What is Player Agency?

[OldTrees1]

Wait, how does a DM do a little prep that is more then a lot of prep? Like the normal DM writes down a couple pages of Dark Forest notes. The causal DM jots down some stuff on a cocktail napkin. And your saying the casual DM has more stuff?


Well...your describing the prepared DM, not the casual improv one. I think your mixing the two up.


But you will still have the improv no agency problem: The DM improvs something at 5 pm, but then improvs something else at 6pm, and the players, unknowingly, make a choice based on the old 5pm knowledge.

As I said before, until you understand how improv games work (especially how the less prep results in having more information) then you will be hopelessly mistaken about everything about improv games.

So how does the improv DM end up with more information despite doing less prep? The prep the improv DM does puts them in the situation such that they can accurately answer any question about unprepared material as if they had prepared it. As such they have more information than could have been prepared because they can accurately answer any question that could be asked.

Since the unprepared material can be learned about and interacted with as if it had been prepared, the players can have greater agency than in a game without improv.


Consider the time it takes to prepare the Dark Forest to a sufficient detail for the PCs to have an adventure about some villain that has a home/base/dungeon in the Dark Forest. You could write 20 pages of notes to handle all the information you expect to need. Or I could write 12 sentences and have all the information I could possibly need to run this adventure, and the next 3 adventures with a level of detail that exceeds your 20 pages (partially because I would be able to access the information neither of us prepared).

[Max_Killjoy]

As I said before, until you understand how improv games work (especially how the less prep results in having more information) then you will be hopelessly mistaken about everything about improv games.

So how does the improv DM end up with more information despite doing less prep? The prep the improv DM does puts them in the situation such that they can accurately answer any question about unprepared material as if they had prepared it. As such they have more information than could have been prepared because they can accurately answer any question that could be asked.

Since the unprepared material can be learned about and interacted with as if it had been prepared, the players can have greater agency than in a game without improv.

I would say that every GM has to do SOME improvisation, and it's a sliding scale.

What I spend my worldbuilding and prep work on is based on what will get me the most bang for my buck once we're at the table.

This is part of why I want robust, internally consistent worldbuilding, and rules that are in sync with the setting and feel -- once I have that framework, making consistent rulings and improvising coherent content becomes far easier, because I have a good starting point and something to base everything on as the game goes along.

In my experience, a GM who concentrates on what they think is going to happen instead of the underlying world and history and reasons, ends up creating from a vacuum when they go off their script... whereas a GM who doesn't prewrite a specific script is never asked to go off script.

[OldTrees1]

@Max_Killjoy

I would agree. It is a scale. Although technically CRPGs are examples of 0 improv.

Also good example of prep.

[kyoryu]

Well...your describing the prepared DM, not the casual improv one. I think your mixing the two up.

Improv does not equal not prepping. It does equal not deciding what the players will do. You can prep a ton as an improv GM. You just don't decide what the players do. That's their job.

[Segev]

Well, if it is in an adventure I will have a good page or so about the group and the important NPCs. Generally I will cover anything about the adventure and things I know the players might ask or bring up.

So then using all that as a base, plus any actions taken by the characters I will create the NPC...but it feels odd to call this pure improve as it does have a lot of pre made stuff.

I have never written a script for an NPC. And I never said I did not improve...but I also change anything on a whim. I would never do the ''well back in 2016 I said NPC Zom had a dagger and As I can never, ever change anything...NPC Zom still has that same dagger."

Wait. Given your definition of "improvise" and what you just said here, does that mean you run totally random games where nothing happens that makes any sense?

[dascarletm]

Anything a DM has said as an NPC that wasn't pre-written is improvisation. TTRPGs are very similar to doing an improv skit, that's what makes them good. The players come up with whatever actions they want to try and do, and the DM uses their brain as a processor to determine the reactions and effects on the world.

[Quertus]

Phyre, but yes. That's me.

And this (and autocorrect) are why I just say PP

*IC agency is what we do when we're actually on-camera playing. Do I go left or do I go right. What decisions, attitudes, and beliefs will my character portray at the table? How does he or she approach the problems at hand? What do they prioritize? What trade-offs are they willing to accept to get what they want? How much risk will the character take? These type of decisions characterize IC agency. In my opinion, IC agency should be maintained throughout at high levels. Only the player can choose to give up this agency, no one else can take it from them (at least not and be justified in doing so).

Interesting that this is almost all internal. I guess I missed this the first time. Is that intentional?

Also, I'm guessing you're not a fan of mind control?

IC agency does not extend to waving away consequences--if by the known consequences of the action you end up a pariah, you can't demand to be treated as royalty. You gave up that agency through prior choices. A level 1 fighter can't take the Cast a Spell action (in 5e D&D). That's a consequence of the OOC decision you made to play a fighter. You also can't demand things beyond the standard resolution mechanics. This comes up a lot with "But I hit them in the head, they should die!" exploits I see from new players. No, you aimed at the head, hit somehow, and did 1d8 + 3 damage. These limits are not reductions of agency--they're enforcement of foreseeable consequences. As they say (in a different context): "You're free to choose, but not free to choose the consequences."

So, in your opinion, does IC agency extend to getting to take the Attack action as a Fighter to deal the expected 1d8+3 damage and not some arbitrary effect, or to be able to take the cast action as a Wizard (assuming certain conditions such as available spells have been met) and have that have a predictable effect? Or is that not part of Agency, under your "not free to choose the consequences" bit?

[PhoenixPhyre]

And this (and autocorrect) are why I just say PP



Interesting that this is almost all internal. I guess I missed this the first time. Is that intentional?

Also, I'm guessing you're not a fan of mind control?



So, in your opinion, does IC agency extend to getting to take the Attack action as a Fighter to deal the expected 1d8+3 damage and not some arbitrary effect, or to be able to take the cast action as a Wizard (assuming certain conditions such as available spells have been met) and have that have a predictable effect? Or is that not part of Agency, under your "not free to choose the consequences" bit?

