What is Player Agency?

[kyoryu]

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".

Well, yes. I'm a fan of people doing what they like. Lots of people clearly like low agency games, as evidenced by sales of Adventure Paths and module series going all the way back to DragonLance.

The only issue I see is dishonesty about it.

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.

Which means you're primarily prepping a world/situation, with some ideas for a plot. Compare that to something like Dragonlance again, where you've got a series of encounters and not a ton of stuff outside of that linear path. It also depends on how far ahead you write your "plot".

What I've found in many times, both in my own playing and with others, is that it seems like people are less willing to abandon their prep than they often think, and so will subtly guide people towards it, even if not consciously so. If a player asks if a certain thing is possible, and it's not what you planned, and there's even a semi-legitimate reason to say no, it's really easy to say "yeah, that won't work" (or the equivalent) even without thinking "oh, I have to railroad them towards what I planned".

[Tinkerer]

Which means you're primarily prepping a world/situation, with some ideas for a plot. Compare that to something like Dragonlance again, where you've got a series of encounters and not a ton of stuff outside of that linear path. It also depends on how far ahead you write your "plot".

I wouldn't quite say that. I plan similar to Dragonlance (with a little bit more outside planning), but then if/when things move beyond what is planned you go with improvisation. Rather than waste my time planning around every single contingency or going slack with complete improv I plan based around the most likely course of events within the plot and then if things go sideways from that then I use other methods including sandboxing (which is greatly helped by previous plots which went sideways) and improvisation (which is greatly helped by having a defined and consistent world). I write a plot not because characters have to stick to it but rather because it helps provide a defined starting point to base the other aspects on. I love adventure paths not because they restrict the amount of agency but rather because they provide an alternate universe version of what would have happened if you hadn't taken that agency, if everything had gone according to plan. It's rather rare that things stick with them but it provides more fuel for the creative fires.

But that's just the way I do things, I don't expect it to work for everyone.

[OldTrees1]

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.

Very true, albeit orthogonal to what I was talking about.

I was instructing Darth Ultron on why Improv DMing is not "random" and does have the potential for player agency (his ignorant contention was that Improv had no information). Whether it is a railroad, a standard campaign, or a sandbox, improv DMing allows the DM to have access to more information despite having less in the way of written notes. Consider the difference between a written list of the first 20 fibonacci numbers, and a written formula for the fibonacci function.

[kyoryu]

Very true, albeit orthogonal to what I was talking about.

I was instructing Darth Ultron on why Improv DMing is not "random" and does have the potential for player agency (his ignorant contention was that Improv had no information). Whether it is a railroad, a standard campaign, or a sandbox, improv DMing allows the DM to have access to more information despite having less in the way of written notes. Consider the difference between a written list of the first 20 fibonacci numbers, and a written formula for the fibonacci function.

I was expanding on what you were saying, not disagreeing with it :)

[Max_Killjoy]

Very true, albeit orthogonal to what I was talking about.

I was instructing Darth Ultron on why Improv DMing is not "random" and does have the potential for player agency (his ignorant contention was that Improv had no information). Whether it is a railroad, a standard campaign, or a sandbox, improv DMing allows the DM to have access to more information despite having less in the way of written notes. Consider the difference between a written list of the first 20 fibonacci numbers, and a written formula for the fibonacci function.

That is a great analogy.

[georgie_leech]

Mind you, nothing says that the prepwork for "regular" DMing can't be that sort of rules-of-the-world based prep. Improv is distinct because it requires you to have a good grasp of said rules to be coherent, whereas "regular" DMing can be coherent ecen of saod rules aren't made clear. See also: Adventure Paths that have a clear structure and logical progression that don't offer significant guidance for what happens if the players do something unexpected.

[Socratov]

As a player I consider player agency sacred. As a player it is my right to affect the world around me as I see fit.

What this means is:

• I make my own in character decisions
• Once I use a feature or use an action, I expect the feature or action, when used again, to have a consistent and similar effect (or in short: magic A = magic A)
• metagaming will happen considering in universe logical knowledge. Example: myths about monsters do exist: vampires suck blood, werewolves change on a full moon, witches be bitches.

As a player, player agency is what separates a TTRPG from a live reading from a novel, and IMO the very core of playing a game. It. Is. ESSENTIAL!

