happens is decided by the DM.

And #3 is the players can't change and alter the things in the game in meaningful ways as there is nothing of substance to change or alter....and ultimately whatever happens is decided by the DM.

So why is #3 so great if it, in fact, has no Player Agency at all? And if the answer is that the Improv DM will just ''fill in the blanks'' with whatever the the Players want and the way the Players want, I'd ask why that is a good thing and why can not the other two DMs do that; assuming any of the DMs wanted a lame Player controlled game?

OldTrees1
2017-11-04, 03:17 PM
And #3 is the players can't change and alter the things in the game in meaningful ways as there is nothing of substance to change or alter....and ultimately whatever happens is decided by the DM.

So why is #3 so great if it, in fact, has no Player Agency at all? And if the answer is that the Improv DM will just ''fill in the blanks'' with whatever the the Players want and the way the Players want, I'd ask why that is a good thing and why can not the other two DMs do that; assuming any of the DMs wanted a lame Player controlled game?

If you can't comprehend an improv game, of course you will fail to comprehend why it has player agency. But that speaks only about your failing and not about improv games or player agency themselves.

Lumipon
2017-11-04, 04:12 PM
assuming any of the DMs wanted a lame Player controlled game?

Why would a player-controlled game be any more lame than a GM controlled one? This seems like a loaded statement that requires some unpacking.

Quertus
2017-11-04, 05:19 PM
I think (thanks, actually to various responses one of DU's comments) we found that perfect information stops providing agency. And probably ought to discuss the various factors that affect how we actually balance that?

Apologies, I missed this. How is a player not able to impact a world about which he has perfect information? :smallconfused:


The thing is that in person I can say more, but I can only type so much. And I don't have the Book of Words that ''everyone'' has.

Fair enough.

Two points: one, you seem quite resistant to learning our definitions - why is that; two, it's nice to see that you can tell when "everyone" is being used incorrectly.


I have a point to make and questions...

So Player Agency is when a player feels that their decisions and input have an impact on the events, outcome, and tone of the game; and make meaningful decisions.

Drop the word "feels". Yes, that's arguably the part I care about, but I'd still be wrong to define Player Agency based off feelings.


I guess some threw ''freedom'' in there, but that is a bit vague to be meaningless. And any time a player might say they are denied ''freedom'', they would also be saying at best the game should not make sense or at worst the game should all ways go their way.

Personally, I argue for the game making sense in order to have agency - actions to have logical consequences, for wood to float and wounds to hurt and barns to burn.


And ''Consequences'' is tossed in there, but that is a bit vague to be meaningless. Other then the very basic ''if your characters rob a bank the cops will come after them'', the players won't really know the ''Consequences'' or not...unless the DM tells them.

Wood floats, wounds hurt, barns burn. Unless you're going completely off the reservation, most actions have logical, predictable consequences.




So everyone seems to be talking like there is Path A where the game world moves along down that path. Then, as soon as a character takes any big action the path suddenly becomes the different path B. This makes the player happy as they have done something meaningful and made a new path.

Kind of, yeah. "This is how things would have played out if not for the PCs. This is how things played out with the PCs. Are they different? If so, then the PCs mattered."


.But how does this work in an RPG again? I see three ways for a game like D&D with unequal players and a DM:

1.The DM has a plan, story, plot or other framework that is strong and stable so a player can't overly change or alter anything most of the time with a single action of a character. Things in the game reality are set and not subject to quick changes on whims. To really change anything would take some effort by the player, time, and several actions by the character....and ultimately whatever happens is decided by the DM.

2.The DM has some vague idea of a plan, or some notes or something of substance that is a least a bit firm so a player can't overly change or alter anything most of the time with a single action of a character. To really change anything would take some effort by the player, time, and several actions by the character.....but only from the handful of vaguely set things. But as most things in the game reality are not set, there is nothing for for the player to effect or change. And ultimately whatever happens is decided by the DM.

3.The DM has nothing. The game is pure improv. As everything in the game reality is not set, there is nothing for for the player to effect or change. And ultimately whatever happens is decided by the DM.

If that is what you see, then you see less than nothing. That is, what you see has less value than if you were completely blind.

Now, I'm half blinded by my biases, but here's what I see (we'll even use your words) (I expect others will tell me how wrong I am):

The GM has a "stable" plot, where the PCs have no agency to change anything by virtue of being powerless pawns compared to the events unfolding.

