Definition of Some Terms

[Quixotic1]

I've run into some issues talking about different types of games and the terms people use to describe them. I wanted to get other people's take on these concepts compared to my own:

Structure: the way in which the acts/scenes/encounters of a game are connected and how the players navigate from one to the other. Exploring a haunted tower is pretty linear. A typical dungeon has a branching structure. Exploring a city is open. Etc.

Character-driven vs GM-driven: who advances the narrative, or the transition from scene to scene. If the players decide to explore the ruined castle, they're driving the game forward. If the GM has a goblin raiding party attack the village, it's GM-driven.
Whoever isn't driving is reacting.

There's something else I've been thinking about recently, but I haven't really articulated it much yet; games need to have a goal. But they can have more than one. But...the higher the stakes one goal has compared to the others, the less the other goals will actually matter?
Like, a farmer's daughter has gone missing. A giant has been seen wandering in the hills outside of town. There's a rumor of goblins in the woods and rats in the sewers. But we throw in a "the fate of the world hangs in the balance"-type goal, or even just a fast-ticking clock to one of the other goals, the other ones all seem to sort of fall away. Does that make sense?

What are some other terms that you've encountered radically different definitions of (I feel like "agency" is the obvious choice, but that's probably a thread of its own. In fact, I've seen it. Many of them. So maybe we don't need to open that particular can of worms).

[KorvinStarmast]

Structure: the way in which the acts/scenes/encounters of a game are connected and how the players navigate from one to the other. Exploring a haunted tower is pretty linear. A typical dungeon has a branching structure. Exploring a city is open. Etc. My recommendation. In the context of RPGs, the Alexandrian's article on structure (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15126/roleplaying-games/game-structures) might be worth reading.

[Quixotic1]

My recommendation. In the context of RPGs, the Alexandrian's article on structure (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15126/roleplaying-games/game-structures) might be worth reading. That's interesting. The structure of the game and how the system works within that part of the game, versus a more narrative-centered concept of structure.

I really do need to read more of The Alexandrian. It's not all gold for me, but none of it feels wrong, and it seems to be one of the major sources out there. If I'm going to understand people in this community, it seems like a good place to start.
Now if I could just get more people onto The Angry GM's articles.

[Yora]

I've been thinking the last couple of days about how the term sandbox is impractically vague by covering too great a group of different game structures. Calling a game a sandbox tells us something about the campaign, but not actually a lot. There's a considerable range of campaign types within that which are very much not interchangeable and do significantly different things for different reasons.
Talking about a campaign being a sandbox and leaving it like that might actually create more confusion than it clears up because people then talk about different things without being aware of it.

I also see people calling every campaign in which a hex map appears in some capacity a hexcrawl. Hexcrawl very much indicates to me a campaign in which the players have a fully or partially blank sheet with a hex grid and they fill in the terrain types and mark wilderness sites as the party is visting these hexes. If the hex map is a tool to measure distances in a continuous and not segmented world, it seems inappropriate to call it a hexcrawl. This practice doesn't really have anything meaningful in common with dungeon crawling.

[Quixotic1]

I've been thinking the last couple of days about how the term sandbox is impractically vague by covering too great a group of different game structures...Talking about a campaign being a sandbox and leaving it like that might actually create more confusion than it clears up because people then talk about different things without being aware of it. You've really hit the nail on the head here. This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Like, to me, a sandbox implies:

1. A non-linear sequence of events. It's not a gauntlet (A to B, B to C) and it's not a dungeon (A to B or C, B to D or E, C to F or G). It's very open (A to B or C or D or E or F or G).

2. Probably (but I guess not necessarily) multiple concurrent goals, versus one big main one.

3. Again, probably mostly character-driven.

But I don't think a lot of people share that specific view. A good number I've met don't even seem to think about things like that. They just hear "sandbox", have a vague sort of idea as to what that is and don't ever really stop to examine what that idea is and what it could be.

I haven't done any hexcrawls, but it sounds like a very similar issue. So the map-keeping is a key part of a true hexcrawl, in your mind?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've come to believe (against my natural inclination) that trying to be too precise in definitions and trying to nicely slot campaigns into one box or another with little-to-no overlap is actually counterproductive. Because it's an inherently fuzzy thing we're describing. Human endeavors rarely fit into nice boxes; things that happen over long periods of time also don't fit nicely. Especially things depending entirely on the individuals involved.

Instead, I prefer to try to use more words and describe the pieces we care about without trying to have some hard and fast "term" that defines it.

So if you care about the open-ended part of a "sandbox" (ie not having fixed goals), say that. If you care about the mapping part, say that. Instead of trying to infer what matters out of "fixed phrases" that may or may not accurately represent things. And be willing (at all levels) to adjust and compromise. Treat the game as a mutual, ongoing conversation rather than launching a space probe (ie something that you send off and can't really do much change to once it's launched).

[Thrudd]

I think the primary benefit in the discussion of terms and categories is to encourage people to think about how they're playing the game and consider the variety of possibilities, as we all harangue over details of definitions and consider examples of play.

People often come into RPGs with many assumptions, and have more assumptions formed by the particular system or systems they end up playing and the specific group of people they learn to play with. We don't often realize how differently it is possible to play games using even the same system, sometimes.

The goal here, I think, is for GMs to examine how and why they run the game the way they do;
establish what the actual goal of the game is, for both them and the players, if they never thought about it before
identify their often unexamined assumptions, and become aware of things their players might see differently than they do,
consider whether the rule set they are using and the methods they employ are actually effective at achieving their desired goal,
help them to communicate their intentions and expectations with other players so hopefully their groups can have fewer conflicts and let everyone enjoy themselves a little more.

The result of the discussions is definitely not going to be new terminology that is adopted and agreed upon by all RPG players, passed down to them and included in all future rulebooks and vlogs/blogs by the law-making body of the global TTRPG congress here on GitP.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the primary benefit in the discussion of terms and categories is to encourage people to think about how they're playing the game and consider the variety of possibilities, as we all harangue over details of definitions and consider examples of play.

People often come into RPGs with many assumptions, and have more assumptions formed by the particular system or systems they end up playing and the specific group of people they learn to play with. We don't often realize how differently it is possible to play games using even the same system, sometimes.

The goal here, I think, is for GMs to examine how and why they run the game the way they do;
establish what the actual goal of the game is, for both them and the players, if they never thought about it before
identify their often unexamined assumptions, and become aware of things their players might see differently than they do,
consider whether the rule set they are using and the methods they employ are actually effective at achieving their desired goal,
help them to communicate their intentions and expectations with other players so hopefully their groups can have fewer conflicts and let everyone enjoy themselves a little more.

The result of the discussions is definitely not going to be new terminology that is adopted and agreed upon by all RPG players, passed down to them and included in all future rulebooks and vlogs/blogs by the law-making body of the global TTRPG congress here on GitP.

That's the ideal...but in practice what happens is people spiral around trying to be really precise and nit-picky. And very few actual examples or tolerance for grey/fuzzy areas.

[Yora]

I haven't done any hexcrawls, but it sounds like a very similar issue. So the map-keeping is a key part of a true hexcrawl, in your mind?

Maybe the question is not "is this game a hexcrawl?" but "are the players hexcrawling?"

In the same way I find it weird when people say "is this a railroad?". That's not what the term is about. It's about "is the GM engaging in railroading?"

Does "a game in which X happens" mean "it is an X-game"?

That might be a really banal statement and I can't think of anything much more elaborate because it's already very late, but I think there might be something quite profound about this.

[Stonehead]

You've really hit the nail on the head here. This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Like, to me, a sandbox implies:

1. A non-linear sequence of events. It's not a gauntlet (A to B, B to C) and it's not a dungeon (A to B or C, B to D or E, C to F or G). It's very open (A to B or C or D or E or F or G).

2. Probably (but I guess not necessarily) multiple concurrent goals, versus one big main one.

3. Again, probably mostly character-driven.

But I don't think a lot of people share that specific view. A good number I've met don't even seem to think about things like that. They just hear "sandbox", have a vague sort of idea as to what that is and don't ever really stop to examine what that idea is and what it could be.

I think I'm somewhat close, but not exactly. I would define a sandbox somewhere along the lines of there being essentially no GM-defined goals, as well as a game with a wide breadth of options to pursue. Or, maybe more accurately, multiple possible methods to achieve a given goal.

I think a "dungeon" sequence of events as defined here (A to B or C, B to D or E, C to F or G), is somewhat compatible with a sandbox game. I think a game in which you cannot get an audience with the King before doing something to earn fame or favor is reasonable. A game in which some islands cannot be visited until the party gets access to a sea faring vessel of some kind could still be a sandbox. It's just that the players need to be the ones who decide to go the the island, and there has to be a large number of viable ways to get a boat. And when the players decide they want to teleport to the island, the DM needs to allow it.

The big thing to me is if the questions "What do we want to do?", and "How are we going to do it?" Are both answered by the players, not the DM.

[kyoryu]

I've come to believe (against my natural inclination) that trying to be too precise in definitions and trying to nicely slot campaigns into one box or another with little-to-no overlap is actually counterproductive. Because it's an inherently fuzzy thing we're describing. Human endeavors rarely fit into nice boxes; things that happen over long periods of time also don't fit nicely. Especially things depending entirely on the individuals involved.

Instead, I prefer to try to use more words and describe the pieces we care about without trying to have some hard and fast "term" that defines it.

I mentioned in another thread a thing about "soap definitions" and "sandwich definitions". Soap is defined as made of a compound of natural oils or fats with sodium hydroxide or another strong alkali. Like, you can have something for cleaning that's not made that way, and it's not soap. There are very hard and fast rules about what is and is not soap.

