What is Player Agency?

[Lorsa]

I'd point out that first of all even a glance at any campaign will show you that a great many DM alter the standard core races to fit their own idea. So if a player comes to a game blindly thinking everything is by-the-book, they are in big trouble.

Yes, and if they DO alter the core races to fit with their own setting idea, they will inform the players that stuff is changed and what their characters know about the world.

Similarly, if you are in a forum discussion using D&D races as examples, you either have to use them as written or specify how you want them different. Anything else is just dishonest.

Again, this is simple vs complex. In the complex game, anything can be anything. Only in the simple game are things Always X. To say Race X must always be X is simple. Why can't any race be 50 shades of gray?

They could, but I don't see how that makes games simple or complex. As long as all shades are present, it doesn't matter if one race mostly exist on one side of the spectrum or not.

However, your argument is a bit weird, you say "in simple game things are always X" whereas in a complex game anything can be anything. You must have failed to understand something at the beginning of this discussion.

If something in the setting is defined as X, that is what they will be unless circumstances show up that would change them. Change takes time though, especially if we talk about cultural change, so the players can safely assume that if something has been described as X, they will be X within a short period of time.

What you seem to imply when your argument is that in a complex game X can suddenly change to Y just because, without any reason for it. Isn't that exactly the thing you had a problem with in your long rant about improvisation GMs and how they suddenly change information that wasn't available at an earlier time?

Besides, even if a race as a whole contains all 50 shades of grey, individual people can be darker or lighter. That was what led us to this argument; I said that different people should be different, whereas you claimed that "no no, everyone must be equally evil and betray the PCs at the end as that is a complex game". If everyone is the same that sounds a lot simpler to me than if races, groups and individuals are different from each other.

Well, in the simple game, only one thing can happen. The elves are always classic rated G like good...always.

That elves are classic rated G like good has nothing to do with "only one thing can happen". That is setting creation and world building. Do not confuse world building with how a game is being run, which is what this discussion is about.

I was specifically, from the very beginning of this discussion, saying that PC choices should lead to different outcomes and that the game should be different depending on whom they choose to work for. YOU were saying that the game should be identical. How can you view the latter as being more complex? I don't get it? If every choice the players make is functionally identical to the other, then the game is really simple in my eyes.

What the hell does complexity mean to you really?

Well, it is not like anything/everything, the idea is the potential is there.

So in your games, if the characters throw a ball in the air, the potential is there for it to soar to the moon? If they cast "Cure Wounds" on themselves, there is the potential that they will take damage instead? If they walk on the road towards the City of X, there is the potential that they will end up with City Y instead? If the character says "Hello dear shopkeeper", there is the potential that what comes out of there mouth is instead "I am going to kill you and your family you evil scumbag"?

How does your games make any form of sense whatsoever?

Except all those things could happen in a game....so?

Could != Should

Like the character goes to swing a sword...and a lightning blot comes down from the sky and kills the foe first. Very possible. Like say a storm giant with improved invisiblilty was hovering over the fight and threw the lighting bolt....now true, the player and character would not know that...but it is possible.

So it is very possible that a storm giant with improved invisibility will throw lightning bolts at my enemies in your games? That's good to know, as I might as well not bother trying to attack myself then.

Basically what you are saying is that I might as well not attempt any action, as anything can happen anyway. I can just stand and look at the enemies, and since anything can happen, they could spontaneously disintegrate in front of me. Seriously, why bother taking any actions at all in your anything can happen nonsensical world?

Well, some people...but not all...like complex games as they are a lot more like Real Life. In more Fairly Tale Like Simple Games, everything works out for the characters and they live happily ever after. That is fun for some people, but not everyone.

The discussion has never ever been about everything works out for the characters and they live happily ever after. Not once. Stop throwing out random nonsense that was never part of the discussion. That is also intellectually dishonest and just makes you look like you can't comprehend what is being said.

I also like games that are a lot like real life. You know, where you can judge the outcome of actions quite reliably and thus work towards a specific goal. Where things are fairly consistent.

They are different...but not radically so. Like the USA does not add in the tax on the display of an item for sale, other countries do: the display price includes the tax. This is different, but not exactly Earth shattering. In fact most (Western places) are a lot alike...houses, stores, coffee shops, cars, a money based economy and a lot of common basic laws like ''murder is illegal''.

They are different in a whole lot more ways than your idea that "oh, only the names of the bars differ". They have different values, social habits etc. Just take one difference between USA and the rest of the industrialized world; public health care. In USA, public health care is a big sin and basically half the population thinks it is the worst evil ever and will lead to communism. In the rest of the industrialized world, it would be almost unthinkable to remove it.

This, according to you, "not a radical difference", DOES have radical difference in people's lives. In USA, people can actually die due to lack of ability to get health care, or alternatively end up with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt after a procedure that is necessary for them to live. In Sweden, that simply isn't possible. Going to the doctor costs about $22, and whatever else you need after that will be free. Even if if it involves expensive surgery or whatever (you do have to buy medicine though until you reach a certain value per year after which it is free). This difference will impact people's lives in radical ways, sometimes making the difference between life or death.

I like the time thing too. But again this is not a huge difference. Both Germany and Italy have companies, business, meetings and money....but sure if your a couple minutes late in Germany they will be like ''how dare you be late and keep us waiting!'' and in Italy they would be more like ''oh, whatever, you are here now, let us talk business."

Oh but it does create a difference. For example, if you compare countries on this time axis, I'm sure you can see that there is an economical difference (I think it will be tilted towards strict time = stronger economy). It is also quite likely that you will find a difference if you look at the view of time vs. stress related diseases. While correlation does not equal causation, it is nevertheless an indicator that countries can be very different depending on only one cultural norm.

Well, the example is picking between two things, like of the two local barons who do the characters want to work with? In the complex game, each baron could have *any* personality or type of character so it *is* possible that both of them might be typical greedy noble types that only care about themselves, for example...or anything else.

The example was between choosing to work for a good baron or a criminal gang. But alright, yes, you can choose between two local barons. They could have any personality, I agree with that.

What I was against from the start was to make both local barons have identical personalities. That working for one is identical to working for the other. They should be different, and this difference should influence the game . Even if they are both greedy, they can still be different from one another!

You are seeming to say that if the players are ever given a choice one *must always* be a good choice for the players *and* the DM has to tell the players the one that is the good choice, so the players will *automatically* always have the agency/control of the game to always make the good and right choice.

I've never said that. I merely use good baron vs. bad criminals as an example in order to highlight how choices will lead to different games.

I am much in favor of presenting two bad choices or two good choices for the players. What I am NOT in favor of is presenting two IDENTICAL choices to the players. This has been my whole point from the start.

But the same outcome is very normal... If a character is robbed they will 99% of the time want their stuff back AND want the thief caught and punished and/or killed. So, even if the players can pick from like ten NPCs to rob...it is very likely each of the ten will act the very same way.

What science do you base this on because I want to see the reference. I instead make the statement that people will act differently when robbed, so now we could perform psychological/sociological research to get the question answered.

I do think it is true that most people will want the stuff back and the thief caught. However, that doesn't mean they will act the same way. Some people get paranoid, increase the security of their home, feel generally anxious and violated etc. Other people will contact law enforcement, some in a rational way, others in an emotional way. A few people might try to take matters into their own hands and look to get their stuff back themselves. In addition, some people will let this incident affect their values and thus change voting pattern in democratic elections, whereas others will think it was just a single random act and not make a big deal of it.

Yes, most people will want their stuff back and the thief caught, but how they go about to make that happen will differ. In a roleplaying game this should also hold true. In addition, people have a varied amount of resources to put in getting the thieves caught. Stealing form a rich noble and a lowly baker should not impact the game in the same way, as one will have vast resources to spend in trying to catch the thieves whereas the other do not.

And the Good Baron might want to get rid of the PCs just like the Criminals do...and for the same reason: to keep everything that happened unknown and secret. And like I gave in my example..the criminals might go for the direct ''kill them'', but the Baron might take the good route of having the PCs arrested for a real crime (like operating in the kingdom without a chatter from a baron) and have the Pcs 'just ' thrown in prison(where they can't talk to anyone).

Except that is not good, that is Lawful Evil.

If the good baron has a motivation to get rid of the PCs, more likely they will talk to a friendly noble in another country and request a favor to have the PCs start working for them instead. That way, the baron gets the PCs away from the country without doing a morally wrong act (since they will still be alive and paid for their services).

Either way...something might happen. Your way seems to be: Pick evil criminals and something bad will happen,; pick good baron and everything will be a sunshine and rainbows happy ending.

No, my way is "pick the evil criminals and one thing will happen, pick the good baron and another thing will happen". Doesn't have to be sunshine and rainbows, but it will be different.

Your way seems to be: Whatever you pick, the result is the same. Then you call this complex for reasons I can't understand.

It is not the middle, it is *anything*.

If it's anything, then this anything should include good barons that generally behave like good people as well, shouldn't it?

Well...maybe, but wait for it, Anything can happen.

You choose to go to school....and find it too hard and drop out and then get work as a street mime. That could happen. You stay in school and get an education and get a good job...again, could happen. And so on. You can't predict the future on just one action.

Actually, I CAN predict the future on just one action. There are entire fields of study devoted to this, most notably Physics.

Anyway, I can also most definitely predict the "not future" based on one action. For example, if I don't go to the university, I won't end up with a university degree. Simple as that. Same way I know that I will never be President of the US of A, or a star football player.

In reality, anything CAN NOT happen. Some things can happen, and the future is uncertain to some degree, that is true. But it is not, and has never been anything can happen. If that was true, we wouldn't be able to function.