The GM has an unstable plot that he'd really like to be stable, so he railroads away the player's actions whenever they go off the rails, denying them true agency.

The GM has a good, unstable plot that the PCs actually have agency to affect, by virtue of having sufficient knowledge, capabilities, etc, and the GM bloody lets their abilities have their logical effect, and lets them affect the story. This is what most of us (or, at least, what I) call a good / healthy / normal game.

jayem
2017-11-04, 06:01 PM
Apologies, I missed this. How is a player not able to impact a world about which he has perfect information? :smallconfused:

Basically all the choices become one binary choice (Do I impact the world?).

Ignoring chance:
While one choice leaves a small "% of outcomes " matching the desired requirements and the other a "large %". Then it doesn't matter which you choose, because you can always choose the % afterwards. When you get to the point where one choice has no chance and one chance has a small "%", then it's a no brainer (you could have decided to 'lose').

With chance (either by die, imperfect information, or other [unpredictable] actors actions), knowledge of the consequences are not complete. And to the extent that it is, there will be a calculatable ideal strategy that maximizes the odds of success for simple objectives (but now for complex objectives you have to hold them in balance).

(And yes PP, that discussion would be interesting, and the limits you suggest seem like a good start.)

The example of what "Perfect Information" would be is if DU's strawman were made flesh (in a non-fate style game).
"The DM tells the players everything about the game...every single detail. Then the players have their characters act on all that information, but they sort of pretend the characters ''don't know''. This would be like Player Bob knows the pit trap is at Square 1-A, then he role plays character Zorg ''pretending'' not to know that, but ultimately Player Bob makes the informed meaningful decision and choice of if or not character Zorg falls into the pit trap or not."
Max and Pleh, made comments about what would be an appropriate level of information, and demonstrated that the alternative need not be no-info.

NichG
2017-11-04, 10:13 PM
Basically all the choices become one binary choice (Do I impact the world?).

This would only be the case if there's also only a single goal that you could have.

If there are multiple possible goals, you still have the choice between those goals - e.g. how would you like the world to look?

For example, mucking around in a paint program is deterministic and perfect information, but there's a lot more to it than 'make a picture' or 'don't make a picture'.

OldTrees1
2017-11-05, 12:07 AM
Basically all the choices become one binary choice (Do I impact the world?).

Ignoring chance:
While one choice leaves a small "% of outcomes " matching the desired requirements and the other a "large %". Then it doesn't matter which you choose, because you can always choose the % afterwards. When you get to the point where one choice has no chance and one chance has a small "%", then it's a no brainer (you could have decided to 'lose').

With chance (either by die, imperfect information, or other [unpredictable] actors actions), knowledge of the consequences are not complete. And to the extent that it is, there will be a calculatable ideal strategy that maximizes the odds of success for simple objectives (but now for complex objectives you have to hold them in balance).

(And yes PP, that discussion would be interesting, and the limits you suggest seem like a good start.)

The example of what "Perfect Information" would be is if DU's strawman were made flesh (in a non-fate style game).
"The DM tells the players everything about the game...every single detail. Then the players have their characters act on all that information, but they sort of pretend the characters ''don't know''. This would be like Player Bob knows the pit trap is at Square 1-A, then he role plays character Zorg ''pretending'' not to know that, but ultimately Player Bob makes the informed meaningful decision and choice of if or not character Zorg falls into the pit trap or not."
Max and Pleh, made comments about what would be an appropriate level of information, and demonstrated that the alternative need not be no-info.

Each move in a game of chess is made with perfect information(see the definition of perfect games on wikipedia) but still has plenty of incomparable options per choice such that the agency experienced is not a matter of "do I affect the game or not".

Although not all of the moves in chess are examples of player agency. Forced moves do exist as a non choice (or a binary choice to keep playing or not), but those are outliers.

jayem
2017-11-05, 03:50 AM
Each move in a game of chess is made with perfect information(see the definition of perfect [information] games on wikipedia) but still has plenty of incomparable options per choice such that the agency experienced is not a matter of "do I affect the game or not".

Although not all of the moves in chess are examples of player agency. Forced moves do exist as a non choice (or a binary choice to keep playing or not), but those are outliers.

I should have considered the technical definitions more. Though for most Perfect-information games (e.g. Tic-Tac-Toc/Connect 4), the outcome I described occurs.
Chess and Go avoid it because the sheer number of states (I was going to say options) means we haven't yet analyzed it well enough.
Perhaps I should have called it hyper-perfect information.