Sandwiches are tougher. Sandwiches are very weakly defined, and often by example, with weird edge cases and exceptions - usually there's a general definition, but things that have specific definitions aren't "sandwiches". Trying to get a specific, precise definition of a sandwich is nearly impossible, but most people have pretty good senses for what sandwiches are based on experience and usage.

In general, I think sandwich definitions are more useful than soap definitions.



The big thing to me is if the questions "What do we want to do?", and "How are we going to do it?" Are both answered by the players, not the DM.

In practice, i find "how are we going to do it" is the more important. Like, as someone that doesn't care for linear games/whatever, I find games where we agree that there's a more-or-less set goal, but the players are given freedom on how to achieve it a lot more aligned with my desires than ones where, perhaps, the players decide a goal and the GM then writes the adventure for them and they follow along with it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mentioned in another thread a thing about "soap definitions" and "sandwich definitions". Soap is defined as made of a compound of natural oils or fats with sodium hydroxide or another strong alkali. Like, you can have something for cleaning that's not made that way, and it's not soap. There are very hard and fast rules about what is and is not soap.

Sandwiches are tougher. Sandwiches are very weakly defined, and often by example, with weird edge cases and exceptions - usually there's a general definition, but things that have specific definitions aren't "sandwiches". Trying to get a specific, precise definition of a sandwich is nearly impossible, but most people have pretty good senses for what sandwiches are based on experience and usage.

In general, I think sandwich definitions are more useful than soap definitions.


I basically agree. But there's this thing where colloquial usage and precise usage differ...even for soap. Dish soap isn't actually soap in the classic sense. In fact, most of what we call soap isn't actually soap. It's detergent. But if you get pedantic about it when your parent/partner/roomate asks you to load the dishwasher or washing machine....

---------

After thinking more about the general topic, I think the issue, for me, really is one of level of generality. We often talk about campaigns being sandboxes/hexcrawls/railroads/etc. But I think that obscures a lot of variation at anything but the extremes (where very few campaigns actually live). And presumes a temporal and spatial invariance that just isn't there.

For example, I've got a campaign running right now that currently uses a chunk of tools from hexcrawls (hex-based maps of the unknown, hex-level abstractions, etc). But the last "arc" (somewhat coherent set of things undertaken by the party) didn't use that at all. And the first part had a fairly clear, externally imposed "threat" that the players were reacting to. There have been dungeon crawls, but I wouldn't call the whole campaign (or even a single arc) a dungeon crawl. Those were just things that happened for a couple-few sessions.

My other campaign just finished a highly-social micro-arc with substantial intrigue. But it's also done a lot of "ok, here's the map, where do you want to go". And chunks of "here's the goal/quest, let's follow it to the end".

I find that people's interest in helping create content/direct the direction of the campaign varies. They'll seize on things and want to chase it. And other times they're content to lean back and let the DM point them toward the "plot". Which makes all of the "categories" break down, because it's no longer well defined either in time or in parameter space.

So it's a matter of variation in time (some days your creative juices are flowing, others you just want to be pointed at the bad things so you can smash them) and in scope -- ver few people like being told what their character does at the micro level (mind control is contentious for a reason). A few more are willing to let someone else pick the tactics during a scene. A lot more are (generally) willing to follow the DM's storyline and would prefer not being part of the macro decision making. And a lot (if not a majority) are fine with not getting to dynamically pick the "big goals" and with having some external "ok, this campaign is about XYZ" direction. But the exact details depend on the details and aren't constant between groups, between players, or even between the same person in two situations.

[Stonehead]

In practice, i find "how are we going to do it" is the more important. Like, as someone that doesn't care for linear games/whatever, I find games where we agree that there's a more-or-less set goal, but the players are given freedom on how to achieve it a lot more aligned with my desires than ones where, perhaps, the players decide a goal and the GM then writes the adventure for them and they follow along with it.

Are we talking about what defines a sandbox, or what suits our personal tastes? My tastes align pretty well with yours, but I think an important part of being a sandbox game is the ability to choose your goals. Except maybe if the goal is very high level and a little abstract like "get rich", or "become a household name". If the goal is smaller though, "the princess was captured by a dragon, please go rescue her" I think it would be hard to sell the game as a sandbox, regardless of how fun the game might be.

[kyoryu]

Are we talking about what defines a sandbox, or what suits our personal tastes? My tastes align pretty well with yours, but I think an important part of being a sandbox game is the ability to choose your goals. Except maybe if the goal is very high level and a little abstract like "get rich", or "become a household name". If the goal is smaller though, "the princess was captured by a dragon, please go rescue her" I think it would be hard to sell the game as a sandbox, regardless of how fun the game might be.

Honestly that's part of why I proposed "emergent". Both "sandboxes" (as in define your own goal) and uhhhh "story sandboxes" (this is what the game is about, but how you pursue your target is up to you) have some strong similarities, but I don't know that a "story sandbox" is really a "sandbox" by most cases.

Sandbox/linear ended up with a lot of excluded things, especially in the "the game is about something, and it's presumed you're pursuing that, but as a GM I'm not going to provide a path for you" area. It also reinforces the "well, if you want a story, the game has to be linear" fallacy.

I kinda suggested in that thread that there are two interesting questions - who comes up with the problem/goal, and who comes up with the solution/path. I think that maps well to a few of the cultures of play mentioned in that other article I can look up later.

Sandbox/classic = Players come up with problem, players come up with solution
Linear/traditional = GM comes up with problem, GM comes up with solution
Narrative = GM comes up with problem (with player input), players come up with solution
Neo-traditional/OC = Players come up with problem, GM comes up with solution

(Narrative games definitely do vary in how much players are able to just do random goals, but they are mostly more constrained in theme/focus than a "true" sandbox)

[Tanarii]

Structure - I usually think game structures when I hear this word. The things that drive player decision making on what to do next.

Agency - the ability of the player to make a meaningful choice, between at least two options with significantly different outcomes that they could reasonable desire to achieve, for what their character will attempt to do, within the inherent limits of both the character's capabilities and the current situation.
(Note: player agency typically doesn't include the player having what is usually termed narrative agency, the ability to determine events or situations external to what the character attempts to do. Nor other aspects of setting agency.)

Campaign - an ongoing persistent fantasy environment with multiple tables of players, often each with multiple PCs, interacting with it.

Adventuring arc - an ongoing persistent fantasy environment following one group of players, typically with one PC each.

Sandbox - an fantasy environment with player-driven decisions about which adventuring sites / situations the PCs will engage with, with a multitude of adventuring options to pick from. May or may not be a campaign.

Hexcrawl / Dungeoncrawl - a turn by turn exploration and mapping of a hex wilderness or (typically square grid) dungeon environment, featuring strict timekeeping, resource tracking, and at least some level of procedural content generation. May or may not be a sandbox and/or campaign.

[Yora]

Agency - the ability of the player to make a meaningful choice, between at least two options with significantly different outcomes that they could reasonable desire to achieve, for what their character will attempt to do, within the inherent limits of both the character's capabilities and the current situation.

Actually, I think true agency is not having to choose between a number of prepared options, but to come up with your own approaches. It's not chosing which of the provided outcomes you prefer, but making ane outcome happen that you want. (With the possibility of only getting it partly or failing to get it at all.)

[Tanarii]

Actually, I think true agency is not having to choose between a number of prepared options, but to come up with your own approaches. It's not chosing which of the provided outcomes you prefer, but making ane outcome happen that you want. (With the possibility of only getting it partly or failing to get it at all.)
I didn't mean to imply that they were prepared options.
Just that agency doesn't require an unlimited, or necessarily even very large, number of options.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I didn't mean to imply that they were prepared options.
Just that agency doesn't require an unlimited, or necessarily even very large, number of options.

Right. Agency requires at least 2 options.

A few other things--
* As players in a "traditional" game (ie one with a GM separate from the players), player agency does not generally[1] include the ability to choose the outcome of your characters' actions. That is, players don't get to say "I hit the monster" and actually mean it--what they really mean is "I attempt to hit the monster". The mechanics and the GM have the role of deciding what, if anything, happens.
* The consequences of previous choices (and of other people's previous choices, including NPCs) can meaningfully restrict your choice set without unjustly implicating your agency or invading on it. If you took actions that had the consequence of you being in jail, you're in jail. You can't assert (on your own strength) that your agency is unjustly impaired.
* Agency also requires some (restricted) level of knowledge--a blind choice is not a meaningful choice. But it does not require total knowledge. Just enough that a "reasonable person" could judge that there are likely differences in outcomes between the choices and that they prefer one of those predicted outcomes to the other. An NPC lying to a player does not unjustly implicate agency, but the GM OOC lying to a player can do so[2].

[1] There are games where this isn't true, often by giving players some meta-narrative currency/abilities. But in those cases, there usually is some way of denying attempted assertions by a player (Fate GMs can refuse the Aspect and players and GM can refuse compels, for instance, although that refunds the fate points involved).
[2] Barring things like illusions, mind control, etc, I'm not fond of GMs outright lying to players. It's fine if they say that the character doesn't know (or can't know) something. But outright lies, especially about meta-level things don't go over well with me, personally.

[asadkhan890]

Calling a game a sandbox tells us something about the campaign, but not actually a lot. There's a considerable range of campaign types within that which are very much not interchangeable and do significantly different things for different reasons.

[Cheesegear]

Agency - the ability of the player to make a meaningful choice, between at least two options with significantly different outcomes that they could reasonable desire to achieve...

This is where I continuously have problems with how people define agency; You've thrown two extra, heavily weighted words:
What is a meaningful choice?
What is a significant outcome?

Agency is when your actions produce an effect. Stop. There are no caveats.