However,

• none of the above rules are absolutes (only a Sith deals in absolutes)
• For instance, if my character is being mind controlled, I should be expected to follow the DM's guidelines
• the fact that I am not limited in my actions to take, does not excuse me from its consequences
• I expect logic to be followed. this is best expressed in the subject of verisimilitude. Realism has no place whatsoever in a game with flying giant fire breathing lizards and frail robe wearing squishies throwing balls of fire around.

As a DM, however, my chief goal is to tell a story. This story is told in a collaborating fashion, but with me controlling not the tiny speck of dust that is a PeeCee, but all of those motes of dust that make up the entire game world I expect my players to at the very least work with me.

This means:

• Thou shalt not break the story so that it cannot be told anymore. Thou shalt act reasonable.
• What is fair and what is not is my domain
• ANYTHING used or done by the players is fair game to be used by me. Turnabout IS fair play.

Player agency, according to my inner DM, is the player's illusion that they are laying the railroad you are leading them on. When you DM right your players shouldn't notice the tracks at all, even if they are only following the script.

with the following caveats:

[list][*]I will share details on the story in advance. This will not only allow you the player to see what s/he can expect form me, but also make clear (as much as possible) what I will be expecting from him/her[*]if I will adjust things to make them more fair, please trust me on doing so with caution and after talking to you. [*]If you as a player feel you are being treated unfairly by me, tell me and we will work it out. Act like a grown-up and don't go whining on some forum looking for a build to wreck my **** to 'show me what is what'

The above views may seem highly paradoxical, but imo, when done right by both sides, make for a great game.

[Frozen_Feet]

The people that are mostly concerned with player agency (PA) is obviously the players themselves.

Which may or may not be true, but it's not a very fruitfull observation, because it is the scenario designer and the game holder who actually provide any and all player agency in the game.

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.

I, on the other hand, run games at conventions, where I rarely know the players beforehand and typically do not have enough information to actually do the sort of algorithmic response we're talking about. (Even when I use premades, they are not designed to sufficient depth that I could reliably predict how unknown players will play them.)

So I have taken to crafting my games in a vacuum. The thing is that while I've been doing this, I've noticed it's significantly improved my game holding skills. Why? Because by minimizing assumptions of player preference I'm forced to consider wider range of possible actions and design elements.

Tailoring a game to your audience isn't a bad idea, but a lot of GMs plainly do it wrong. That is, they have laser-like focus on their one group and get increasingly trapped in that one box. To the point that they can't deal with any other group or sort of players.

Hence, I hold that the ability to design and evaluate things "in a vacuum" is not just usefull, it is vital for long-term success as a GM and for long-term health of the hobby.

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?

If events X, Y and Z vary in appearance only, then we can consider them converging options. So what we're seeing is not actually 10 different choices with 3 options each, it's a single choice of 3 options repeated 10 times. This is as low agency as the earlier example where the options were "proceed, die or be humiliated endlessly".

Note that even if X, Y and Z vary in more than appearance, causing a diverging scenario structure, the game still counts as "low agency" under my rule of thumb where "a game is low agency if valid moves at each turn can be counted on one hand".

The character created still does not factor into this. A player creating a character in such a way as to make a scenario foregone conclusion is not them eliminating their agency, it's them exercising it.

Once again: if it's you who makes it and you who enforces it, based on your preferences, then it is you who is the acting agent. You leaving yourself a choice is not the same as there being no choice.

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.

Yes, you increased variety of choices and difficulty of the game via combinational design decision. I could see it increasing agency also from the prior model, once we start counting possible end states and a player thinking few turns into the future. But that doesn't mean the prior models had no real agency, they just had less.

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.

You are correct.

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

And I could make a similar claim that "for every imaginable scenario, there it at least one character that will go through it in a wholly predictable way".

But this useless race to the bottom when counting player agency, because I don't need to force any player to play such a character. Again, if the player chooses to do so, they're not eliminating their agency, they are exercising it. If they feel railroaded because of their own way of making choices, that's a "stop hitting yourself" scenario.

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.

You don't need to discard anything. That's not the suggestion here. I'm saying that agency is measured in number of choices, where as making in-character choices is exercising it.

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.

