What is Player Agency?

[Darth Ultron]

Since I have not put out any "random" stuff, you are admitting you will never understand anything of importance in these threads. I am glad to hear to recognizing that. But if you recognize you will never understand these topics, why do you keep coming back to display your ignorance?

Each time you throw together some strawman (like "A Lazy Casual DM") it just continues to discredit you in front of everyone. But I guess my standards for intelligent discussion must simply be too high for you to reach.

As for the "Eon DMs" (Really? Another strawman?). You are the only one that criticized them. I was merely pointing out games run by improv DMs do have enough information for player agency. Pointing out where you are wrong is not the same as agreeing with you.

Sadly, I do understand you...I just don't like you.

You all ways toss out ''strawman'' or your other Everyone Words in every post, guess it is just your Defense Mechanism: You say your special word and retreat to a safe place.

And, I know you might not remember, as it was ''an eon'' ago (or to us normal adult folks like ''one page'') that you yourself was the one complaining that you can't take an ''eon to prep for a game''...

Ah Ah Ah! You don't get to misrepresent the situation.

Are you defending the DM randomly, on a whim, for no reason, changing the dagger mid combat into a sword?
Or are you defending the DM deciding, that based on the situation, Zom would have started carrying a sword?
Are you suggesting Darth Ultron likes Random Nonsense OR are you agreeing with the majority in that things change based upon reason?

The above questions misrepresent themselves.

I believe I have figured out how to properly understand Darth Ultron's posts. I shall respond to them with that new understandnig.
Ah, I'm glad that you agree that your described method of Railroad DMing is incorrect, and that you actually don't create random junk, but instead listen to your players and allow them to have impact on your setting.

Well, this is true...except the Railraoad part, as I definitely do that. I'd say it is DM Agency, but all in the Everyone Collective would cry Railroading.

Good, we're making progress! Since you understand now that players are not jerks, but rather cooperating to form the game with you, it's clear that you are an excellent improv DM who does not railroad.

Never said all players are jerks...there are good and bad and neutral players. I am a excellent improv DM that can make an adventure out of nothing at all.....though I'm also improving them along a railroad too.

I'm not sure why you're limiting yourself to Zom only having a dagger, since you could definitely have him go to a store and buy a sword, but since you are afraid of being inconsistent lest you engage in randomness, that's your prerogative. We do need to work on your notion of an evolving setting.

The Everyone Collective has put forth the idea that ''once a DM establishes a fact, it can never be changed''. This is an example of how utterly stupid that idea is.

But lets try another one: On June 1st the DM says ''King Bom has one son: Prince Humperdink". Now the Everyone Collective will pound their little feet and say THAT can never be changed. But the rest of us normal people can accept the ''sudden'' idea of ''oh, King Bom has a unknown daughter too that he previously kept hidden."

I've never heard anyone argue that.

Facts being consistent means that if Zom had a dagger on Monday, then he had a dagger on Monday, and you don't get to say "no, actually he had a sword on Monday."

But did you not just say exactly what I'm talking about?

Say the players have their characters watch Zom for a whole ''game hour'' as he drinks in a tavern on Monday. And they see he only has a dagger. So the stupid game controlling whining players will say ''hehe, lets rob Zom as he only has a dagger''. Then on Tuesday they break into Zom's house...and Zom fights them off with a long sword. And this is when the players break down and cry about how the DM changed things and denied them their player agency.

Control of the game play vs control of the game reality is just a pair of sets on the Player Agency Spectrum, though. Just as Red and Blue are sets on the color spectrum.

Except in the normal game players only effect the game play, they do not control it.

Again, your definitions are of poor quality because they preclude the existence of any sort of middle ground between these extremes. There can be shared control of game reality, especially when the "jurisdictions" are well defined.

I decided to allow the behavior while making clear to them that I was retaining my right to alter or veto any requested NPC contacts as I felt necessary, and I also made clear that I would be playing the roles of these NPCs to reign in any conflict of interest the players might have OOC.

There is no randomness here, the players had a very profound meaning and intent behind their Agency. I haven't had to deny their requests up to this point (they haven't even used it very much so far) and they haven't exploited it beyond the semblance of reason. If anything, it has helped them make reaching their goals simply more logical, practical, and attainable. They created a tool to apply to the game, asked for permission to use it, and have done so quite responsibly.

Ok, well this is all Game Zero stuff....so it does not really count during the game. And your doing it the normal way anyway: the player is asking for something and your saying ''yes, but'' AND keeping full control.

Because most players don't want to break their game. Even when they have the power to turn cheat codes on, they prefer not to do so.

Odd, guess you must only know a very small circle of saints. At least half of normal people can and will cheat to varying degrees if they can get away with it. Even good people can get Tempted By the Dark Side. And this is why society has laws and games have rules.

That said, I'm confused at why he thinks giving the players some agency means that the DM surrenders his role as a DM. That is not at all what happens. The players still have their actions narrated at them. They still have to attempt to succeed things. They are just allowed a little more variety in ways they can approach problems, sometimes taking on situations you weren't ready for as a DM. That is when the improv must start and if you can't pull it off the game isn't going to be very satisfying.

So your saying that having Player Agency is exactly like a normal game....so, in other words, it does not exist? Like when any game has just normal game play...the players have player agency. Seems like a bit of a run around...but ok.

But then you toss in the classic DM hate of doing things the poor DM was not ready for....and really that just seems like a jerk move. So now your saying player agency is when the players go out of their way to show their hatred for the DM by doing something they don't expect and going ''ha, take that stupid DM''. So now your saying that Player Agency is being a Jerk.

Like every time any event happen in the game, the players just sit on the edge of their seat and say ''hehe, how can we mess with and upset the stupid DM"? What kind of game is that? When the player is all ways coming up with a stupid third option only to attack the DM with it, then that player is a Jerk.

Also, making orcs that are sometimes good isn't any more interesting than orcs that are always evil.

Not everything is interesting to everyone.