That means, if you have a good DM, anything you do, produces an effect. It might not be the effect you want, or it might be a small effect that does nothing at all. But your actions should have an effect. Agency is always present. Including when a PC does nothing. If a PC does nothing, the world still turns. The effect is that there is no effect.
- Sometimes, the players will choose an approach that the DM has a planned effect for.
- Sometimes, the players will choose an approach that the DM doesn't have a planned effect for, and makes something up on the spot.
- Sometimes, the players will choose an approach that the DM doesn't have a planned effect for, and goes with the planned effect anyway, even if it doesn't make sense.
- Sometimes, the DM will tell players that they can't choose an approach that the DM doesn't have a planned effect for, because reasons.
etc.

Actions should always have an effect. Most DMs aren't stupid.

But, I come to another problem that I don't really get a clear answer on:

a) Do you want the ability to make choices? Easy. Done. You can do anything you want. Some of the things you want to do, I already know you want to do, and have planned for it. So when you inevitably do make the choices I know you're going to make, I'll be ready.

b) Do you want your choices to effect the world? If so, how much effect do you want? What is 'meaningful' agency? What is 'significant' agency?

PC punches NPC. The Action is done. Now what is the effect?
i) The NPC grumbles and walks away? The rest of the scene continues.
ii) The NPC comes back later with a bunch of thugs and murders the PC in their sleep?
iii) A tavern brawl starts, setting fire to the current buildings, and multiple nearby buildings. The watch is called. A riot starts. Now the whole town is on fire. All because a PC punched an NPC?

How much effect do you want? How long is a piece of string?

A butterfly flaps its wings, and then hurricane happens. Is that meaningful agency? Is that a significant outcome for the action?

[OldTrees1]

This is where I continuously have problems with how people define agency; You've thrown two extra, heavily weighted words:
What is a meaningful choice?
What is a significant outcome?

Agency is when your actions produce an effect. Stop. There are no caveats.

If everyone is using the string "Agency" to reference concept ABC and you want to interject by using the same word to reference concept XYZ, then you are setting yourself up to have continuous problems.


Language is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and there are subtle variations in the meaning different people ascribe to different words, but the term "Agency" in reference to RPGs usually means something similar to Tanarii's definition. Caveats and all.


It is also possible your problems result from ignoring why those caveats are included in the normal usage of Agency in these discussions. Why is the "meaningful choice" caveat included to exclude the "meaningless choice" antonym? Why is the "significantly different outcomes" caveat included to exclude the "insignificantly different outcomes" antonym? Reflecting on those questions might help your "continuous problems".


Finally I remember you disliking discussions around continuums or subjective value judgements before. Meaningful choices and significantly different outcomes will reference subjective value judgements at some point and that will result in a continuum. Last time you wished you had know sooner so you could avoid "wasting your time".

[Vahnavoi]

@Cheesegear:

Your objection is pointless. A meaningful choice is one between two mutually exclusive game states. A significant outcome is one that keeps influencing game choices well into the future. Both have well-established tools for analyzing them in game theory and statistics. Most damningly, your extended rant about how every player action should have an effect reduces to the same thing.

As for the kind and magnitude of choices? That's an active concern of game design. The string is as long as you cut it, based on how long you need it to be for the thing you're trying to make.

The butterfly effect is something completely different. It is a thought experiment from chaos theory, attempting to explain that in a dynamic system, small changes in initial conditions can cause massive and unpredictable changes further down the line. It has very little to do with player agency, because the hypothetical butterfly is not a player in a game and it is undefined if it is making choices at all. If you do try to apply it to a game, it does not mean players have a lot of big choices. It just means the choices they do make have potential for big unforeseen effects. Overall amount of player agency can still be very low and thus unsatisfactory.

[NichG]

Whenever discussing terms, I think it's more useful to ask 'what do we want to use this term for?' than 'what does everyone think about what this term means?'.

Like, if one person wants to use 'soap' to mean cleaning products and another wants to use 'soap' to mean the specific class of chemical mixtures, they disagree and maybe a dictionary would fall on one person's side or the other's, but saying 'person 2 is right' doesn't actually resolve the reason why person 1 wanted a term that did what 'soap' was doing for them.

So if we find we're disagreeing over what words like 'agency' or 'sandbox' or whatever mean, rather than 'nah, I think it means this instead', lets ask 'what is that particular definition doing for you, such that it's convenient to have a single word to refer to it?'. Basically imagine that you replaced the contentious word with a random string like 'xfzlax' and had the same discussion.

E.g. if someone says 'I take xfzlax to mean the set of meaningful, informed choices that a player has for bringing about specific outcomes that they might intend to bring about', then objections like 'no, xfzlax means something different!' go away because before that statement, xfzlax didn't mean anything at all. But things like 'that definition isn't self-consistent' would still stick around to be addressed.

[Stonehead]

[QUOTE=Cheesegear;25472923]This is where I continuously have problems with how people define agency; You've thrown two extra, heavily weighted words:
What is a meaningful choice?
What is a significant outcome?

Agency is when your actions produce an effect. Stop. There are no caveats.

Words having vague borders is pretty normal. If you're looking for strict, rigid boundaries, natural language is a particularly bad place to find them. These questions do have some pretty easy answers though.

Meaningful choices are informed, predictable, and about things the player cares about. To make a meaningful choice, you have to be aware that you are making a choice (ie: no "the players didn't search this bush so X happens"). You need to be at least somewhat aware of the consequences of your choice. You don't need to know exactly how each branch will play out, but you can't be blind (ie: punching the barkeep can be meaningful, because you know he'll have a negative reaction, even if you don't know exactly what it'll be. "There are 3 identical doors in front of you, which one do you open?" is not a meaningful choice).

Significant just means it isn't a trivial or cosmetic change. Like, you character technically "has agency" over what color hat they wear, but a DM can't say "What do you mean you have no agency? I let your characters dress themselves". If it's something that realistically has no way to impact other events in-universe, then it's insignificant.

[OldTrees1]

lets ask 'what is that particular definition doing for you, such that it's convenient to have a single word to refer to it?'. Basically imagine that you replaced the contentious word with a random string like 'xfzlax' and had the same discussion.

Good thought experiment.

When discussing the ability for a player to interface with the game, I like to filter out any interfacing the player does not value. Players interface with the game through choices. So first I want to filter out anything that is a non-choice. Then I adjudicate the boundary of things that are technically choices but only technically. If there is a choice with insignificant difference between the outcomes, then the choice is insignificant to the player's valuation of their interfacing. Likewise if a choice is meaningless to the player, then the choice is meaningless to the player's valuation of their interfacing.

So I use the concept of a meaningful choice between significantly different outcomes. Usually I just describe this as a "meaningful choice" because there is some subjectivity in what constitutes "meaningful" to a player and that usually handles the filtering out the choices where the only difference is an insignificant difference and "choice" filters out the non choices.

As a result I have a concept that talks about the valued interfacing with the game. That is useful for discussions about how much valued interfacing a player wants in the game (as a subset of the various things a player values about the game) and the structure of that interfacing. It also is useful as a stepping point to then discuss the "meaningful" in "meaningful choice" because that is where the subjective part comes in. (This is where I would learn what commonalities there are in what players consider meaningful choices. For example Stonehead's* usage of "meaningful choice")

When discussing something more in depth using this concept as a tool, I would utilize aspects people commonly scribe to what makes a trait meaningful to them. This is where caveats like Stonehead's* "Meaningful choices are informed, predictable, and about things the player cares about." come in. Many of these caveats are commonplace and can be used in a discussion.

That is why it is convenient for me to use a word as a symbol for this concept of a "the measurement or unit of a player having meaningful choices for their character to make in the RPG".




* I referenced Stonehead's post a couple times when giving an example of a player identifying what they consider meaningful. This is the line for reference. They have a paragraph that elaborates further.

Meaningful choices are informed, predictable, and about things the player cares about.

[Cheesegear]

If everyone is using the string "Agency" to reference concept ABC and you want to interject by using the same word to reference concept XYZ, then you are setting yourself up to have continuous problems.

If everyone is using 'Agency' to reference something it doesn't mean, yes, there will be problems.


It is also possible your problems result from ignoring why those caveats are included in the normal usage of Agency in these discussions. Why is the "meaningful choice" caveat included to exclude the "meaningless choice" antonym? Why is the "significantly different outcomes" caveat included to exclude the "insignificantly different outcomes" antonym? Reflecting on those questions might help your "continuous problems".

Perfect.

Agency is where your actions produce an effect. Stop. No caveats. That is the definition of the word. If you want to change that definition, you need to be more specific. But now I'm going to work the definition of agency with peoples' concept of agency:

Players can take any action they want. Those actions will produce an effect. Some of the things they do might still produce the same effect(s) as if they had done something else. But that isn't what agency means. Sometimes what they do will have an effect...That doesn't affect the game world. That doesn't matter, that's not what agency is. How much effect do you want? Are you getting the amount of effect you want? ...That's not what agency is.

However, people seem to be inserting words into what agency means. In order to create some sort of value to agency; High Agency, and Low Agency.

Players can take 'meaningful' actions, which produce 'significant' effects.

Okay. If I understand that correctly, then when a PC punches a single NPC, the town should burn down. A PC punching an NPC must be meaningful and significant, or the PC has 'low' agency.


Your objection is pointless. A meaningful choice is one between two mutually exclusive game states.

Sure. But that's not what agency is.

'Agency is where I get to choose to between at least two mutually exclusive game states.' ...Is not the definition of agency, that's you adding value to agency.


A significant outcome is one that keeps influencing game choices well into the future.

'Agency is where my choices ripple through time.' ...Is not the definition of agency.

Those things might be how you want to use your agency, but those are not definitions of agency, that's you adding a value to your agency.