It's a sliding scale. "For every imaginable scenario, there it at least one character that will go through it in a wholly predictable way." Your "normal" input is calibrated to some level of complexity, so it's "too much" for scenarios of less complexity. Whether the scenario is simple or complex in an absolute sense can't be determined with this knowledge alone.

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.

The error here is seeing responsibility as being solely here or solely there. What I meant with "you can't abdicate that responsibility to the GM" is that since we can show that the situation could happen regardless of whether the scenario is created before or after, you will always be responsible for your own choices. This doesn't mean the GM isn't responsible for theirs. It means that if the scenario is crafted as reaction to your character, it would be a lie to say you had no influence on the outcome. Hence, you share the responsibility.

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.

Keep dreaming.

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.

It is really hit and miss if any lesson is learned, even if the choice is explicitly meant as a learning experience. Often, the wrong lesson is learned, such as "GM is presenting difficult choices" = "GM is trying to screw me over" = "GM is a jerk". Ironically, it is often more intelligent players who are the best at rationalizing their dissatisfaction as someone else's fault and hence engage most in blame-shifting games.

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.

In my experience, they very much are concerned with their agency. Yes, they want their highest desired choice to be available. But if they learn that there was no other option nor chance of failure, this diminishes their sense of accomplishment and makes them upset again. So they also want the other choices to be present despite it being obvious that they will not take them.

This, too, is a form of trying to eat your cake and save it too. It's a common trait in humans, for them to make a rope out of conflicting desires and feelings and then hang themselves on it. Which is actually a prime reason why I try to keep player feelings and desires out of the definition of player agency, and many other terms.

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).

For 1), what's your issue?

For 2), leaving the table is always possible, but it's not an equivalent action. Think of the difference of killing your character in a roguelike computer game, versus just taking off and leaving the program running there. One of these acts ends the game, another only ends player's involvement in the game. The player doesn't actually feel they're out untill their play piece, in tabletop roleplaying games a character, is also out.

For 3), you need to unpack your assumptions of what is "correct portrayal of a character" and "minor consequences". For example, the cleric's suicide was perfectly character appropriate: they had just suffered a string of humiliating defeats, lost a fortune and got into massive debt. The consequences of said debt cast a shadow over all their immediate associates. This is the sort of stuff which drives people into murder-suicides in real life; that's what made it so brilliant.

Just because I also happen to know the player's metagame motive doesn't make the character action any less valid.

[jayem]

That is a great analogy.

And taken from there when you have the formula, not only can you extent it onwards, but if you can get a general form you can also theoretically fill in the gaps.
I don't know if there's any use for the Fibs (other than finding that after 19.37 years you have 5000 rabbits)*.
But for Factorials as you expand what you know into new regions there are some very interesting consequences (which I don't understand, if I did I'd be a millionaire)

*

Spoiler

Show

There are multiple ways you could extend it the Fibonacci, that allow it to deal with unexpected questions.

E.g. with a step shape (representing a breeding season)
total population collapse (going to seed/bulbs over the winter)
smoothly and analytic
a combination of the above
overshooting then being brought down

In theory "Anything can happen", between the gaps. However somethings are more sensible than others and make much better choices. And that seems familiar...

[Darth Ultron]

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.

Guess I'll never understand the random stuff you put out.

A Lazy Casual DM scribes some random stuff down and your like in Awe and say ''Best Adventure 4-Ever!", but I guess you just have very low standards.

But a DM that takes like an ''Eon'' of time as you would say to prepare something is all ways ''wrong'' in your odd view. Maybe your just jealous or envious of a DM that can take time to do anything as you yourself can't?

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

Because it is Railroading the Game. And Worse, it is the Jerk Players Railroading the DM.

Like really, say NPC Zom only had a dagger on Monday...then when the player characters see npc Zom on Firday he has a swrod and dagger. You'd go all crazy and say ''he can't have a sword, keep the FACTS consistent DM, he has a dagger 4EVER!".

See, that makes no sense.

The above views may seem highly paradoxical, but imo, when done right by both sides, make for a great game.

Looks good to me.

[OldTrees1]

Guess I'll never understand the random stuff you put out.

A Lazy Casual DM scribes some random stuff down and your like in Awe and say ''Best Adventure 4-Ever!", but I guess you just have very low standards.