Regarding the multiple goals, if they are compatible they can be wrapped up in one (it's why I had desired requirements). If they are not, then you do have to choose, once. But the paint example shows it's not properly thought through* (It was initially bought up as one of the things to get sorted out).

*I guess that would have some interesting relation to improv games

Quertus
2017-11-05, 07:39 AM
I should have considered the technical definitions more. Though for most Perfect-information games (e.g. Tic-Tac-Toc/Connect 4), the outcome I described occurs.
Chess and Go avoid it because the sheer number of states (I was going to say options) means we haven't yet analyzed it well enough.
Perhaps I should have called it hyper-perfect information.

Regarding the multiple goals, if they are compatible they can be wrapped up in one (it's why I had desired requirements). If they are not, then you do have to choose, once. But the paint example shows it's not properly thought through* (It was initially bought up as one of the things to get sorted out).

*I guess that would have some interesting relation to improv games

With enough time travel / wishes / immortality / alternate realities, all goals are compatible. :smallwink:

Most people find hyper-perfect information "games" to no longer be fun. I once had a co-worker comment that he couldn't understand why anyone would ever play Sudoku - once you memorize a few techniques, it's just application of those techniques, and no fun. I replied that that was exactly why I had never learned those techniques.

Truly advanced player skills (the likes of which are unlikely in humans for some games) can make all deterministic perfect-information games boring. Sure. But what does boredom have to do with Player Agency?

OldTrees1
2017-11-05, 09:43 AM
I should have considered the technical definitions more. Though for most Perfect-information games (e.g. Tic-Tac-Toc/Connect 4), the outcome I described occurs.
Chess and Go avoid it because the sheer number of states (I was going to say options) means we haven't yet analyzed it well enough.
Perhaps I should have called it hyper-perfect information.

Regarding the multiple goals, if they are compatible they can be wrapped up in one (it's why I had desired requirements). If they are not, then you do have to choose, once. But the paint example shows it's not properly thought through* (It was initially bought up as one of the things to get sorted out).

*I guess that would have some interesting relation to improv games

1)
It is true that perfect information games are ideal exercises for game theory to attempt to solve. The solution to the prisoner's dilemma tournament (20 people each play 1 game of the prisoner's dilemma with each other person and total their outcomes) is a fine example.

However I would argue that RPGs (when they happen to be perfect information games), just like Chess and Go, avoid being a solved game due to the vast number of states.

2)
Regarding multiple goals. Having multiple goals being perfectly compatible is a rare thing. More often they will be partially compatible with a variety of different outcomes that result in different ratios of achievement. But as you said (before examining the paint example) that changes it from a binary choice to a single choice with multiple options. I would provide another counterargument to that perspective.

Imagine the choices that lead to those endings as a branching tree. You might play that tree by choosing a leaf and then the path to that leaf. I might play by, at each choice, discarding the branch that leads to the leaves I desire least of my remaining leaves. If we have the same goals we would end up at the same ending, but I enjoyed my agency during the entire game while you precommitted all those future meaningful choices with your first choice.

3)
I have done the math and solved Tic Tac Toe like so many people before me. While it always ends in a tied game(unless someone makes a mistake), I do have a prefered ending position. However, despite it being a perfect information game, I cannot choose and end state before the fourth move is made (159 followed by 2 or 6 ends the game in the same state). That means each game of Tic Tac Toe has at least 4 choices (excluding games lost by mistakes).

jayem
2017-11-05, 10:38 AM
That seems like I'm not being consistent as to whether the DM's reactions/intentions are part of the information (among other things?). I definitely need to put more thought into it.

OldTrees1
2017-11-05, 12:03 PM
That seems like I'm not being consistent as to whether the DM's reactions/intentions are part of the information (among other things?). I definitely need to put more thought into it.

I was thinking about things like when your choice gives an NPC a choice which then gives you another choice. I may be able to predict the NPC's choice if their payouts result in a easy choice (similar to how I can predict some, but not all, of your responses in tic tac toe). However there will be times when I don't know which option they will choose despite knowing their payouts.

Furthermore, we could be talking about a more complicated perfect game like chess where I know the NPC opponent's payouts for winning/losing both on the grand scale(losing a game) and the micro scale(losing a piece) but not in between(how much do they value this line of attack over that line of attack?).

It is becoming clear that you have to add a huge number of qualifiers ("hyper perfect") to approach a system that will always result in reducing all choices down to binary choices.