Agency is mostly internal because those are the only things you have direct control over as a player. Certainly external attempts are part of agency--you have the freedom to attempt anything not precluded by the consequences of previous choices made by your characters or by the actions of others.

Your second question (about predictable results) involves a couple of the parts of agency:

Choice: Is taking the Attack/Cast a Spell action an allowed thing at this time? That depends on the situation, but we'll assume yes, that there are no blocking conditions.
Consequences: Are there consequences for taking that action (as opposed to a different one, including inaction)? If no, or if all actions result in the same consequences, you have no agency.
Knowledge: Are the results of that predictable (within acceptable uncertainty). If not--if swinging a sword makes purple unicorns appear instead of dealing damage and that fact wasn't knowable (you may have failed your INT check to know about that, for example), as an extreme example--you don't have agency. The consequences are at someone else's whim so what you do isn't based (as far as it is possible to tell) on the action.

As a result, things with spelled-out mechanical effects should have those effects (nothing more and nothing less) as a general rule. Exceptions should be just that, exceptional and clearly telegraphed. This maximizes predictability, which is a component of knowledge.

But yes, that's IC agency, not OOC agency. The character is acting in the fiction and the consequences are also in-fiction.

[Jama7301]

There's just something about some of these definitions of player agency that aren't sitting right with me. I can't put my finger on it, but something feels off. Not sure if it's actually related to anything said, or if I'm being reflexively defensive and second guessing myself as a DM because of the thread.

This is a garbage feeling because I can't figure out exactly why I don't agree with these definitions. To me, they all seem reasonable on their face. They seem like workable, effective definitions, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why my gut is pushing back.

[Cluedrew]

As I said before, I'd like to see a discussion of common ways DMs or players violate other players' (or the DM's) agency, especially unintentional violations. But that could possibly be its own thread.

Do we think we have enough to turn this into its own thread? It sounds kind of interesting but at the same time I'm not sure how much there is to say about it.

I mean you could do case studies and stuff, but I feel the basic loop of considering what the players- can do and how this would effect the story is pretty simple. Of course you have to add knowledge, so also consider what the players- know about the above as well.

To Jama7301: I get that feeling sometimes too, disagreeing but not knowing why. Out of curiosity, which definitions in particular are getting that reaction?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Do we think we have enough to turn this into its own thread? It sounds kind of interesting but at the same time I'm not sure how much there is to say about it.

I mean you could do case studies and stuff, but I feel the basic loop of considering what the players- can do and how this would effect the story is pretty simple. Of course you have to add knowledge, so also consider what the players- know about the above as well.

To Jama7301: I get that feeling sometimes too, disagreeing but not knowing why. Out of curiosity, which definitions in particular are getting that reaction?

That's why I specified the unintentional ones. Most of us (barring DU) know not to directly railroad (removing choice). But are there ways that we commonly deny knowledge or consequences without intending to? Patterns of thought or speech that lead to stepping on a player's toes? That's what I'd love to discuss so I can better avoid them.

[Jama7301]

To Jama7301: I get that feeling sometimes too, disagreeing but not knowing why. Out of curiosity, which definitions in particular are getting that reaction?

It may not even be a single definition but the premise that "Player Agency is always good and proper, and any encroachment on it is the single worst thing a DM could ever do."

Granted, this could very easily be me misrepresenting the thread, and it's more than likely being painted by personal experiences, but there is something I just can't shake that's keeping me from being 100% on board. Everything seems reasonable. And the argument that the players should have a lot of freedom is right. There's just a small feeling I can't shake that's keeping me from going wholeheartedly into "yes, this I agree with 100%".

[pwykersotz]

It may not even be a single definition but the premise that "Player Agency is always good and proper, and any encroachment on it is the single worst thing a DM could ever do."

Granted, this could very easily be me misrepresenting the thread, and it's more than likely being painted by personal experiences, but there is something I just can't shake that's keeping me from being 100% on board. Everything seems reasonable. And the argument that the players should have a lot of freedom is right. There's just a small feeling I can't shake that's keeping me from going wholeheartedly into "yes, this I agree with 100%".

In my opinion, you are correct. You can have too much of a good thing, in part because it can choke out other good things. We don't all game for the same reasons. For a very few, agency is the only point to a TRPG. It's preference though, not objective fact that that full agency is better. I like a more middle ground. I like it when the DM takes the loose collection of adventures that we generate with our actions, forms a meta-narrative that is sensible and dramatic, and funnels us toward that end. The funneling is a distinct lack of agency, but it's exactly what I want.

[Cluedrew]

Although I think you could catch some of those with that refection, I see your point.

I mentioned two before (requiring discovery and a path of least resistance). I think the big one, that leads to most of the innocent railroading, is guessing (or assuming you know) how the players will exert their agency. I just realized I have to go so I don't have time to explain it, but it can lead to some unintentional railroading.

To Jama7301: Just saw that and... short answer the amount can go up and down (For instance, during the consequences of their last bit of 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.

[Darth Ultron]

I tied to point that out several posts ago.

One of the basic rules of improv acting and improv comedy is that the participants don't contradict or no-sell the starting premise or what's already been said on stage. Likewise for improvisation as a tool in an RPG, one of the basic expectations is that you don't contradict what's already been established in the campaign.

But as with so many other terms, DU is going to keep basing is arguments on a definition of "improv" that is retro-crafted to justify his position.

But now your going way past improv in to silly group happy hug kidz stuff(sorry can't use the real words here). You want the idea where everyone follows YOUR rules, that you will say ''oh everyone else does, just be One Of Us."

The basic idea that ''once anyone improvs something it is forever set and no one can alter it'', is just dumb.

As I said before, until you understand how improv games work (especially how the less prep results in having more information) then you will be hopelessly mistaken about everything about improv games.

I'll admit I do not understand how the (Not)Everyone Collective Improv game works.