But a DM that takes like an ''Eon'' of time as you would say to prepare something is all ways ''wrong'' in your odd view. Maybe your just jealous or envious of a DM that can take time to do anything as you yourself can't?

Bwahaha

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.

Because it is Railroading the Game. And Worse, it is the Jerk Players Railroading the DM.

Like really, say NPC Zom only had a dagger on Monday...then when the player characters see npc Zom on Firday he has a swrod and dagger. You'd go all crazy and say ''he can't have a sword, keep the FACTS consistent DM, he has a dagger 4EVER!".

See, that makes no sense.

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?

[Segev]

I believe I have figured out how to properly understand Darth Ultron's posts. I shall respond to them with that new understandnig.

Guess I'll never understand the random stuff you put out.

A Lazy Casual DM scribes some random stuff down and your like in Awe and say ''Best Adventure 4-Ever!", but I guess you just have very low standards.

But a DM that takes like an ''Eon'' of time as you would say to prepare something is all ways ''wrong'' in your odd view. Maybe your just jealous or envious of a DM that can take time to do anything as you yourself can't?

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.

Because it is Railroading the Game. And Worse, it is the Jerk Players Railroading the DM.

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.

Like really, say NPC Zom only had a dagger on Monday...then when the player characters see npc Zom on Firday he has a swrod and dagger. You'd go all crazy and say ''he can't have a sword, keep the FACTS consistent DM, he has a dagger 4EVER!".

See, that makes no sense.

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.

Looks good to me.

I'm glad you agree with my points.

[kyoryu]

Because it is Railroading the Game. And Worse, it is the Jerk Players Railroading the DM.

Like really, say NPC Zom only had a dagger on Monday...then when the player characters see npc Zom on Firday he has a swrod and dagger. You'd go all crazy and say ''he can't have a sword, keep the FACTS consistent DM, he has a dagger 4EVER!".

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."

[Pleh]

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.

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.

Agency is agency, however it is used and to whatever degree.

Normal Conventional 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.

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.

For example, in a recent game I was running, I had a player request that they be allowed to invent NPCs that their character had a pre-existing with whom their character would have a pre-existing relationship as described by the player upon the introduction of the character. The specific purpose of these NPCs was explicitly to exploit their assistance, but there was a strong implication that the intent was never to disavow any sense of reason (these NPCs still maintained their own personal aspirations and agenda they would not sacrifice for the PC). Rather, it was a request to grant them marginal control of Game Reality on the argument that "meeting the old friend" is a common narrative trope the players wished to exploit, yet there was no mechanical provision to allow it (these were not Cohorts or Followers).

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.

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.

[Quertus]

I, on the other hand, run games at conventions, where I rarely know the players beforehand and typically do not have enough information to actually do the sort of algorithmic response we're talking about. (Even when I use premades, they are not designed to sufficient depth that I could reliably predict how unknown players will play them.)

So I have taken to crafting my games in a vacuum. The thing is that while I've been doing this, I've noticed it's significantly improved my game holding skills. Why? Because by minimizing assumptions of player preference I'm forced to consider wider range of possible actions and design elements.

Tailoring a game to your audience isn't a bad idea, but a lot of GMs plainly do it wrong. That is, they have laser-like focus on their one group and get increasingly trapped in that one box. To the point that they can't deal with any other group or sort of players.

Hence, I hold that the ability to design and evaluate things "in a vacuum" is not just usefull, it is vital for long-term success as a GM and for long-term health of the hobby.

Strongly agree. As you get more experience with more players, you can evaluate your scenarios "in a vacuum" based on players and characters you know and can imagine.

And this is a good thing.

It's a sliding scale. "For every imaginable scenario, there it at least one character that will go through it in a wholly predictable way." Your "normal" input is calibrated to some level of complexity, so it's "too much" for scenarios of less complexity. Whether the scenario is simple or complex in an absolute sense can't be determined with this knowledge alone.

Probably because of my original school of role-playing, I usually consider it a success of understanding the character when I can easily make such choices and see the one "obvious" path.

I believe I have figured out how to properly understand Darth Ultron's posts. I shall respond to them with that new understandnig.

I'm glad you agree with my points.

Dear <Deity>, the room is spinning. I think I'm going to be sick.

[Mordaedil]

I told people not to engage him, but people just keep doing it.

We're really making no headway talking to DU.

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.