Frozen_Feet
2017-11-05, 02:47 PM
I'm pretty sure that any game where possible choices can be enumerated in a closed list can be reduced into a a string of binary choices, and that this criteria is necessarily filled by every game that can or has been computerized using binary logic.

This is less usefull than it sounds, because the string of choices, if implemented this way, can be so long that humans playing it cannot reach an end state before dying of old age. It's also unnecessary because humans don't need to think using strict binary logic.

---

@Lorsa: I've been too busy to respond to you. I'll see if I can find time during the next week.

Lorsa
2017-11-05, 03:45 PM
@Lorsa: I've been too busy to respond to you. I'll see if I can find time during the next week.

I understand busy, but it's good to know I've not been forgotten.

Darth Ultron
2017-11-05, 06:47 PM
If you can't comprehend an improv game, of course you will fail to comprehend why it has player agency. But that speaks only about your failing and not about improv games or player agency themselves.

I get that the Improv game is the worst possible game for Player Agency. If the game is an utter blank, then the player can never, ever make any meaningful choice about anything.


Why would a player-controlled game be any more lame than a GM controlled one? This seems like a loaded statement that requires some unpacking.

Well, except a GM controlled game is a normal game. This is even written into the very game rules and is very clear.



Personally, I argue for the game making sense in order to have agency - actions to have logical consequences, for wood to float and wounds to hurt and barns to burn. Wood floats, wounds hurt, barns burn. Unless you're going completely off the reservation, most actions have logical, predictable consequences.

Except you have the problem that the average person is a bit clueless at best. Ask someone something and you will get a very random answer....maybe. And even reality is not as simple as some might think. Like guess what....not all wood floats!

And any game is often full off odd, not normal stuff....so you can't just say X is X, always....as it will not all ways be true.



The GM has a good, unstable plot that the PCs actually have agency to affect, by virtue of having sufficient knowledge, capabilities, etc, and the GM bloody lets their abilities have their logical effect, and lets them affect the story. This is what most of us (or, at least, what I) call a good / healthy / normal game.

I think you meant ''stable'' plot here....

So Player Agency then is a lot more simply When the DM lets a players character affect the story.

Pleh
2017-11-05, 07:17 PM
I get that the Improv game is the worst possible game for Player Agency. If the game is an utter blank, then the player can never, ever make any meaningful choice about anything.

This doesn't seem to follow.

The Improv Game actually is the best game for Player Agency, because in addition to making meaningful choices, their Agency is also free to spontaneously create its own meaning (which makes ALL their choices exactly as meaningful as they like).


Well, except a GM controlled game is a normal game. This is even written into the very game rules and is very clear.

Also does not follow. How "normal" (I think "conventional" is a better word for what you describe) a game is does not relate directly to how "lame" a game is.

Max_Killjoy
2017-11-05, 07:40 PM
I get that the Improv game is the worst possible game for Player Agency. If the game is an utter blank, then the player can never, ever make any meaningful choice about anything.


Except that "improv game" and "utter blank" aren't even close to being synonyms -- unless one mistakenly assumes that "improv" means a game full of contradictions and retcons and randomness.

Outright improv isn't really my thing, especially as a GM, but I've seen it done, and even in outright improv the GM will usually be taking notes and asking players for copies of their notes after each session, so he doesn't contradict what's been established at the table and is now in the shared imagination space for all the players (including the GM).

Indeed, in the wider world of improv acting or improv comedy, one of the cardinal rules is that you can't no-sell or take-back something that's already been put out to the group and the audience -- you're expected to base what you do next on what's already been put "on the table" by the other participants -- so what happens isn't random, it's built on what came before. Furthermore, improv skits are usually started off with a short premise that the participants then build on, they're not just randomly making stuff up from a "total blank". If you've never seen improv comedy, I strongly recommend finding a good troupe and going to a few of their performances.

But really, "improv" isn't an all-or-nothing category of game, as much as it is a tool in the GM's toolbox. Even in a game with a lot of prep work on the setting and NPCs, the GM cannot prep for everything, and will sometimes have to be able to come up with NPCs and locations on the fly. So for example, a player in an urban fantasy game decides their character will try to plant a story in the press about something that happened in a suburb of the city; the GM doesn't have the beat reporter for that suburb worked out in detail as a premade NPC; GM needs to come up with that reporter in-play -- name, appearance, attitude, etc. There's no way for the GM to have every conceivable NPC premade, even in a campaign that stays in one metro area for the most part -- that's 10s of 1000s of NPCs.