When I think Improv, I'm thinking: DM just makes up whatever they want on a whim. The DM is free to base whatever they make up on something, or not. The players 100% just sit back and do not suggest, ask or demand that the DM make up stuff for them.

So...some have said an Improv game is a Player Controlled game: Where the lazy casual DM just sits back an Improvs whatever the player wants: DM: "So Player, what is in the wooden chest" ; Player: "one million gold coins!" DM: "It is so."

Others seem to say an Improv game is a normal game...just as a normal game might have some improv in it? That does not make much sense to me.

So how does the improv DM end up with more information despite doing less prep? The prep the improv DM does puts them in the situation such that they can accurately answer any question about unprepared material as if they had prepared it. As such they have more information than could have been prepared because they can accurately answer any question that could be asked.

Since the unprepared material can be learned about and interacted with as if it had been prepared, the players can have greater agency than in a game without improv.

I guess your just so desperate to be right you will just say any nonsense?

If the Improv DM has prepared something like a Normal DM....then they are now a Normal DM. Seems simple enough.

Consider the time it takes to prepare the Dark Forest to a sufficient detail for the PCs to have an adventure about some villain that has a home/base/dungeon in the Dark Forest. You could write 20 pages of notes to handle all the information you expect to need. Or I could write 12 sentences and have all the information I could possibly need to run this adventure, and the next 3 adventures with a level of detail that exceeds your 20 pages (partially because I would be able to access the information neither of us prepared).

Maybe you should check your math. More information is better then less.

Like the Normal DM makes an encounter of three pages of a Deaths Head Tree with all the needed detail. The lazy improv Player called dm just scribbles on a Taco Bell napkin ''death tree is bad and coolz''. Gee, it is hard to see what will work out better in the game play.

Improv does not equal not prepping. It does equal not deciding what the players will do. You can prep a ton as an improv GM. You just don't decide what the players do. That's their job.

Ok, but this definition would mean all DMs are improve DMs...so it does not really work. It is like saying ''an Improv DM controls all the NPC's of the world'' or ''an Improv DM rolls dice''.

Wait. Given your definition of "improvise" and what you just said here, does that mean you run totally random games where nothing happens that makes any sense?

It would be fair to say my game would look like that, to you, yes.

I know the horror of your type of player well: At 5pm as DM I would say D'rk only has a dagger for a weapon. Then at 6pm, and three game days later, I would say D'rk has a dagger and a long bow and a quiver of arrows. Then the poor, bad, player that could not handle that random ''breaking the dumb Everyone Collective Rules of Improv" would be crying in the corner and between sobs saying "it's not right, the DM said he only had a dagger and that must be unchanged forever!"

Anything a DM has said as an NPC that wasn't pre-written is improvisation. TTRPGs are very similar to doing an improv skit, that's what makes them good. The players come up with whatever actions they want to try and do, and the DM uses their brain as a processor to determine the reactions and effects on the world.

Sounds good, and this is the way I do it in my games.....but the Everyone Collective does things differently.

That's why I specified the unintentional ones. Most of us (barring DU) know not to directly railroad (removing choice). But are there ways that we commonly deny knowledge or consequences without intending to? Patterns of thought or speech that lead to stepping on a player's toes? That's what I'd love to discuss so I can better avoid them.

I love mind control and forcing characters and players to do stuff.....sounds like a good thread.

[Cluedrew]

I love mind control and forcing characters and players to do stuff.....sounds like a good thread.

You want a thread about not doing the things you love?

In other news: That's not what improvisation means. Standard answer number 3.

[Pleh]

"Player Agency is always good and proper, and any encroachment on it is the single worst thing a DM could ever do."

Let's back this up a few scales to wax philosophic:

"Freedom is always better than restriction."

In general, it is true (or at least I would agree with the statement). All things being equal, freedom is essentially preferable to limitation.

But we still don't actually like anarchy in our living society. Why? Because people do really nasty and mean things with freedom.

In that sense, DU is quite right that some players use their agency to hijack a game, but his problem is the active presumption that this is the ONLY thing that freedom (and player agency) is ever used for which is wildly and ridiculously incorrect.

Just because freedom does *sometimes* need to be limited for the sake of the general good, that doesn't mean that it always should be (much less that it should be taken away as much as possible and at every opportunity). In fact, it's rather better that freedom not be taken away to any degree greater than demonstrably necessary for the common good.

And it's this key word: "Demonstrably" where so much trouble arises. DU represents the inherent problem that demonstration involves perception and there is no cure for the fact that so many of us have wildly varying perceptions of reality. In discussions like this one, we can gradually remedy the schism in our differences of opinion and perspective, but we can never fully come to absolute parallel thinking (nor is that by itself a necessary or even desirable goal, since it is of no benefit to have absolute agreement in an incorrect idea).

That is, we can remedy the schism if we have any honest intention of actually making an attempt to change our own perspective on reality. We can easily just argue blindly without giving any thought to arguments that run contrary to our preconceptions.

My general rule of thumb is to trust my gut. What you're posting about is an admission that you are experiencing awareness of cognitive dissonance. You are having trouble reconciling reason with feeling. Reason seems to be telling you to be more open to your players and your feelings are saying don't do it. This tells me that you have trust issues with your players.

You know what? Maybe your games have given you more reason to be mistrustful than some of the other people here. Maybe the people you've played with are less worthy of the trust that comes with Player Agency. Trust should not be given out blindly. By agreeing to a Tabletop session with other people, there's a good amount of trust involved. If the people involved don't deserve the trust, then it may be proper to limit player agency to ensure the Gentleman's Agreement isn't exploited or violated. In case DU is reading this, it is a sliding scale of Player Agency, not an "on/off" switch as you seem to think.

By the point that player agency is totally unacceptable in any form, why are you bothering to play at all with such people? They're clearly too toxic a gamer to be trusted with the fundamental elements of play.

And no, DU, scaring them off with a statue of General Lee is not a good way to measure this kind of thing.

Most normal, classic games do not have any sort of direct player control of the game. All the control of the game is with the DM. Sure, a player can always ask for something to be added...but note that is ask, not tell, the DM.