Players having agency doesn't change the dynamic of the game, it just changes how you approach problem solving. They don't get to do things and declare to the DM what happens. That is the DM's job. That isn't something that changes. They can chose to take a different path, but they can't declare what content the game has. Like, the role of the dungeon master as the story-teller doesn't change, but they can declare what their personas do and that can affect your story in ways.

And you must let that happen otherwise you are not playing a game, you are taking people through a series of set-pieces and just having some boardgame attached to it.

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

[Cozzer]

For me, the interesting issues arise from trade-offs. It's obvious to everyone that, generally speaking, player agency is a good thing. The question is, what to do when it gets in the way of another good thing?

For example, I can't stand the kind of wish-fulfillment typical Evil campaigns are about, so I just make that clear from the beginning. I'm OK with an Evil character, as long as he accepts he will have to find his reason to work with the rest of the party or become an NPC. For me, having fun as a DM is more important than that particular kind of agency. As a player, I'd be completely OK with being denied that particular agency since I find these stories not interesting.

Similarly, I don't really like "travel and explore" stories. I'd rather introduce a geographically limited setting (a city, a kindgom, a continent), which the characters can explore pretty easily, and then create a story that's about people and factions inside that setting, rather than about exploring and discovering new parts of the world. Again, I'm perfectly aware that means I'm taking away a piece of agency from the players, but I'm also aware that it means I can provide a game with way more agency within the limits I set: once the players get to know the important people and factions, they can choose which side they want to support, they can manipulate, change or break balances...

My point is, you can't have infinite agency. To provide the biggest amount of agency you can provide, you need to make choices, which might include taking away other pieces of agency. That's where the interesting choices arise. Maybe a player is OK with having limits during character creation, as long as he's free to act within the game. Another player might be OK with being railroaded a bit towards the main plot, as long as that means he's free to create the character he wants. Another player might be OK with a sandboxy game with a weaker plot, as long as that means he can create whatever character he wants and have him pursue his personal goals.

The only illusion, in my opinion, is the idea that a perfect solution with no drawbacks for anyone exists.

[Pleh]

My point is, you can't have infinite agency.

You can, but it strips away the idea of a game for most purposes. When everyone is the DM, no one is, and you aren't so much roleplaying as you are performing creative exercizes. Nothing wrong with this, but it does more or less gut the fundamental concept of game.

[Lorsa]

Which may or may not be true, but it's not a very fruitfull observation, because it is the scenario designer and the game holder who actually provide any and all player agency in the game.

I guess it is only fruitful then insofar as it helps us understand that while one side is the one providing PA, the other side is the one who will be most bothered by its absence.

I, on the other hand, run games at conventions, where I rarely know the players beforehand and typically do not have enough information to actually do the sort of algorithmic response we're talking about. (Even when I use premades, they are not designed to sufficient depth that I could reliably predict how unknown players will play them.)

So I have taken to crafting my games in a vacuum. The thing is that while I've been doing this, I've noticed it's significantly improved my game holding skills. Why? Because by minimizing assumptions of player preference I'm forced to consider wider range of possible actions and design elements.

Tailoring a game to your audience isn't a bad idea, but a lot of GMs plainly do it wrong. That is, they have laser-like focus on their one group and get increasingly trapped in that one box. To the point that they can't deal with any other group or sort of players.

Hence, I hold that the ability to design and evaluate things "in a vacuum" is not just usefull, it is vital for long-term success as a GM and for long-term health of the hobby.

I must admit I have never run a convention game. Actually, going to conventions have always frightened me to some degree so I have largely avoided it, even if a part of me would have liked to go there and be a player.

I have hosted game for different players though, so I certainly understand the pitfall of only ever running games for the same people.

Evaluating things in a vacuum is definitely useful. I can't argue with that. But I could make a similar argument for being able to evaluate and design things for a specific group is also vital. They are both skills a GM should have, or so I believe.

If events X, Y and Z vary in appearance only, then we can consider them converging options. So what we're seeing is not actually 10 different choices with 3 options each, it's a single choice of 3 options repeated 10 times. This is as low agency as the earlier example where the options were "proceed, die or be humiliated endlessly".

Note that even if X, Y and Z vary in more than appearance, causing a diverging scenario structure, the game still counts as "low agency" under my rule of thumb where "a game is low agency if valid moves at each turn can be counted on one hand".