If someone claims to have every NPC their players could possibly interact with already created at campaign start, either they don't understand the word "possibly", or they're just full of crap.

Cluedrew
2017-11-05, 08:03 PM
I wrote this a while ago, couldn't post it and saved it.


We established several locations of potential Agency.
Short-term & Mid-term & Long-term
Small-scale & Mid-scale & Large-scale (I'm using this to distinguish between Village and World events)
In-character & As-player & Meta-game (these are what PP called small scale/large scale)For the first two you should definitely have a bit of all three. Probably waited towards short/small because the moments that cause big ripples that effect large areas and long time periods come up less. Or at least that is how it would work if we measure number of decision points that have results at that level.

For the last, I think I might need a bit more detail on what the three are. I can guess, but I don't know what PP is supposed to be here so it could be very off.


So Player Agency is when a player feels that their decisions and input have an impact on the events, outcome, and tone of the game; and make meaningful decisions.That is perceived agency, how much agency you think/feel you have. Actual agency is different, because it is always exactly how much you have regardless if anyone there realizes it.

They are different values, but they are tied together because... people can observe the world around them and draw conclusions on it. And so given time they will see things that show what their actual agency is and that will effect their perception. Unless they are denial.

Quertus
2017-11-05, 08:13 PM
I don't know what PP is supposed to be here so it could be very off.

PP = PhoenixPhire, I believe.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-11-05, 08:29 PM
I wrote this a while ago, couldn't post it and saved it.

For the first two you should definitely have a bit of all three. Probably waited towards short/small because the moments that cause big ripples that effect large areas and long time periods come up less. Or at least that is how it would work if we measure number of decision points that have results at that level.

For the last, I think I might need a bit more detail on what the three are. I can guess, but I don't know what PP is supposed to be here so it could be very off.

That is perceived agency, how much agency you think/feel you have. Actual agency is different, because it is always exactly how much you have regardless if anyone there realizes it.

They are different values, but they are tied together because... people can observe the world around them and draw conclusions on it. And so given time they will see things that show what their actual agency is and that will effect their perception. Unless they are denial.


PP = PhoenixPhire, I believe.
Phyre, but yes. That's me.

I made the distinction upthread about the difference between IC agency (a player acting for a character) and OOC agency (a player acting for themselves).

*OOC agency is strongest before the game begins, and (at least in D&D games) weakens thereafter. For example, you have (partial) agency in picking a game system, and much more agency when building the character to begin with. At this point, making choices based on the character is meaningless--it only exists in potentia. Once play begins, you don't have as much freedom--you have freedom (again, in D&D) at level up and when the DM asks for opinions OOC. You still have the ability to choose the goals of the character, as well as how the character develops. This agency tends to be large-scale, but low granularity. You're not concerned with the minute-to-minute decisions, but with the flow of the play entirely. The one irreducible piece of OOC agency is the ability to walk away from the game entirely. In my opinion, this kind of agency is highly variable between tables, scenarios, etc. Some games stress this with narrative control elements (which are of necessity OOC). Some games (playing a convention game with pre-gens, for example) are rather take-it-or-leave-it.

*IC agency is what we do when we're actually on-camera playing. Do I go left or do I go right. What decisions, attitudes, and beliefs will my character portray at the table? How does he or she approach the problems at hand? What do they prioritize? What trade-offs are they willing to accept to get what they want? How much risk will the character take? These type of decisions characterize IC agency. In my opinion, IC agency should be maintained throughout at high levels. Only the player can choose to give up this agency, no one else can take it from them (at least not and be justified in doing so). DMs should take care to confirm the possible consequences for potentially catastrophic actions so that there's no excuse for a stupid, character-killing (or worse) action that the player wouldn't have taken had he known the risks. As an example: "You know that if you do this [e.g. insult the hotheaded dictator to his face in an intimidation attempt] and fail, he's probably going to have you executed. Do you still want to do it?" Note: this doesn't allow the DM to refuse the action (reserve that for actions that will cause significant OOC conflict IMO), but it does put the full weight of the consequences on the player's shoulders.