Most damningly, your extended rant about how every player action should have an effect reduces to the same thing.

That is what agency is. That is how people use it. That isn't how this forum seems to use it. But that's how it is used.


As for the kind and magnitude of choices?

Correct. That's a great word.

People are assigning a magnitude to agency. Which agency, in and of itself, doesn't have. But, when people seem to apply magnitude to agency, they appear to be more concerned not with the amount of actions they can take...But the magnitude of the effects that their actions produce.

Definition: Agency is where your actions produce an effect.
Player: ...Cool. I want the effects to be massive, alter the game state, and significantly impact future choices.
DM: Punch an NPC, town burns down. Got it.
Player: Noooo...You're doing it wrong...


Whenever discussing terms, I think it's more useful to ask 'what do we want to use this term for?'

Great. I'm going to go to a different forum, another Discord group of DMs, and we're going to talk about agency, and we're going to talk about realistic outcomes for certain choices our players make, and whether or not we made the right call.

I'm going to come here, and talk about agency, and we're going to throw in words like 'significant' and 'meaningful' and we're going to assign a magnitude (great word, I love it) to agency, and we're going to argue that an action producing a low-stakes effect 'doesn't count' as agency because it's magnitude is low...The effect wasn't significant or meaningful, therefore it doesn't count as agency. Even though that's not what the word - agency - means.


Like, if one person wants to use 'soap' to mean cleaning products and another wants to use 'soap' to mean the specific class of chemical mixtures, they disagree and maybe a dictionary would fall on one person's side or the other's, but saying 'person 2 is right' doesn't actually resolve the reason why person 1 wanted a term that did what 'soap' was doing for them.

They need to have a discussion so that they get on the same page. In the real world, an agreement on terms takes about 30 seconds (regardless of what internet debate bros would have you believe). Possibly less. Especially it comes to physical objects; I point at an object, and I say 'That is what I mean.', and it doesn't matter what words I use (I might not even be speaking the same language), because we at least both agree on the object in question.

I'm happy if you assign value to agency. But people are seeming to say that only a High Amount of Agency, is Agency, and when they are referring to a 'High Amount' of agency, they are referring to the magnitude of the effects they produce.

'Agency is when the magnitude of the effects I produce, is high.'

...Hmm...No. But I see what you mean; You want the magnitude of the effects you produce, to be high.

[Tanarii]

* As players in a "traditional" game (ie one with a GM separate from the players), player agency does not generally[1] include the ability to choose the outcome of your characters' actions. That is, players don't get to say "I hit the monster" and actually mean it--what they really mean is "I attempt to hit the monster". The mechanics and the GM have the role of deciding what, if anything, happens.Indeed. I didn't emphasize it, but that's why I wrote "will attempt to do" not just "will do".

I was more focused on instead calling out about world-building or narrative stuff. But this is a good call out.


* The consequences of previous choices (and of other people's previous choices, including NPCs) can meaningfully restrict your choice set without unjustly implicating your agency or invading on it. If you took actions that had the consequence of you being in jail, you're in jail. You can't assert (on your own strength) that your agency is unjustly impaired.Players decisions having consequences and outcomes is an important part of making them.


* Agency also requires some (restricted) level of knowledge--a blind choice is not a meaningful choice. But it does not require total knowledge. Just enough that a "reasonable person" could judge that there are likely differences in outcomes between the choices and that they prefer one of those predicted outcomes to the other. An NPC lying to a player does not unjustly implicate agency, but the GM OOC lying to a player can do so[2].Generally speaking, some ability to distinguish between the choices is required. The "3 identical doors" by Stonehead above is a good example of a meaningless decision. And it's a reason that so many discussions about player agency circle back around to the ability of players to gather information. In classic gaming, by scouting the environment, or before that by researching (including consulting sages or gathering rumors). It's also why CaW discussions emphasize telegraphing so much, so that players can make meaningful decisions before (possible) combat, not just during combat.

[NichG]

If everyone is using 'Agency' to reference something it doesn't mean, yes, there will be problems.



Perfect.

Agency is where your actions produce an effect. Stop. No caveats. That is the definition of the word. If you want to change that definition, you need to be more specific. But now I'm going to work the definition of agency with peoples' concept of agency:

Players can take any action they want. Those actions will produce an effect. Some of the things they do might still produce the same effect(s) as if they had done something else. But that isn't what agency means. Sometimes what they do will have an effect...That doesn't affect the game world. That doesn't matter, that's not what agency is. How much effect do you want? Are you getting the amount of effect you want? ...That's not what agency is.

However, people seem to be inserting words into what agency means. In order to create some sort of value to agency; High Agency, and Low Agency.

Players can take 'meaningful' actions, which produce 'significant' effects.

Okay. If I understand that correctly, then when a PC punches a single NPC, the town should burn down. A PC punching an NPC must be meaningful and significant, or the PC has 'low' agency.



Sure. But that's not what agency is.

'Agency is where I get to choose to between at least two mutually exclusive game states.' ...Is not the definition of agency, that's you adding value to agency.



'Agency is where my choices ripple through time.' ...Is not the definition of agency.

Those things might be how you want to use your agency, but those are not definitions of agency, that's you adding a value to your agency.



That is what agency is. That is how people use it. That isn't how this forum seems to use it. But that's how it is used.



Correct. That's a great word.

People are assigning a magnitude to agency. Which agency, in and of itself, doesn't have. But, when people seem to apply magnitude to agency, they appear to be more concerned not with the amount of actions they can take...But the magnitude of the effects that their actions produce.

Definition: Agency is where your actions produce an effect.
Player: ...Cool. I want the effects to be massive, alter the game state, and significantly impact future choices.
DM: Punch an NPC, town burns down. Got it.
Player: Noooo...You're doing it wrong...



Great. I'm going to go to a different forum, another Discord group of DMs, and we're going to talk about agency, and we're going to talk about realistic outcomes for certain choices our players make, and whether or not we made the right call.

I'm going to come here, and talk about agency, and we're going to throw in words like 'significant' and 'meaningful' and we're going to assign a magnitude (great word, I love it) to agency, and we're going to argue that an action producing a low-stakes effect 'doesn't count' as agency because it's magnitude is low...The effect wasn't significant or meaningful, therefore it doesn't count as agency. Even though that's not what the word - agency - means.



They need to have a discussion so that they get on the same page. In the real world, an agreement on terms takes about 30 seconds (regardless of what internet debate bros would have you believe). Possibly less. Especially it comes to physical objects; I point at an object, and I say 'That is what I mean.', and it doesn't matter what words I use (I might not even be speaking the same language), because we at least both agree on the object in question.

I'm happy if you assign value to agency. But people are seeming to say that only a High Amount of Agency, is Agency, and when they are referring to a 'High Amount' of agency, they are referring to the magnitude of the effects they produce.

'Agency is when the magnitude of the effects I produce, is high.'

...Hmm...No. But I see what you mean; You want the magnitude of the effects you produce, to be high.

You seem to be in a violent argument with yourself here...

Like, just say 'that's not how I understand that word, can we use a different term to refer to what you're talking about?'.

[Cheesegear]

Like, just say 'that's not how I understand that word, can we use a different term to refer to what you're talking about?'.

I don't think that's how the internet - or any meaningful conversation - works.

A statement without a rationale, is nothing. Kind of like how the above isn't actually a response to anything I wrote.

[NichG]

I don't think that's how the internet - or any meaningful conversation - works.

A statement without a rationale, is nothing. Kind of like how the above isn't actually a response to anything I wrote.

What you wrote was that you want to use the word to talk to a group of people elsewhere, who use the word in a way you disagree with, and then you sort of went off about players asking for things to work a certain way and so on. Which appears to be an external argument you have with others not actually involved with this thread. So I don't see anything there in those details to respond to - that's between you and these other players. No stake there for me what definitions you want to use or whether you feel like you're being asked to amplify the effects of player actions. I'm not in your game, why should that involve me?

But the exercise I proposed was 'identify what you need the word for' and you said 'talking to others, but we can't agree on a definition because they keep including things I don't think are part of the word'.

The resolution is rather than getting into an argument about definitions, just agree to pick another term, because the term you're using isn't actually accomplishing what you're trying to use it for.

[Cheesegear]

Generally speaking, some ability to distinguish between the choices is required. The "3 identical doors" by Stonehead above is a good example of a meaningless decision. And it's a reason that so many discussions about player agency circle back around to the ability of players to gather information.

The 3 identical doors is probably something I've said before, and it's an example I use to highlight that players always have 'agency'. However, posters - such as yourself - will then assign a value to that agency (i.e; Meaningless decision), and then equate a low amount of agency, to no agency at all. However, in that situation, my argument with the 3 close doors, is that there is always a choice and no decision is meaningless, and agency always exists:

A player could open the door on the left, without any information at all. That is risky. That is a choice they made. They made a choice to act with no information at all. That has meaning. That may well be a character trait. That may well be 'what their character would do', and now the other players have to deal with that consequence. Whatever is behind that door, we now have to deal with it, because a door was opened. Were the other doors better? We don't know anymore. The consequences for a player opening the door is that the players now have to deal with whatever is behind that door - for better or worse.

With no information at all, a player could say '**** it' and open all three doors at once. That would probably lead to a disaster. But a player could do it, and there absolutely would be a consequence. Agency definitely exists.

With no information at all, a player could try and gain information. Peeking through the door. Using magic. Whatever. The consequence of their action is that they acquire knowledge. The players can now choose which door to open first, perhaps with greater or lesser, or more beneficiary outcomes.

With no information at all, players could say '**** it', decide the scenario is too hard, and disengage, leaving the three closed doors behind forever. The consequence of your action is that you don't get to see what's behind the closed doors. New scenario.