The character created still does not factor into this. A player creating a character in such a way as to make a scenario foregone conclusion is not them eliminating their agency, it's them exercising it.

Once again: if it's you who makes it and you who enforces it, based on your preferences, then it is you who is the acting agent. You leaving yourself a choice is not the same as there being no choice.



Yes, you increased variety of choices and difficulty of the game via combinational design decision. I could see it increasing agency also from the prior model, once we start counting possible end states and a player thinking few turns into the future. But that doesn't mean the prior models had no real agency, they just had less.

So at this point it is perhaps safe to say that I am looking for both the ability to influence the outcome of the game by making choices, with a preference for very high agency, as well as complexity in the choices presented (high game difficulty)?

And I could make a similar claim that "for every imaginable scenario, there it at least one character that will go through it in a wholly predictable way".

But this useless race to the bottom when counting player agency, because I don't need to force any player to play such a character. Again, if the player chooses to do so, they're not eliminating their agency, they are exercising it. If they feel railroaded because of their own way of making choices, that's a "stop hitting yourself" scenario.

Well, as we've established we are approaching this from a different set of sequences. You are correct that for every possible scenario, there is at least one character that will go through it in a predictable way.

Obviously if you have created the scenario first then it is not the fault of the scenario designer.

However, I still posit that if a GM looks at the character and then creates just that scenario, where the character will go through it predictably (quite possibly with the intent of railroading under the guise of providing agency), then the fault should not be with the player. This can be evaluated over multiple games, where at the start of the next game, the player makes a very different character but the GM again constructs a scenario with a foregone conclusion based on the character in question.

I know you might think I am trying to shift blame, but if this happens on multiple occasions, can the fault really lie with the player?

You don't need to discard anything. That's not the suggestion here. I'm saying that agency is measured in number of choices, where as making in-character choices is exercising it.

Which leads us back then to that only measuring player agency is not sufficient to find out if a game would be to my preference. In some sense, I sound like a high-maintenance player (and probably might be which is why I tend to be the GM instead).

It's a sliding scale. "For every imaginable scenario, there it at least one character that will go through it in a wholly predictable way." Your "normal" input is calibrated to some level of complexity, so it's "too much" for scenarios of less complexity. Whether the scenario is simple or complex in an absolute sense can't be determined with this knowledge alone.

Fair enough. Again, I might be a high-maintenance player (I don't know as I've never GMed for myself), even though I consider myself fairly easy-going and rarely complain much (though there is a difference between being satisfied and not complaining).

The error here is seeing responsibility as being solely here or solely there. What I meant with "you can't abdicate that responsibility to the GM" is that since we can show that the situation could happen regardless of whether the scenario is created before or after, you will always be responsible for your own choices. This doesn't mean the GM isn't responsible for theirs. It means that if the scenario is crafted as reaction to your character, it would be a lie to say you had no influence on the outcome. Hence, you share the responsibility.

True enough. The responsibility is shared. That's a general truth for most roleplaying games. However, there is a sliding scale here too, so that even if I did have an influence on the outcome in the case of post-character scenario design, I still believe the GM has more. And, as I am apparently a hard player to please, I would like to be on the higher end of the player influence spectrum.

Keep dreaming.

Oh, I am. Although I've heard that disillusioned idealists make the hardest cynics, so we'll see what the future holds.

It is really hit and miss if any lesson is learned, even if the choice is explicitly meant as a learning experience. Often, the wrong lesson is learned, such as "GM is presenting difficult choices" = "GM is trying to screw me over" = "GM is a jerk". Ironically, it is often more intelligent players who are the best at rationalizing their dissatisfaction as someone else's fault and hence engage most in blame-shifting games.

Unfortunately for me, we can not make the conclusion as I too engage in a blame-shifting game towards the GM for my perceived lack of agency, I must be intelligent.

In my experience, they very much are concerned with their agency. Yes, they want their highest desired choice to be available. But if they learn that there was no other option nor chance of failure, this diminishes their sense of accomplishment and makes them upset again. So they also want the other choices to be present despite it being obvious that they will not take them.

This, too, is a form of trying to eat your cake and save it too. It's a common trait in humans, for them to make a rope out of conflicting desires and feelings and then hang themselves on it. Which is actually a prime reason why I try to keep player feelings and desires out of the definition of player agency, and many other terms.