IC agency does not extend to waving away consequences--if by the known consequences of the action you end up a pariah, you can't demand to be treated as royalty. You gave up that agency through prior choices. A level 1 fighter can't take the Cast a Spell action (in 5e D&D). That's a consequence of the OOC decision you made to play a fighter. You also can't demand things beyond the standard resolution mechanics. This comes up a lot with "But I hit them in the head, they should die!" exploits I see from new players. No, you aimed at the head, hit somehow, and did 1d8 + 3 damage. These limits are not reductions of agency--they're enforcement of foreseeable consequences. As they say (in a different context): "You're free to choose, but not free to choose the consequences."

Make more sense?

Darth Ultron
2017-11-05, 10:37 PM
The Improv Game actually is the best game for Player Agency, because in addition to making meaningful choices, their Agency is also free to spontaneously create its own meaning (which makes ALL their choices exactly as meaningful as they like).

But how does it work though?

An improv game has nothing set. At any one time there is simply nothing..nothing behind the door, down the road, or in the ruins. So when a player is making a choice, they are making it over nothing. Nothing is there, until the DM improv/creates it there.

So, sure, this works great but only for a Player Controlled game....that is where the DM improvs exactly what the players want right in front of their characters.



Also does not follow. How "normal" (I think "conventional" is a better word for what you describe) a game is does not relate directly to how "lame" a game is.

Traditional? Conventional? Classic? Well, D&D was first and uses the DM/Player model...and the ton of games that came after use that same model. But some don't...some where made to be ''anti-D&D'' or just ''different''. But any game with a DM/GM of that type does say they control the game.



But really, "improv" isn't an all-or-nothing category of game, as much as it is a tool in the GM's toolbox.


Guess if I was like you I'd say here that Imporv is not a tool and is always bad....



Even in a game with a lot of prep work on the setting and NPCs, the GM cannot prep for everything, and will sometimes have to be able to come up with NPCs and locations on the fly.

I agree. But it still takes away from any Player Agency. Again, the player can't chose or make a meaningful decision over nothing.

Like say a poor character, after fighting some evil folk, comes into a town under a curse, sees no temple in the town so heads over to the open tavern to ask if a cleric levies in the town that can remove a curse. The DM only has a couple lines of notes on the town and nothing about any clerics in the town at all. So the DM has to improv. So, first off, on a whim, the DM can say yes there is a cleric in the town or no there is not. And say the DM improvs two clerics in the town, then the player has to pick one, but they are both just quickly improved names on otherwise blank paper. So the character asks some questions about each cleric, and the DM answers them...improving/making up and creating each cleric on the spot..but only in answer to the players questions...everything else about the clerics is blank.

So it is not just improv, it is speed improv. So the player then has the character heads off to sell some stuff to get gold. As the player does that, the DM does some more speed improv and makes up both clerics....and decides that it makes sense for one of the clerics to be an agent for the evil folk...and the DM then just picks a cleric and notes 'agent for evil'. Then the character walks down the road...and the player, only knowing the random improv information made up from before picks a cleric to go too. But as the tavern talk happened at 8:15, and the DM improved the agent of evil cleric at 8:20 when the player was shopping, there is no way for the player to know that fact at 8:30. The player only knows the outdated information. So the player picks the cleric agent of evil...and that cleric, of course tries to catch the character and start and evil plot.

So the basic problem is quick improv will allays be incomplete...so no player can ever make any choice or decision with any player agency during improving.

OldTrees1
2017-11-06, 01:35 AM
But how does it work though?

An improv game has nothing set. At any one time there is simply nothing..nothing behind the door, down the road, or in the ruins. So when a player is making a choice, they are making it over nothing. Nothing is there, until the DM improv/creates it there.

So, sure, this works great but only for a Player Controlled game....that is where the DM improvs exactly what the players want right in front of their characters.

All your questions would be answered if you honestly tried to understand what an improv game was. But you don't have an honest bone in your body and thus will be forever dumbfounded at blatantly obvious facts.

Improv games have everything there without spending an eon preparing everything. So when a PC is making a choice the DM gave them, they are choosing between this over here or that over there. When the player is informed about this & that, and this & that are different from each other, then the Player is making a meaningful choice without it being a "Player Controlled game strawman".

Of course you will be dumbfounded by this too, because you personally can't risk learning something new if it requires admitting you were wrong.

Cozzer
2017-11-06, 03:26 AM
Are threads where Dark Ultron writes something an example of real-life railroading? We try to ignore him, but sooner or later someone replies, and sooner or later someone else replies to that someone, and no matter what we try to do, the thread becomes about him.

Seriously guys, this thread was interesting. :smallfrown: