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 might be worth reading.

[Quixotic1]

My recommendation. In the context of RPGs, the Alexandrian's article on structure 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=kyoryu;25471415]

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.