I disagree with your definition of a "normal, classic" game. These terms imply a misconception. A statistically typical game involves an ample portion of player control of the game. Even a Conventional dungeon crawl has a good deal of player control.

"I tunnel through the walls."

"I withdraw from the fight using Teleport."

"Is there a Chandelier?"

"I use Diplomacy."

Each of these choices demonstrate "normal, classic" player control of the game. Sure, the DM could just veto these things, but they really shouldn't just always do this. They should always only veto player creative choices when it benefits the game (for the players moreso than the DM, because the DM's job is to entertain their players, not the other way around).

I'm not sure why you think players ''deserve'' more control?

Because Freedom is better than not having freedom.

The DM already has no restrictions at all (even the rules are subject to DM fiat) and can do literally whatever the players will tolerate. They not only don't need more freedom, but they literally can't have any more.

Your parents really never taught you why it's better to share your toys rather than just hoard them all to yourself?

If you tell a playmate that you wish to play with them, then by all means play WITH them. Being DM does not make you dictator of your game. The game belongs to the players as well as the DM. They should all have creative control of the flow of narrative. They deserve control of their own little corner of your universe.

[Lorsa]

I can get that. But a GM can adhere both to spirit and the letter of the law without the game giving you options which you desire.

I think one of the disconnects here is that you're looking at this from a player's perspective, where at least on player-character combination's (yours) traits are known. I'm looking at this from the perspective of a scenario designer to whom no player-character combinations might be known. Think of this way: suppose you're using the definion of agency which includes player preferences. So far, so good. But you don't know who your players will be nor what they prefer, so you will have to use a hypothetical player. As the variety and number of different hypothetical players you're willing to consider increases, the amount of "agency" revealed by this method steadily approaches the neutral definition where all possible choices are considered to be part of it.

That is indeed a disconnect. The reason why I am looking at it from a player's perspective despite being a GM in 95% of all my gaming history ought to be fairly obvious. The people that are mostly concerned with player agency (PA) is obviously the players themselves. Or well, maybe it isn't obvious or always true actually, but still I think it is somewhat natural to adopt a player perspective when talking about PA. And, in the end, the player is less concerned with there actually being agency as they are with their feeling of having agency.

Enough about that though. It is true that PA is different when looking at it from the view of a scenario designer, especially if no information on the players or their characters is available. In such a case, you do have to do your best to devise a scenario with as much PA as possible given the neutral definition provided. I do agree with that.

Most of the games I have played in have not been created in a vacuum though. The GM usually knows the players and after character creation, also the characters. In such a case, the scenario actually can be written with choices directed towards specific characters.

Here is a version of the graph I referred to earlier. You're looking for a game where your skill as a player intersects with difficulty of the game, to provide an experience which feels arousing. Agency is involved only so far as high agency requires more skill to use.

True enough. Interestingly, that is also what I am looking for as a GM, so when I have players for whom it is best to run simple adventure scenarios that I have created tons of already, I tend to feel bored. Having high PA in games where I am the GM also increases the game difficulty for me, as I know have to adapt and improvise more.

If "take damage" and "suffer humiliation" also proceed the game in other ways, then the scenario structure will be divergent, at least initially, so it can lead to a high agency game if the outcomes for the options to proceed continue to be relevantly different.

Well, first I was thinking that they advance the game in the same way as [forward], just with an added drawback. But let's forget about that silly example and proceed with your more detailed description.

The point of the example game, "Eat this cake OR DIE", was to demonstrate that we can't assume option 1) is the most appealing option without specifying both a) the character and b) the contents of the variable "proceed". If "take damage" and "suffer humiliation" also proceed the game in other ways, the choices presented are made considerably less trivial than the version where "take damage" and "suffer humiliation" don't.

We can use the following notation to describe the choices:

Option 1: Go to Event X
Option 2: Go to Event Y + suffer consequence i.
Option 3: Go to Event Z + suffer consequence s.
Option 4: Suffer consequence d

Where X, Y and Z are variable, i is constant for injury, s is constant for humiliation and d is constant of death.

With this types of choices, we can no longer safely assume that Option 1 is without cost, nor can we assume Options 2 or 3 are of too high a cost, to all player-character combinations. The amount of available choices and factors to be considered just rose by a rather significant exponent.

If we expand this example to something where i,s are no longer constant (and forget about option 4) then we can analyze different types of game scenarios in the light of our various agency definitions.

So the first choice that shows up is:

Option 1: Go to Event X
Option 2: Go to Event Y + suffer consequence i.
Option 3: Go to Event Z + suffer consequence s.

where the "optimal" choice is clearly character dependent, that we both agree on.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a character values X>Y>Z and would rather avoid s>i. This character will obviously choose option 1. Now, if the game proceeds by continually presenting options identical to the first (but with the Events having slightly different appearance), then the character will choose 1 on each and every intersection. It is thus a foregone conclusion where they will end up, even though they've been presented with 3 different choices 10 times in the game. Would you say that this was a high agency game?

My view is that in order to achieve real agency in the game, the events and consequences have to be scrambled so that the character will face any combination of them. For example, when the same character encounters:

Option 1: Go to Event X+ suffer consequence s.
Option 2: Go to Event Y + suffer consequence i.
Option 3: Go to Event Z

then suddenly the choice is not as obvious anymore. Now you have to value how much you actually want to avoid s compared with how much you want Event X and so on.

I guess that you would also think that a game which provides a larger variation in the choices have higher agency than the which only provides the same type of choice multiple times (though with different aesthetics). So it is possible that both definition ends up with the same end result.

However, my additional claim is that the first type of choice, where you value X>Y>Z and dislike both consequences is not much of a choice at all. A scenario designer will know that a character who values X highest will always end up at X, and a GM who knows a character is motivated by X knows what they will pick. My objection, as you know, is with GMs who insist on providing choices such as these where one option is always in line with the character's motivations without any additional dr

The joke here is that the GM doesn't need to be using your algorithm to create the scenarios.