'Everyone move down the corridor. I want to Illusion a loud noise outside the three doors. We'll see what - if anything - comes out to investigate.'

To say that 'Agency is only "meaningful" if I'm aware of the consequences of my actions.' is simply not true.

'How can I make a meaningful choice, if I don't know the consequences?' is a value statement, that you put on the value of information. Perhaps the meaningful choice is acting without information? To be willing to act when you don't know the consequences is a personality trait, not an agency value.

How you choose to act, without information, is a meaningful choice. You can use your choices to gain information, absolutely...But trying to gain information, is one of the many things you can do, when you don't have any information. But, you could also choose to not gain more information, and just Chaotic Stupid your way through any problem.


What you wrote was that you want to use the word to talk to a group of people elsewhere, who use the word in a way you disagree with, and then you sort of went off about players asking for things to work a certain way and so on.

Here is the common definition of the word, with which I use that definition to discuss that word in many difference places.
Here is a colloquial definition of the word, seemingly only used by this forum, which causes problems for people who spend time outside this forum, but still participate, here.

[Vahnavoi]

Sure. But that's not what agency is.

[. . .]

'Agency is where I get to choose to between at least two mutually exclusive game states.' ...Is not the definition of agency, that's you adding value to agency.

'Agency is where my choices ripple through time.' ...Is not the definition of agency.

Those things might be how you want to use your agency, but those are not definitions of agency, that's you adding a value to your agency.

[. . .]

That is what agency is. That is how people use it. That isn't how this forum seems to use it. But that's how it is used.

You keep engaging in a pointless semantic argument. You argue against words like meaningful and significant, then turn around to say that agency means acts have effects, completely failing to realize that meaningfulness and signifigance is how different effects are set apart.

If in a game, opening any of the three doors leads to the game state "you die", and not opening any the doors also leads to the game state "you die", you cannot be said to have agency, because the lack of mutually exclusive game states means your actions do not have an effect on the game.

If in a game, you have nominal choice of eye and hat color, but nobody pays attention to such choices and they are forgotten ten seconds into a game, you cannot be said to have agency, because lack of signifigance means you actions do not have an effect on the game.

You can call such examples "bad GMing". We keep having to make these distinctions explicit because there are enough bad GMs around running games like this. The insanity is in you failing to realize meaningfulness and signifigance are implicit in your own definition of agency and thus every so often end up defending behaviours you yourself label bad elsewhere.

[Cheesegear]

You argue against words like meaningful and significant, then turn around to say that agency means acts have effects, completely failing to realize that meaningfulness and signifigance is how different effects are set apart.

That isn't what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that agency is when your actions have effects.
If you talk to a bartender, the bartender talks to you. If you talk to a bartender and the DM says 'The bartender ignores you.', potentially because the DM doesn't have a dialog tree mapped out for the bartender, then your action does not have an effect, you do not have agency. But the bartender nodding to you, and asking you what you want, is an effect. You made a choice to talk to the bartender, and the bartender spoke to you briefly, before continuing with their work.
Cause.
Effect. It might not be a great effect. It might have no bearing on anything except what goes on inside this pub, right now. But the DM said you can do anything you want, you wanted to talk to the bartender, you did, the DM allowed it, the DM spoke some small talk, and the world continued. You probably didn't get the effect you wanted, but the DM didn't say 'No.' You were allowed to make your choice...Your choice just didn't amount to anything significant. It's Friday night, there's nearly 100 people in the bar, they're not going to talk to you right now.

To whit, I have seen written by other posters; Agency is when your meaningful actions have significant effects.

To which point; What is meaningful, what is significant?

The result becomes;
Agency is when I have exactly as much knowledge as I want, to make the decision that I am informed about, which results in a change to the game world that is persistent and will affect many future decisions from here on out.

That isn't what agency is. Except on this forum, where it is.

Other times you might talk to a bartender, they tell you their name, how long they've been working, and drop plot hooks for five potential quests, including one directly related to themselves and your personal standing with the bartender. You, talking to a bartender had the significant effect of five plot hooks and a potential patron for later. Holy **** isn't agency amazing? The DM let me talk to the bartender and I had an amazing outcome. Everything I do is relevant all the time!


If in a game, opening any of the three doors leads to the game state "you die", and not opening any the doors also leads to the game state "you die", you cannot be said to have agency

The players have agency, because they don't know that. They will never know that unless the DM makes a mistake. They should think that opening a door leads to 'You Die', because they opened the door, which they chose to do, and the consequence of that choice was that they died.

They took an action which had an effect. They totally had agency. That should be the extent of their knowledge. Unless the DM says 'Trollololol it doesn't matter what you did someone was going to die I'm very clever.' ...But why would a DM ever say that? Ever!?

EDIT: That being said, I also get the feeling, that if I really boiled things down, I might end up with 'Agency is where the things I do, matter.' ...Just, oof. That isn't what agency is. But I can see how you could get there.


the lack of mutually exclusive game states means your actions do not have an effect on the game.

Only the DM knows that - unless they make a mistake.

[Vahnavoi]

That isn't what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that agency is when your actions have effects.
If you talk to a bartender, the bartender talks to you. If you talk to a bartender and the DM says 'The bartender ignores you.', potentially because the DM doesn't have a dialog tree mapped out for the bartender, then your action does not have an effect, you do not have agency. But the bartender nodding to you, and asking you what you want, is an effect. You made a choice to talk to the bartender, and the bartender spoke to you briefly, before continuing with their work.
Cause.
Effect.

If talking to the bartender makes them talk to you, and not talking to them means they remain silent, there are two mutually exclusive states of the game. You correctly identify that if the decision to talk makes no difference, that is, if the are no mutually exclusive states reachable via the decision, there is no effect, and hence no agency. Unsurprisingly to everyone, we find that actions need to be meaningful in order for us to say they serve as causes for effects.


It might not be a great effect. It might have no bearing on anything except what goes on inside this pub, right now.

If the effect is not great, that is, not significant enough to have a bearing on anything beyond the pub right now, it's really straightforward to say actions available in the pub are of limited agency, because they have no effect going forward. Unsurprisingly to everyone, we find actions also need to be significant in order for us to say they serve as causes for effects.


But the DM said you can do anything you want, you wanted to talk to the bartender, you did, the DM allowed it, the DM spoke some small talk, and the world continued. You probably didn't get the effect you wanted, but the DM didn't say 'No.' You were allowed to make your choice...Your choice just didn't amount to anything significant. It's Friday night, there's nearly 100 people in the bar, they're not going to talk to you right now.

Irrelevant. Choices that don't amount to anything significant cannot be said to have an effect and thus do not count towards agency. The DM is twisting words to avoid admitting the fact that they are not giving a player much agency.


To whit, I have seen written by other posters; Agency is when your meaningful actions have significant effects.

To which point; What is meaningful, what is significant?

The result becomes;
Agency is when I have exactly as much knowledge as I want, to make the decision that I am informed about, which results in a change to the game world that is persistent and will affect many future decisions from here on out.

That isn't what agency is. Except on this forum, where it is.

It is pretty damn hard to act as an agent if no information is given on how decisions effect anything. Meanwhile, as already established multiple times, if decisions between actions do not cause changes in the game world, that is, alter a game's state in mutually exclusive ways, in a way that carries forward in the future, that is, is significant, then there's no grounds for saying those actions are acting as causes for any effects, hence no grounds for saying they count towards agency.

So again, saying "that's not what agency means!" while simultaneously holding "agency means actions have effects!" is paradoxical and hollow.


Other times you might talk to a bartender, they tell you their name, how long they've been working, and drop plot hooks for five potential quests, including one directly related to themselves and your personal standing with the bartender. You, talking to a bartender had the significant effect of five plot hooks and a potential patron for later. Holy **** isn't agency amazing? The DM let me talk to the bartender and I had an amazing outcome. Everything I do is relevant all the time!

Complete non-sequitur. A player sometimes having more agency does not mean everything they do is relevant all the time.


The players have agency, because they don't know that. They will never know that unless the DM makes a mistake. They should think that opening a door leads to 'You Die', because they opened the door, which they chose to do, and the consequence of that choice was that they died.

Humbug. The fact that players do not know their actions cannot have an effect does not change the fact that their actions cannot have an effect, and thus do no count as agency.


They took an action which had an effect. They totally had agency. That should be the extent of their knowledge. Unless the DM says 'Trollololol it doesn't matter what you did someone was going to die I'm very clever.' ...But why would a DM ever say that? Ever!?

Now you're effectively arguing that whether acts actually have effects is irrelevant for whether players have agency - as long as a DM can make them believe they have agency, they have agency. This is a self-contradiction. You can't imagine why a DM would say that thing aloud, yet are blatantly advocating for thinking in those terms.

Mostly this just shows how underdeveloped your ideas of imperfect information games are. It would be perfectly straightforward to say the players yad no agency, and if they thought they did, they were wrong.


EDIT: That being said, I also get the feeling, that if I really boiled things down, I might end up with 'Agency is where the things I do, matter.' ...Just, oof. That isn't what agency is. But I can see how you could get there.

You can't simultaneously maintain "agency means acts have effects" and "agency doesn't mean things I do matter", because if things I do don't matter, there is no grounds for saying my acts are causing effects. You are once again contradicting yourself.


Only the DM knows that - unless they make a mistake.

Even if a DM is the only one who knows, it doesn't make the statement less true. Characterizing being open about how much agency players have as a mistake is a complete non-sequitur.

[Cheesegear]

Unsurprisingly to everyone, we find that actions need to be meaningful in order for us to say they serve as causes for effects.

To which I disagree. Anything you do, is meaningful, including doing nothing at all, which is also meaningful. Go to the three doors. Doing nothing is a choice, which causes an effect. Doing anything at all, is a choice, which produces an effect.

Agency is when your actions cause effects.

You can do anything you want. The player produces an action. The DM produces an effect. However, the DM is willing to produce as little - or as big - of an effect that they want. If you make a choice, and the DM decides that the result of your action is insignificant, agency still existed. You just didn't get the magnitude of an effect that you wanted - which the DM does not have to give you. The bartender is not obligated to talk to you.


If the effect is not great, that is, not significant enough to have a bearing on anything beyond the pub right now, it's really straightforward to say actions available in the pub are of [B]limited agency, because they have no effect going forward.

Again, 'Agency is when my actions matter.' Which isn't what agency is.
When your actions matter, is a value judgement you place on agency, and how you expect your agency to be used. Which is a fine value to have. We all want our actions to matter. But we still have agency even when our actions don't matter, because if the action we took doesn't matter...We just take a new action, with the knowledge that we didn't do enough.


Choices that don't amount to anything significant cannot be said to have an effect and thus do not count towards agency.

If your choices amount to anything, significant or not, you have agency.

All's agency requires is that your DM acknowledges and/or allows you take an action, and responds in whatever way they think is best. Sometimes the action you take will produce an effect that is small. Sometimes your DM will rule that the action you took produces a 'significant' effect.

i) PC punches NPC. NPC slinks away never to be seen again. Scenario over. Next NPC. Next action. Who gives a **** the NPC wasn't even important.
ii) PC punches NPC, town burns down.

Both are agency because something happened.


The DM is twisting words to avoid admitting the fact that they are not giving a player much agency.

The players have as much agency as they believe they have.


It is pretty damn hard to act as an agent if no information is given on how decisions effect anything.

Nope. Strong disagree. Sometimes you just jump. Acting on no information is a choice you make, which produces a consequence.

How do you act when you have no information at all? It's a character-defining question. How you act in that situation says a lot about you and/or your character.


Meanwhile, as already established multiple times, if decisions between actions do not cause changes in the game world, that is, alter a game's state in mutually exclusive ways, in a way that carries forward in the future, that is, is significant, then there's no grounds for saying those actions are acting as causes for any effects, hence no grounds for saying they count towards agency.

You are using player agency in the sense that they are or would be aware of the DM's thought processes - which they are not.

Do you know that your actions will produce the same outcome as another action? If you don't know that, then you have agency.


The fact that players do not know their actions cannot have an effect does not change the fact that their actions cannot have an effect, and thus do no count as agency.

Again. So long as the DM allows an action, and the players believe that whatever the DM says next, is a response to their action, they have agency.

Players do not have agency if they are straight up told that their choices are meaningless. That way lies nihilism. You have to believe that you matter - even when you don't.


Now you're effectively arguing that whether acts actually have effects is irrelevant for whether players have agency - as long as a DM can make them believe they have agency, they have agency.

That's exactly what I'm arguing.


You can't simultaneously maintain "agency means acts have effects" and "agency doesn't mean things I do matter", because if things I do don't matter, there is no grounds for saying my acts are causing effects.

Action. You talk to the bartender.
Effect. The bartender nods at you and continues doing what they were doing, basically ignoring you.

Your action produced an effect. It just didn't produce an effect that mattered, and perhaps not the effect you wanted. Provided that you stopped the scenario at exactly this point. If you stopped the scenario here, you still had agency. You can choose to put a magnitude on that agency (e.g; Low). But you still you had agency, because cause and effect, is agency, and that did happen.

However, you can always make more choices. You can continue the scenario; Upon seeing that the bartender has basically ignored you, you can now perform a new action, perhaps one more meaningful, designed to produce a more significant outcome. Okay. Talking didn't work. What happens if I jump on top of the bar and start making obnoxious noises. Everyone looks at you. Security is called. Now we're talking business. Things are happening.

A meaningless action will produce a meaningless effect.
A meaningful action will produce a meaningful effect.
...Ooh. There's something in that. I just don't know what it is. 'Should meaningless actions produce meaningful effects?' ...I'll think about it.

Both are agency, because you are taking an action, which produces an effect. No matter how insignificant or meaningless. Punching an NPC should produce an effect. It probably shouldn't result in the town burning down. It could, but it is unlikely to. Punching an NPC one time, should probably result in the NPC walking away, never to be seen from again. Maybe you bring the NPC back in a few sessions? Maybe you don't. How long is a piece of string? But, if you believe that punching an NPC should result in the burning of a town, because that's a significant effect, that's a value you have, but it isn't the definition of agency.

Agency can be used that way, but that's not what agency is.

'Can I do [x]?'
Yes. Nothing happens.
'Well now my agency is ruined because there was no effect.'
Wrong. The effect of your action, is that you now know that [x] doesn't work. You can now try something else with the knowledge that [x] is not going to produce the effect you want. Take a new action, with your new knowledge. Always be making choices, even when the previous choices you made didn't do anything.

[Vahnavoi]

To which I disagree. Anything you do, is meaningful, including doing nothing at all, which is also meaningful. Go to the three doors. Doing nothing is a choice, which causes an effect. Doing anything at all, is a choice, which produces an effect.

Agency is when your actions cause effects.

What are you disagreeing with, again? The actual quoted claim was that in order for us to say an act is causing an effect, it needs to be meaningful. Repeating that "anything you do is meaningful" or that "agency is when your actions cause effects" does not actually disagree with the claim.

Your actual disagreement seems to be with the implicit claim that there are actions which are meaningless - which we can empirically show to be the case for games, and the three doors example is one such case. Again, the real reason discussions about player agency persist is because plenty of game masters put meaningless choices and allow meaningless actions in their games.

In other words, not only is your disagreement insubstantial when it comes to te actual point, you are simply repeating assertions which can be empirically shown to be false.


You can do anything you want. The player produces an action. The DM produces an effect. However, the DM is willing to produce as little - or as big - of an effect that they want. If you make a choice, and the DM decides that the result of your action is insignificant, agency still existed. You just didn't get the magnitude of an effect that you wanted - which the DM does not have to give you. The bartender is not obligated to talk to you.

Humbug. If a player's action is minimized to insignifigance, it cannot be said to have an effect, and thus it cannot be said to count towards agency. A zero-magnitude effect is a synonym for no effect, and if there is no effect, there is no agency. Furthermore, if the effects a DM is producing are completely uninfluenced by actions their player is producing, no causality can be said to exist between the two - effects that happen regardless of what a player does are hence not agency. Saying a DM does not have to give players any agency is irrelevant. You keep using words in oxymoronic ways to avoid conceding these very simple point.


Again, 'Agency is when my actions matter.' Which isn't what agency is.
When your actions matter, is a value judgement you place on agency, and how you expect your agency to be used. Which is a fine value to have. We all want our actions to matter.

Fun fact: causality is of value for all consequentalist theories, including all theories of game design that seek to cause fun as effect of playing a game. So when you try to invoke Hume's Guillotine to separate "what matters" from "actions have effects", you are making yourself irrelevant to more or less everyone else in this thread.

Meanwhile, in common use, for more or less everyone else in this thread, actions matter when they produce effects, and don't when they don't. And, once more, the way we can actually tell if an action has an effect is when it is meaningful and significant.


But we still have agency even when our actions don't matter, because if the action we took doesn't matter...We just take a new action, with the knowledge that we didn't do enough.

Another non-sequitur. The knowledge that a course of action didn't matter can only generate agency if the knowledge allows a new course of action that does matter - but this is not established anywhere. It's possible to have no agency and just not know it.


If your choices amount to anything, significant or not, you have agency.

Once more, with feeling: if a choice amounts to nothing significant, it cannot be said to amount to anything, cannot be said to have an effect, and hence does not count towards agency.

You are simultaneously denying existence of meaningless and insignificant choices AND treating them as equal to meaningful and significant choices. Somehow it fails to get through that other people are omitting meaningless and insignificant choices when counting agency for a reason.


All's agency requires is that your DM acknowledges and/or allows you take an action, and responds in whatever way they think is best. Sometimes the action you take will produce an effect that is small. Sometimes your DM will rule that the action you took produces a 'significant' effect.

Except that a DM can straightforwardly decide that the best way to respond is for the action not have any effect, thus negating any agency in the act. This is completely in line what you've said elsewhere. By failing to concede this simple point, you are effectively arguing players have agency even when a DM is giving them no agency, which is inverse but equally illogical to your stance in prior discussions where you argued players have no agency, ever, despite the DM's ability to give them as much as they want.


i) PC punches NPC. NPC slinks away never to be seen again. Scenario over. Next NPC. Next action. Who gives a **** the NPC wasn't even important.
ii) PC punches NPC, town burns down.

Both are agency because something happened.

It is perfectly straightforward to say the choice the makes PC is less meaningful & less significant in the first example, and that they overall have less agency because their DM is actively minimizing the effect of their actions. Funny how that goes.

This is of course presuming there is some causal connection between the PC punching the NPC and the town burning down in the second example. If there is none, the PC in second example might have no agency at all. As noted previously, "something happened" isn't enough, that "something happening" must be an effect of the act to count as agency.


The players have as much agency as they believe they have.

This is completely different from and contradictory with your previous definition of "agency is when acts cause effects". Players can straightforwardly believe their actions are causing effects even when they aren't, which under your former definition straightforwardly means players can be wrong about having agency. Under this new version, it does not matter whether their acts have effects, as long as they believe they do.

Make up your damn mind.


Nope. Strong disagree. Sometimes you just jump. Acting on no information is a choice you make, which produces a consequence.

Again, what are you actually disagreeing with? The claim that it's hard to act as agent when you have no information of how your decisions affect anything? None of your assertions offer a counterpoint to that. Your disagreement is completely insubstantial once again.