They don't even need to be fully aware of your algorithm, yet they can still be presenting only scenarios which are obvious to you.

Most of the time, a GM tends to know what characters are playing in their campaign, at least after character creation.

I will obviously have different expectations on PA if I play a pre-made scenario at a convention compared to a campaign constructed for a group of players after character creation.

Again, there are (at least) two different things you could be talking about here. One is where the GM read your character notes and tailored the scenario so only one option at every branch suits you. The other is where you read the GM's campaign notes or otherwise came up with a powerfull enough (or restrictive enough) algorithm to narrow each choice down to one "obvious" option.

In the latter sort of cases, the GM didn't intentionally design the choices to be obvious (and might not consider them obvious), you did by introducing your algorithm. It is very much you who is exercising agency at each branch point, you just predetermined your choices by pregaming the game.

As must be evident at this point, I am talking mainly about the first thing. I am not in the habit of reading campaign notes unless they are my own.

Maybe, but it's you railroading yourself. I know you're fundamentally approaching this from the viewpoint where the GM is intentionally crafting their scenario in this way, but again, the GM doesn't need to be doing that for what you describe to happen. Because of this, you don't get to abdicate responsibility of determinism you introduce to the game, on the GM. It can be your whole input lied in character creation only because you gave too much input.

Fair enough, and ideally if such a thing happened, the issue could be solved by an OOC discussion. Like for example, I could say "I would like to be presented with more complex choices" or some such.

Nevertheless, I would note that I believe it is basic roleplaying to, you know, play the character in a believable, semi-consistent manner based on the personality described at the start. It seems rather odd to assume that in order to achieve true PA, one has to discard the character's personality and motivations and just pick any option when a choice is presented. I don't believe it is giving it "too much input", rather I am thinking of a normal amount of input combined with a rather simple scenario design.

But it is you determining the outcome when it's your algorithm that makes the choices obvious. You are choosing in advance due to pregaming the game, but it's still you choosing. You don't get to abdicate responsibility of that on the GM, because again, the GM doesn't need to be violating either spirit or the letter of the game. The GM might have never known the choices will be obvious, because the GM didn't know beforehand which sort of character you were going to play, or which sort of player you are.

I suppose this depends on the sequence of events in question. If approaching a set scenario, then yes, I am creating my own determinism. However, if the opposite is true, that my character is created first and the scenario later, then I do believe the responsibility lies with the GM. This is the basis for my argument, that I have created a character whom the GM then proceeds to create a scenario for where, given the character provided, the outcome is already a given. In such a case, my entire input on the game lies at the start. In the other case, where the GM creates a scenario that targets unspecified parts of the character's personality, or puts two motivations against each other, then my input will be continuous throughout the game.

There is no such thing as liar-proof semantics. What you ask for flat-out does not exist.

If you try to bake in player preferences into the definition of agency, you will just get manipulative GMs who will claim that you actually like something you hate. We know from elsewhere that this is actually a pretty standard manipulative strategy and you can make people second-guess their own preferences to a frightening extent.

Well, I am an idealist at heart. So, I would like to create a liar-proof semantics. Basically I am looking for the imagined "Third Option" here that is the enemy of Good.

Yes. It predictably leads to Trying to Take a Third Option: Eat your cake and save it too. Usually followed by failure due to overextension.

Like, this is where the barrier between your categories 2) and 3) breaks apart. At a glance, a choice between "equal goods" should be in category 3): choice between multiple desired things. However, based on the existing options, this kind of player will imagine a non-existent option with all desired traits of the other options. Compared to this non-existent option, all existing options feel less derieable, causing the decision to fall to category 2). Once again, Perfect is the enemy of Good.

My players don't have a history of complaining over the net, but I sure do see a lot of this sort of player from other groups crop up every single time when, say, moral dilemmas for Paladins are discussed, insisting the GM is a Bad Person if they don't allow the third option.

Well, trying to take a third option is obviously also an option, even if it results in failure. All that means is that the player couldn't see that this was a futile road. Hopefully it was a learning experience, otherwise the character might continue to not do any good at all due to constant failure form overexertion. At least the GM presented complex options.

"Experiencing a fantasy where they get to be the hero" is one possible outcome of a roleplaying game, so what you're saying doesn't really make sense to me.

It is absolutely one possible outcome of a roleplaying game. All I said was that such a player with such a desire might not be overly concerned with whether or not PA is present. As long as they always get their highest desired choice of always doing good, they are happy.

Just by looking at the different aesthetics of play, "Fantasy" is a very different drive compared to "Expression".

1) They think it'd be funny.
2) They think the game has run its course, and terminating their character is fastest way to get out of the game. This can happen both out of satisfaction with the game or frustration with the game.
3) They think the character has run its course, and terminating their character is the fastest way to get back into the game. (This happens with savvy players who realize their character is in a deadlock, but that end of one character doesn't necessarily mean having to stop playing. So they figure out a reason for the character to self-terminate so they can continue with another. My favorite example was a cleric who got up to his knees in debt to an army officer. So, the cleric decided to go on a "date with a dragon". Seriously, they bought roses and everything. Well, the dragon predictably killed them. This had the consequence of freeing all the other player characters of that situation, since none of them had strong enough connection to the cleric for the debt to be moved on to them.)

I can certainly understand 1), although I would not want to GM for such a player.
I can sort of understand 2), although I don't understand why simply walking away from the table isn't possible.
I can't quite understand 3) though, nor would I approve of it in any game I ran. Other people might think differently though, and I don't object to their games in principle. However, I don't think it is a correct portrayal of the character, and a player who does that sort of thing just to get out of some minor negative consequences would not be allowed to make a new character (unless it was, say, a family member who had taken over the debt).

[Darth Ultron]

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.

I think you missed my point where the Core books have very little fluff race information. So just where are you looking for all of the information?

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.

It is possible, any idea what that might be?