Acting on no information may be a choice, but with no information, it is impossible to know if that choice produces a consequence, or in other words, an effect. This means the question of whether you have agency remains unanswered. Not knowing if you have agency is unconnected from having it.


How do you act when you have no information at all? It's a character-defining question. How you act in that situation says a lot about you and/or your character.

You think it's a character-defining question. I think your statement is humbug. Virtually no interesting character questions are asked and answered with no information at all. On the contrary, they depend on a lot of knowledge on who the character is, what their situation and what they believe their situation is. Once again, your thinking of imperfect information games is underdeveloped. Lacking some information is not the same as lacking all information, and virtually all imperfect information games move from position of minimal knowledge towards positions of more knowledge. Quite often, the most interesting questions are only capable of being asked and answered well into the game, when some information has already been revealed.


You are using player agency in the sense that they are or would be aware of the DM's thought processes - which they are not.


The players don't need to be aware of a DM's thought processes, but there is nothing exotic about, you know, a DM telling their players what they are thinking so that their players can gauge how much agency they have.


Do you know that your actions will produce the same outcome as another action? If you don't know that, then you have agency.

Once again a complete non-sequitur. If I don't know outcomes of my actions, I simply I don't know if I have agency. Me not knowing if I have agency doesn't somehow work to me having agency after all. Stop redefining agency as imperfect information.


Again. So long as the DM allows an action, and the players believe that whatever the DM says next, is a response to their action, they have agency.

Which not the same as, and contradictory with, acts causing effects, as already shown.


Players do not have agency if they are straight up told that their choices are meaningless. That way lies nihilism. You have to believe that you matter - even when you don't.

Somehow you gloss over the possibility of a game master straight up telling players when and where they do have agency, so that that players can actually focus on meaningful & significant parts of the game.


That's exactly what I'm arguing.

Which, as I've laboriously shown, is complete. nonsense. If this is exactly what you've been saying, you are contradicting yourself, wrong in every way, and no-one has a reason to agree with you.

Anything more would be superfluous.

[Composer99]

Personally, I think there's a lot of imputing additional meaning to the term "agency" where it doesn't belong.

To my mind, "player agency" in the context of a roleplaying game means nothing more and nothing less than:

Subject to any constraints imposed by the game system or the table culture, the (non-GM) players decide what their characters think, feel, say, do, or attempt to do.

Examples of constraints imposed by the system:
- Getting charmed or dominated in a D&D game.
- I'm not familiar with Powered by the Apocalypse games, but I'm led to understand that other players or the GM (whatever title they have in any given game) can make "moves" that can compel a particular action in the fiction by player characters.
- Apropos of the final clause "attempt to do", if the game system or the GM require a player to use some sort of resolution mechanic, there's a chance that they will fail to accomplish whatever they set out to do. That's not necessarily a conceptual constraint on agency - although it can be, since the GM is often the one who decides what you are even allowed to attempt to do - but it does constrain your practical exercise of it.

Examples of constraints imposed by table culture:
- If a player has a particularly strong phobia of some sort, the other players will avoid bringing it up even when it would make sense to do so in-character.
- Respecting table rules against PvP-style play.
- Avoiding in-character behaviour that makes other players feel uncomfortable or violated because of real-life considerations.

The more ability the players have to decide what their characters think, feel, say, do, or attempt to do, the more agency they have, and vice-versa.

With respect as the additional baggage being stuffed into the term "agency" being bandied about in this and other threads, it would IMO be better to unpack the concepts and give them their own terms.

For instance, a lot of the discussion in this thread seems to revolve more around "how much impact should player character activity have in changing the state of the in-game fiction?" than around "to what extent are the players free to decide what their characters think, say, do, or attempt to do?", and asserting that the former is (or is part of) player agency. Frankly, it seems to me that it would be for the better if that concept was articulated separately, with its own term of art - maybe "impact", although I'm secretly hoping for a word that starts with 'A' for reasons. :smalltongue:

The two concepts are certainly related - the more impact the players' choices have on the state of the in-game fiction, the more leeway they have in exercising player agency, and vice-versa - but they are still distinct enough that they ought to be treated as such.

Some related concepts that I feel are distinct enough to be spun out into their own terms:

Agenda
Who gets to set the gameplay agenda?
- When NPCs or NPC factions act and the PCs decide (without regard to how voluntary or compelled this decision is) to react to them, the GM is setting the agenda. This is quite common for published adventures (the Dragonlance modules, most 5e adventures, etc.).
- When PCs decide to act to fulfill their own ambitions or to serve their personal interests, the players are setting the agenda. Most forms of open-world/sandbox/West Marches game revolve around this kind of thing.
- In many games, there might be a mixed agenda, with PCs and NPCs reacting to one another in a chain or cascade of activity.

Authorship
Who gets to establish in-fiction details about the setting? This will be shared between the GM and players to some extent, although D&D generally puts most responsibility and authority for authorship in the hands of the GM.

You can see, I hope, how these concepts relate in some way to the concept of agency - the more the players can set the agenda and the more authorship they have over setting details, the more leeway and freedom they have in exercising agency, and vice-versa - as well as to the concept of impact.

This also ties back into the thread where kyoryu was describing what I personally might call "fiction pre-definition". (*)

The more someone playing the game (usually the GM) already knows the future state of the in-game fiction, or has already decided what the future state of the in-game fiction will be, the more "pre-defined" the fiction is. Games with a sufficient degree of "pre-definition" across all levels of the fiction might fall under the umbrella of "Authored" games as kyoryu used the term. Likewise, the less is already known or decided about the future state of the in-game fiction, and the more the future state follows organically from gameplay as it happens, the less "pre-defined" the fiction is. Games falling short of a given degree of "pre-definition" across all levels of the fiction might fall under the umbrella of "Emergent" games as kyoryu used the term.

And just like some of the other concepts I've broken out above, we can see how this relates to player agency or impact without actually being player agency or impact: the less the GM (in particular) has "pre-defined" changes to the in-game fiction (**), the more freedom the players have to decide what their characters do or attempt to do, and the more impact player character activity is likely to have in changing the state of the fiction.

(*) Still looking for an "A" synonym. :smallbiggrin: Or any better/pithier term at all, really.

(**) Planning contingent changes to the in-game fiction ahead of time ("If the players do A, the world will react with B, and if the players do X or Y, the world will react with Z") is not necessarily a form of pre-definition in this sense, although it can be - say, if in so doing you end up frequently discouraging the players from choosing some course of action you don't have a pre-planned reaction for.

[Stonehead]

If everyone is using 'Agency' to reference something it doesn't mean, yes, there will be problems.

...

Agency is where your actions produce an effect. Stop. No caveats. That is the definition of the word. If you want to change that definition, you need to be more specific.

The people in this thread aren't making up new definitions of agency or anything, it's out there in the world: https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/8/20/what-is-player-agency https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/player-agency-how-game-design-affects-narrative

If you don't think that's what that word means, fair enough, but you can't just declare that this other meaning is the 'true' one with no substantive argument or source to back it up. Or, I guess you can, but you shouldn't expect anyone to be convinced if you do. Agency meaning "being in control of meaningful choices" has been the standard meaning in the game design industry for over a decade. We aren't trying to add anything new to the definition.

[Cheesegear]

The people in this thread aren't making up new definitions of agency or anything, it's out there in the world...

I typed 'agency' into Google:

'Action or intervention producing a particular effect.'

This is basically the definition I've been working with since as long as I can remember. That definition - or something very similar - works everywhere except this forum. Where at least a handful of regular posters also define a reduction in agency, as railroading- Point is:

In a DM-controlled RPG, the DM controls all the effects of your actions. The players can take whatever action they want, but if the DM ignores their action, or the DM says that they can't do an action, an effect, doesn't happen*.
*Remembering that sometimes having no effect, is the effect of the action. But we're not really talking about intentional non-effects. Fire does nothing against things warded against fire - it just doesn't.

Ergo;
Agency is where the DM acknowledges that you do things, and reacts to those things (ideally, in a way that makes sense). If you do something, and the DM says 'Okay.', and then says, well... Anything, that that player can construe as a result of their action, they have agency.

That is, the DM controls everything, and if you think about it, people only have as much agency as long as the DM is willing to produce effects. Sometimes the DM isn't imaginative enough to produce an effect that coincides with your action, sometimes a DM simply isn't willing to engage with whatever dumb **** you've cooked up.

Agency, in an authority-controlled game, therefore is more or less an an illusion. The players have agency for exactly as long as they can be led to believe that they have agency. So long as the DM keeps saying 'Okay...', and then says anything that makes you believe that you did something, the illusion is maintained. Something, something real-world comparison that prevents people from falling into deep depression, existentialism and nihilism.

At this point I'm just repeating things I've said in other threads, some of which I'm sure people in this thread have already seen. So I'll just leave with some final words:

So long as we're working with terms like 'significant' and 'meaningful', we're ascribing a value to agency, which simply isn't what agency is. But this forum defines agency differently to most of the world (?). Or, perhaps, when they talk about agency, they talk about player agency, but they keep not adding that word when they talk about it. Which is a fairly specific concept that I personally would define as high-value agency, not player agency. Because 'agency' isn't a game-term - it's a real word with a functional meaning.

[Real-world person with money, power and influence] doesn't have 'player' agency, they have high-value agency, or a high amount of agency. That is, they have the ability to make things happen - usually in the way that they want it to happen. Real people, in the real world, have agency...They are not players in a game.

...
None of that really matters. Because what I've learned is that this forum, defines 'agency' as 'player agency', and 'player agency' has bizarre specificity to its definition, which is simply summed up as 'A high amount of agency (the ability for an actor to affect change, ideally in the actor's favour).'

Therefore, this forum argues - quite strongly, turns out - that only a high amount of agency, is agency at all. Which is bizarre to me, because that leads to topics like 'A reduction from that high amount of agency, is basically a railroad...And a railroad is-'... But we've already had that conversation, and I now understand how people who believe in 'player agency' come to the conclusions that they do.

[Composer99]

[...]

Because 'agency' isn't a game-term - it's a real word with a functional meaning.

[...]

None of that really matters. Because what I've learned is that this forum, defines 'agency' as 'player agency', and 'player agency' has bizarre specificity to its definition, which is simply summed up as 'A high amount of agency (the ability for an actor to affect change, ideally in the actor's favour).'


So, while I've already said upthread that I prefer to unpack a lot of meaning from the term "agency", the fact that it's used in other contexts doesn't really make it illegitimate for it to have a specific meaning in the context of gaming.

I mean, the word "theory":
- has one meaning when used in commonplace parlance;
- has a different meaning when used in certain scientific contexts (the "theory" of evolution, for instance);
- has another different meaning in the context, of say, theoretical physics;
- has yet another different meaning in the context of music;
and this is all well and good as long as no one starts equivocating between these meanings.

[OldTrees1]

So, while I've already said upthread that I prefer to unpack a lot of meaning from the term "agency", the fact that it's used in other contexts doesn't really make it illegitimate for it to have a specific meaning in the context of gaming.

I mean, the word "theory":
- has one meaning when used in commonplace parlance;
- has a different meaning when used in certain scientific contexts (the "theory" of evolution, for instance);
- has another different meaning in the context, of say, theoretical physics;
- has yet another different meaning in the context of music;
and this is all well and good as long as no one starts equivocating between these meanings.

Theory is an example of a term of art. Your example explains it better than I was going to.



Upthread you suggested scaling back the meaning of Player Agency. Specifically you suggested scaling it back to

Subject to any constraints imposed by the game system or the table culture, the (non-GM) players decide what their characters think, feel, say, do, or attempt to do.

While this preserves the domain of options that player will find in their choices, it does not preserve the choice being a choice. Consider a game where the players only get non choices. They can still pull their levers (think, feel, say, attempt to do) but those levers are disconnected from the game. Similar to playing a game with a dead controller.

Since the majority of the value of this term of art is in its use describing choices, if we scaled "Player Agency" back to not be useful in this subject, we would just discard it for a new term.

As such, I think we need a term that does talk about the player's ability to make actual choices (in contrast to non choices*) in the game, and "Player Agency" seems reasonable with its current usage.

*Removing choices that are technically choices but only technically and not practically is also reasonable.


However I do think the current usage of "Player Agency" can be a bit overloaded if talking about both about the presence of actual choice and the magnitude. This is not as bad when the usage is more careful to phrase the magnitude as being the amount of the unit rather than overloading the word itself.

[Tanarii]

If you don't think that's what that word means, fair enough, but you can't just declare that this other meaning is the 'true' one with no substantive argument or source to back it up. Or, I guess you can, but you shouldn't expect anyone to be convinced if you do. Agency meaning "being in control of meaningful choices" has been the standard meaning in the game design industry for over a decade. We aren't trying to add anything new to the definition.
Far more than a decade, in the case of "player agency". The term was coined a long time ago.

It was heavily referenced as part of discussions of both combat as war and old school revival. Since it's integral to both.

[MoiMagnus]

To say that 'Agency is only "meaningful" if I'm aware of the consequences of my actions.' is simply not true.

IMO, what is true is "Agency dies if the player think they have no meaningful influence over the consequences".

Taking your 3 door example:

It doesn't matter that the player had the choice to not open any if they didn't even consider this option, maybe because they're convinced that the GM will not let them do so and force them forward anyway.
It doesn't matter that the player had the choice to open multiple of them if they didn't even consider this option, maybe because they're convinced that the GM would ensure this doesn't work.
It doesn't matter that the player had the choice to seek for more information if they didn't consider this option, maybe because they're convinced the GM won't give them any additional information actually useful.


In general, it doesn't matter if the PC have some choices to make if the player are convinced they have no actual choice. Agency exists in the player's mind, and can easily die in it if the GM (or a previous GM) mishandled previous situations.

When in front of those 3 doors, a disillusioned (and quite rude) player could answer to the GM's "Which door do you open?" the following: "I open any of the 3 doors, I know it doesn't matter which one I pick, so in the same way I don't need to tell you exactly on which floor tile I walk on, I don't need to tell you which door I open."

[Composer99]

Upthread you suggested scaling back the meaning of Player Agency. Specifically you suggested scaling it back to


While this preserves the domain of options that player will find in their choices, it does not preserve the choice being a choice. Consider a game where the players only get non choices. They can still pull their levers (think, feel, say, attempt to do) but those levers are disconnected from the game. Similar to playing a game with a dead controller.

Since the majority of the value of this term of art is in its use describing choices, if we scaled "Player Agency" back to not be useful in this subject, we would just discard it for a new term.

As such, I think we need a term that does talk about the player's ability to make actual choices (in contrast to non choices*) in the game, and "Player Agency" seems reasonable with its current usage.

*Removing choices that are technically choices but only technically and not practically is also reasonable.


However I do think the current usage of "Player Agency" can be a bit overloaded if talking about both about the presence of actual choice and the magnitude. This is not as bad when the usage is more careful to phrase the magnitude as being the amount of the unit rather than overloading the word itself.

So when you refer to the analogy of playing a game with a dead controller, or how a player's choices are disconnected from the game, it seems to me as though you're referring to the impact that the player characters have on the in-game fiction when they interact with it.

In other words, in order for player agency to be player agency, the term of art, it's not enough that the players decide what their characters think, feel, say, do, or attempt to do - those things also have to have an impact on the fiction that (a) the players can perceive follows from the way their characters interacted with the fiction and (b) the players feel constitutes a meaningful change to the fiction, with what counts as meaningful depending on the players and possibly also the game system.

So perhaps if I wanted a pithy summary of player agency, I should instead go with something more like:

Players in a TTRPG have player agency when the players decide what their characters think, feel, say, do, or attempt to do within the in-game fiction, and when their interaction with that fiction results in an impactful change in the game state, subject to any constraints imposed by the game system or the table culture.

With a sub-definition of "impactful change" meaning something like

A change in the game state that the players (a) perceive has followed necessarily from their interaction with the fiction and (b) consider to be satisfactorily meaningful according to their gameplay preferences.

[kyoryu]

Meh.

Regardless of what specific word is used, I think the intent is clear.

Arguing semantics at this point is really just dodging the point.

[OldTrees1]

So when you refer to the analogy of playing a game with a dead controller, or how a player's choices are disconnected from the game, it seems to me as though you're referring to the impact that the player characters have on the in-game fiction when they interact with it.

In other words, in order for player agency to be player agency, the term of art, it's not enough that the players decide what their characters think, feel, say, do, or attempt to do - those things also have to have an impact on the fiction that (a) the players can perceive follows from the way their characters interacted with the fiction and (b) the players feel constitutes a meaningful change to the fiction, with what counts as meaningful depending on the players and possibly also the game system.

So perhaps if I wanted a pithy summary of player agency, I should instead go with something more like:

Players in a TTRPG have player agency when the players decide what their characters think, feel, say, do, or attempt to do within the in-game fiction, and when their interaction with that fiction results in an impactful change in the game state, subject to any constraints imposed by the game system or the table culture.

With a sub-definition of "impactful change" meaning something like

A change in the game state that the players (a) perceive has followed necessarily from their interaction with the fiction and (b) consider to be satisfactorily meaningful according to their gameplay preferences.

Yes, I think that is a reasonable phrasing. With suitable low requirements for the subjective components, this defines the players ability to interface with the game (instead of just a dead controller).

I also think that the base definition, outside of any conversation specific context, should start with low requirements. The impact does not need to be large, it just means the signal (character thinks, feels, says, attempts) went from the controller to the game system as an input to a choice in the game. Likewise the "meaningful" requirement should be set low unless the conversation has context to set it higher, in which case it would then filter out choices that are meaningless for that conversation.

I also appreciate your pithy summary includes both the type of input (decide what their character ...) and explicitly mentions constraints imposed on that input. Those parts are usually omitted from summaries but you are right they are important parts of the whole.

[Stonehead]

I typed 'agency' into Google:

'Action or intervention producing a particular effect.'

This is basically the definition I've been working with since as long as I can remember. That definition - or something very similar - works everywhere except this forum. Where at least a handful of regular posters also define a reduction in agency, as railroading- Point is:

...
None of that really matters. Because what I've learned is that this forum, defines 'agency' as 'player agency', and 'player agency' has bizarre specificity to its definition, which is simply summed up as 'A high amount of agency (the ability for an actor to affect change, ideally in the actor's favour).'

Therefore, this forum argues - quite strongly, turns out - that only a high amount of agency, is agency at all. Which is bizarre to me, because that leads to topics like 'A reduction from that high amount of agency, is basically a railroad...And a railroad is-'... But we've already had that conversation, and I now understand how people who believe in 'player agency' come to the conclusions that they do.

It's not "this forum's" definition, it's the game design industry's definition. Words can mean multiple different things based on the context it's used in, but I think the game design usage is fairly fitting considering we're in a forum discussing game design.

And again, it's really not a bizarre definition, as explained by the dozens of articles on the topic.


Far more than a decade, in the case of "player agency". The term was coined a long time ago.

It was heavily referenced as part of discussions of both combat as war and old school revival. Since it's integral to both.

Oh cool, good to know. I only started hearing of it about a decade ago, when I started getting into amateur game design.