Maybe we can break it down to the two Cool Everyone Collective ways:

1.The Alignment Game: The game uses Alignment, as pre the rules. Good is good, evil is evil. Things are very black and white and direct.
2.The Gray Game: The game has no Alignment and does not use any such rules. Anything can be anything, or not. Things might be as they seem, or not.

(there is the #3 here, the one I use, but lets keep it simple and just talk about the above two)

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.

I agree, in general, about culture change. I put lots of culture in my games.

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?

Yes, that would both be wrong.

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.

Odd, I said that in a gray world, any group is just as likely to betray the characters as any other group. Then you jumped to things must go the way the players want and there must all ways be that good escape option for the players to pick.

I never said ''equally evil'' , the example was a Evil Crime Lord and a Good Baron, that would both, in Evil or Good ways cause problems for the Characters.

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.

This is just the one example problem here.

What the hell does complexity mean to you really?

We will use the Everyone Collective WordSpeak: Gray Game(aka no alignment).

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?

The game makes an internal sense to just itself, but not to people on the outside. For the most part the example you give would never randomly just happen....but they could. It might be the biggest difference between My Game and Your Game: I let the players know anything can and might happen, your more of like ''we all agree to do things this One Way Forever Unchanging''.

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.

Yes.

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?

Just as anything might happen, does not say it will...or that it will in a timely fashion. A character might wait a life time for a bolt from the blue to do something...so they might want to just do an action themselves.

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.

I would note that Real Life is not like that. In Real Life, anything can happen.

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.

But my point is everywhere has Health Care, it is just the details that are different.

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.

My argument is most people will do ''something'' to get there stolen stuff back...and, yes, some won't. But most people will do ''something''. So rob two people, there is a very, very, very good chance that they will both ''do something''. So the players have two choices: rob person A or B, but both will ''do something'' if they are robbed.

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).

You can debate ''what ifs'', but arresting characters that commit crimes is a common thing good people do.

You want a thread about not doing the things you love?

Well, as always, I would be the Lone Voice of Another Option not given by the Everyone Collective.

I disagree with your definition of a "normal, classic" game. These terms imply a misconception. A statistically typical game involves an ample portion of player control of the game. Even a Conventional dungeon crawl has a good deal of player control.

Each of these choices demonstrate "normal, classic" player control of the game. Sure, the DM could just veto these things, but they really shouldn't just always do this. They should always only veto player creative choices when it benefits the game (for the players moreso than the DM, because the DM's job is to entertain their players, not the other way around).

But your talking about a Player having a character take actions within the game structure....there is no control. The players actions effect only the game play, not the game reality/meta reality.

Normal game- Player says to the DM who is in control of the game- "Zom will try and open the door". The DM, by themselves, decides what will happen based on the rules, game reality, whims or anything else they feel like and make a decision then tell the player something like "Zom finds the door is locked and he can't open it''. See, the only thing a player did here was (try) to do an action with their character in the game world reality.

Player Controlled game-The Player that has total control over the game says to the Figurehead DM with no control-"Zom will open the door and find a pile of one million gold coins in side the room''. The DM, that simply does whatever the Players say, then says "Yes, Zom opens the door and finds a pile of one million gold coins." So, here the Player is in total control.

Your parents really never taught you why it's better to share your toys rather than just hoard them all to yourself?

I had special ''share toys''

[OldTrees1]

I'll admit I do not understand how the (Not)Everyone Collective Improv game works.

When I think Improv, I'm thinking: DM just makes up whatever they want on a whim. The DM is free to base whatever they make up on something, or not. The players 100% just sit back and do not suggest, ask or demand that the DM make up stuff for them.

So...some have said an Improv game is a Player Controlled game: Where the lazy casual DM just sits back an Improvs whatever the player wants: DM: "So Player, what is in the wooden chest" ; Player: "one million gold coins!" DM: "It is so."

Others seem to say an Improv game is a normal game...just as a normal game might have some improv in it? That does not make much sense to me.

As expected you have no idea at all what an improv game is. You keep trying to cast it as a Random game or a Tyrant Player game. When you don't know what you are talking about, it discredits everything you say on the topic.

I guess your just so desperate to be right you will just say any nonsense?

If the Improv DM has prepared something like a Normal DM....then they are now a Normal DM. Seems simple enough.

Maybe you should check your math. More information is better then less.

Like the Normal DM makes an encounter of three pages of a Deaths Head Tree with all the needed detail. The lazy improv Player called dm just scribbles on a Taco Bell napkin ''death tree is bad and coolz''. Gee, it is hard to see what will work out better in the game play.

The prep one does for improv DMing is different than the prep one does for normal DMing. That is why the improv DM can fit more information into less prep than the normal DM can. More information is usually better than less, but less prep results in more information.

You would write 3 pages on a Deaths Head Tree encounter. With just 2-3 sentences the improv DM has access to more information about the Death's Head Trees, the other encounters in the forest (including location, movement, and development), and a head start on information about the villian & their lair.

If you wish to understand the world, you need to step outside of your strawmen. Only then will you have a chance at curing your ignorance.

[Quertus]

It may not even be a single definition but the premise that "Player Agency is always good and proper, and any encroachment on it is the single worst thing a DM could ever do."

Granted, this could very easily be me misrepresenting the thread, and it's more than likely being painted by personal experiences, but there is something I just can't shake that's keeping me from being 100% on board. Everything seems reasonable. And the argument that the players should have a lot of freedom is right. There's just a small feeling I can't shake that's keeping me from going wholeheartedly into "yes, this I agree with 100%".

Personally, I believe that the GM should have full Agency to create the world. If a player wants to belong to an order of Paladin Ninjas led by the disposed rightful ruler of the land, it's up to the GM to determine whether that fits into their world or not.

On the other hand, when the GM restricts the players, there has best be good reason. Suppose the pitch went like this:

Everyone must play an elf, with +3 LA in templates. You must take your first 5 levels in one of these base class: Ninja, Swashbuckler, Binder, Warlock, or Shugenja. Then you must prestige out into one prestige class for 4 levels, then to another for the remainder of the character's career. One of these prestige classes must be chosen from the GM's homebrew. WBL will be twice normal, but restricted to (MMORPG-style) random availability.

Most GM restrictions I've encountered either came with no payoff, or were based on idiot misunderstandings of game balance ("core only, for balance").

But now your going way past improv in to silly group happy hug kidz stuff(sorry can't use the real words here). You want the idea where everyone follows YOUR rules, that you will say ''oh everyone else does, just be One Of Us."

The basic idea that ''once anyone improvs something it is forever set and no one can alter it'', is just dumb.

Reality changing with no firm footing is just dumb.

Why do I say that? Well, because there is no intellect involved. You don't have to remember facts, you neither have to nor can plan based on known facts, etc. One can be mind-numbingly dumb and manage inconsistency; consistency requires (some form of) intellect.

So that's my "why" on the counterargument. Why do you say keeping facts consistent is dumb?

That is indeed a disconnect. The reason why I am looking at it from a player's perspective despite being a GM in 95% of all my gaming history ought to be fairly obvious. The people that are mostly concerned with player agency (PA) is obviously the players themselves. Or well, maybe it isn't obvious or always true actually, but still I think it is somewhat natural to adopt a player perspective when talking about PA. And, in the end, the player is less concerned with there actually being agency as they are with their feeling of having agency.

My original definition of Player Agency was flawed for much the same reason: because I created my definition based on which forms of Player Agency I valued.

So, I suppose, the question is, is there a way to optimize the experience to produce the maximum feeling of Agency?

The part of Agency I care about is that the PCs be able to do everything their characters are capable of doing. This is why I have a strong desire for good rules, and/or, on the flip side, a GM who is open to creative solutions, and who makes good rulings. I've played under dozens (perhaps 100+?) GMs, and I've only met one whose rulings were consistently acceptable.

If we expand this example to something where i,s are no longer constant (and forget about option 4) then we can analyze different types of game scenarios in the light of our various agency definitions.

So the first choice that shows up is:

Option 1: Go to Event X
Option 2: Go to Event Y + suffer consequence i.
Option 3: Go to Event Z + suffer consequence s.

where the "optimal" choice is clearly character dependent, that we both agree on.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a character values X>Y>Z and would rather avoid s>i. This character will obviously choose option 1. Now, if the game proceeds by continually presenting options identical to the first (but with the Events having slightly different appearance), then the character will choose 1 on each and every intersection. It is thus a foregone conclusion where they will end up, even though they've been presented with 3 different choices 10 times in the game. Would you say that this was a high agency game?

My view is that in order to achieve real agency in the game, the events and consequences have to be scrambled so that the character will face any combination of them. For example, when the same character encounters:

Option 1: Go to Event X+ suffer consequence s.
Option 2: Go to Event Y + suffer consequence i.
Option 3: Go to Event Z

then suddenly the choice is not as obvious anymore. Now you have to value how much you actually want to avoid s compared with how much you want Event X and so on.

I guess that you would also think that a game which provides a larger variation in the choices have higher agency than the which only provides the same type of choice multiple times (though with different aesthetics). So it is possible that both definition ends up with the same end result.

However, my additional claim is that the first type of choice, where you value X>Y>Z and dislike both consequences is not much of a choice at all. A scenario designer will know that a character who values X highest will always end up at X, and a GM who knows a character is motivated by X knows what they will pick. My objection, as you know, is with GMs who insist on providing choices such as these where one option is always in line with the character's motivations without any additional dr

IMO, this is an issue of GM skills, to make sure the adventure is varied in terms of what types of options / solutions that have what types of consequences attached. Of course, then again, usually, legal options don't have "go to jail" as a potential consequence. But I'm not sure to what extent it's related to Player Agency - and, certainly, if the module is written before the character is selected or created, it would be difficult for the GM to intentionally limit Agency without appearing either a skilless amateur or a railroading ****.

Most of the time, a GM tends to know what characters are playing in their campaign, at least after character creation.

Yeah, I'd rather the GM not know the character even then. That removes any bias the GM might place into writing the campaign.

If there is a problem (say, the GM has included nothing but constructs and undead for several sessions for a sneak-attack Rogue build), we'll address it live.

[Segev]

It would be fair to say my game would look like that, to you, yes.

I know the horror of your type of player well: At 5pm as DM I would say D'rk only has a dagger for a weapon. Then at 6pm, and three game days later, I would say D'rk has a dagger and a long bow and a quiver of arrows. Then the poor, bad, player that could not handle that random ''breaking the dumb Everyone Collective Rules of Improv" would be crying in the corner and between sobs saying "it's not right, the DM said he only had a dagger and that must be unchanged forever!"

Tut, tut. You have said, repeatedly, that any game that has randomness is totally random and can't have a plot.

You didn't just describe randomness, here. You described normal improvisation.

Once again, when nailed down to having to give examples of what you'd actually do in a game, you reveal that you not only do know what the terms the rest of us are using mean, but that you use them correctly when cornered on actual examples. What I don't get is your need to insult everybody by calling them horror-inducing bad gamers for trying to nail you down, and then projecting this phantom evil player who can't stand a DM having reasonable things happen in his world when you had previously been insisting that reasonable things couldn't happen unless they were strictly plotted.

Just because YOU have shifted your position doesn't mean you have to shove everybody who agrees with the new position you're taking off onto some other, outlandish position in order to maintain an argument. It is okay to agree on something!

[kyoryu]

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?

Constraining player choice means the GM has freedom to write more complex things, as they know that it won't all get thrown out as soon as the players make an actual, meaningful choice.

You're looking at complexity/simplicity from the view of D_U's players, and presuming that he is as well. This may not be productive.

The prep one does for improv DMing is different than the prep one does for normal DMing. That is why the improv DM can fit more information into less prep than the normal DM can. More information is usually better than less, but less prep results in more information.

You would write 3 pages on a Deaths Head Tree encounter. With just 2-3 sentences the improv DM has access to more information about the Death's Head Trees, the other encounters in the forest (including location, movement, and development), and a head start on information about the villian & their lair.

If you wish to understand the world, you need to step outside of your strawmen. Only then will you have a chance at curing your ignorance.

Prepping for a railroad allows you to concentrate on the few encounters you'll have per session, and include lots of detail about those encounters. However, it doesn't require any detail *beyond* those encounters.

Prepping for a sandbox has nothing as detailed as any of the railroad encounters, but requires a greater depth of preparation. You know far more about the things that haven't shown up (yet), so that you have a basis for how the game goes.

Think of it as a Hollywood set of a town (very good looking facade with nothing behind it) versus actually starting a town. The "actual" town won't look nearly as good at first (though it may in the long run), however, it is completely functional even with just a few fairly drab buildings. The Hollywood town set, on the other hand, looks great and like a huge city, but unless you go to the only prepared areas, the whole thing is just backdrop and non-functional.

[Quertus]

The one time DU came close to defining "complex" and "simple" (really, just giving an example), it was about motives and character. An epic battle of good vs evil is simple, whereas more grey adventures are more complex.

[kyoryu]

The one time DU came close to defining "complex" and "simple" (really, just giving an example), it was about motives and character. An epic battle of good vs evil is simple, whereas more grey adventures are more complex.

But he has consistently said that improv requires a "simple" game. Either that's typical D_U strawman, or he means something else beyond that. There's nothing about improv that precludes a morally grey game.

On the other hand, an improv-based game *does* limit what the GM can prepare and plan. You can't write a huge pre-planned, complex, intricate story if your players can derail it at any moment.

[Jama7301]

My general rule of thumb is to trust my gut. What you're posting about is an admission that you are experiencing awareness of cognitive dissonance. You are having trouble reconciling reason with feeling. Reason seems to be telling you to be more open to your players and your feelings are saying don't do it. This tells me that you have trust issues with your players.

You know what? Maybe your games have given you more reason to be mistrustful than some of the other people here. Maybe the people you've played with are less worthy of the trust that comes with Player Agency. Trust should not be given out blindly. By agreeing to a Tabletop session with other people, there's a good amount of trust involved. If the people involved don't deserve the trust, then it may be proper to limit player agency to ensure the Gentleman's Agreement isn't exploited or violated. In case DU is reading this, it is a sliding scale of Player Agency, not an "on/off" switch as you seem to think.

It very well might be a trust issue that I'm not realizing consciously. I'd like to think I give my players enough rope, but now I may be second guessing myself.

Part of my unease may be coming from a relative lack of experience, relatively speaking, in both playing and running games. This is a bit of a heady subject, and it may be one that I'm wrestling with because I haven't figured it out fully or found an acceptable definition. The words and concepts are there, but the shape of it isn't right.

It's an interesting discussion, regardless. Getting these different views on what should and should not be done is a fascinating look into how people think, play, and run their games.

[Cozzer]

Even assuming that more agency = better, there's another dangerous trap: the "either my game is perfect, or it's rubbish" one.

If you feel like you can't handle more than X amount of agency, because of personal tastes, lack of experience, or any reason, it's better to create a game with X agency while being open about it, rather than overextending yourself and biting more than you can chew (or simply not having fun). It might be as simple as saying "look, all the interesting things are in this kingdom, I haven't really thought about adventuring outside and I'm not really interested in that, so please don't create characters whose goal is 'I want to travel to the ends of the world', and possibly make them invested in things that are related to this kingdom".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Even assuming that more agency = better, there's another dangerous trap: the "either my game is perfect, or it's rubbish" one.

If you feel like you can't handle more than X amount of agency, because of personal tastes, lack of experience, or any reason, it's better to create a game with X agency while being open about it, rather than overextending yourself and biting more than you can chew (or simply not having fun). It might be as simple as saying "look, all the interesting things are in this kingdom, I haven't really thought about adventuring outside and I'm not really interested in that, so please don't create characters whose goal is 'I want to travel to the ends of the world', and possibly make them invested in things that are related to this kingdom".

I agree with the policy of being open up-front. That transforms a restriction of agency (letting the players believe that they can go anywhere) into an exercise of OOC agency (they've chosen to accept that restriction, with the consequences that follow). Many DMing flaws can be fixed by being open and honest about them and getting buy-in.

For example, I won't run a graphically evil campaign; I'm also squeamish about graphic gore or sexual things. I'm open about that up front so that players who choose to play with me have already accepted that and will choose to play elsewhere if that's what they really want. This isn't an agency violation in my opinion, because they accepted this up front and must thus accept the consequences. Same with picking a setting/game system.

[Tinkerer]

On the other hand, an improv-based game *does* limit what the GM can prepare and plan. You can't write a huge pre-planned, complex, intricate story if your players can derail it at any moment.

I wouldn't say that. You can definitely write it, you just need to be prepared to abandon it. Any plot line which I write doesn't need to be followed in order for it to be useful for my world. Of any sort of elaborate plan which I might write I would have to say about... 10-15% is the actual plan. The rest of the prep time is spent working on NPCs, building layouts, cities, abilities, environments, and all the other pieces necessary for the plan. If I wind up not needing it then the preparations aren't wasted since they still help to fill out my world.

If my current group winds up at New Ozlo I've got tons of material for them even if the last group didn't wind up going there. And because the last group didn't go there and run into the vampire sect just outside of town I have to decide what the consequences of leaving those creatures which were supposed to be killed are. It's a pretty subtle group of vampires so I imagine the town has gotten slightly crappier, the leadership has probably fallen even more under their control, and they've probably gained 1-4 new vampires from the population. Although since they don't know their accomplices from outside of town were exterminated they are trying to contact the accomplices which could tip the vampires hand.

... Damn, I kinda want to finish that Ozlo plot line now.