Ok so, these people achieve a feeling of having affected the game if there are multiple choices, with one of them being their "preferred perfect choice", even if it should be evident to any third party observer that the GM would have known far in advance that this is exactly where the game would end up? Basically, they will happily follow a railroad, as long as it is directed correctly and have the illusion of alternative choices?

Whereas I achieve a feeling of having affected the game if there are multiple choices which are preferred (or none are preferred), and as such the GM wouldn't be able to predict my answer. Basically, I can be dissatisfied even with the presence of real choices and upset even if I am technically railroading myself.

For 1), what's your issue?

The way I view the player, which may be an unfair characterization mind you, is that their behavior will lead to a lack of challenge in running the game for them. All I have to do, seemingly at least, is to describe a surrounding and then wait for them to follow their instinct for "what would be fun" and let them suffer the consequences thereof. It seems as though there wouldn't really be much for me to do as a GM, and I could run the whole game on pure improvisation alone. Even as a GM I like to be challenged, and this seems like it wouldn't be.

For 2), leaving the table is always possible, but it's not an equivalent action. Think of the difference of killing your character in a roguelike computer game, versus just taking off and leaving the program running there. One of these acts ends the game, another only ends player's involvement in the game. The player doesn't actually feel they're out untill their play piece, in tabletop roleplaying games a character, is also out.

Alright, I get it. I had one player once who felt that the best ending for the campaign was to have his character die in a blaze of glory. I suppose it gives a better feeling of closure.

For 3), you need to unpack your assumptions of what is "correct portrayal of a character" and "minor consequences". For example, the cleric's suicide was perfectly character appropriate: they had just suffered a string of humiliating defeats, lost a fortune and got into massive debt. The consequences of said debt cast a shadow over all their immediate associates. This is the sort of stuff which drives people into murder-suicides in real life; that's what made it so brilliant.

Just because I also happen to know the player's metagame motive doesn't make the character action any less valid.

You are correct and as I was writing my response I was thinking if I should include a point that there do exist strings of circumstances which may lead people to commit suicide. That much we know from psychology and sociology.

My assumption was based on that the player merely wanted to find an easy meta-game out for unwanted consequences they had caused themselves, and used the suicide as an excuse for that. It is hard to evaluate properly without the full game history.

[NichG]

One thing that seems to always go hand-in-hand with agency trade-offs is the idea of decision paralysis. That is to say, there's some component of agency which is made available to a player but in such a way that rather than feeling like it empowers them, it creates the opposite sensation of actually removing power by giving too much. A silly example is, e.g., 'the king suddenly abdicates leaving you in charge, what do you do?'. A player who is faced with that out of the blue has the difficulty that maybe up until that point they've mostly thought of what they want or what their character wants in very different terms - 'I want to get rich (by acquiring wealth bit by bit)' or 'I want to fight injustice (by reforming the system one corrupt person at a time)'. So when the scale suddenly changes, the power that becomes available doesn't actually feel like it belongs to that character properly.

So an interesting question then is, how much agency can you actually load into someone under the constraint that they always should feel like it actually belongs to them, and what techniques can be used to push that limit? Or to put it another way, how do you make players feel comfortable controlling things which are significantly larger in scope than what they're used to?

[Pleh]

One thing that seems to always go hand-in-hand with agency trade-offs is the idea of decision paralysis. That is to say, there's some component of agency which is made available to a player but in such a way that rather than feeling like it empowers them, it creates the opposite sensation of actually removing power by giving too much. A silly example is, e.g., 'the king suddenly abdicates leaving you in charge, what do you do?'. A player who is faced with that out of the blue has the difficulty that maybe up until that point they've mostly thought of what they want or what their character wants in very different terms - 'I want to get rich (by acquiring wealth bit by bit)' or 'I want to fight injustice (by reforming the system one corrupt person at a time)'. So when the scale suddenly changes, the power that becomes available doesn't actually feel like it belongs to that character properly.

So an interesting question then is, how much agency can you actually load into someone under the constraint that they always should feel like it actually belongs to them, and what techniques can be used to push that limit? Or to put it another way, how do you make players feel comfortable controlling things which are significantly larger in scope than what they're used to?

Excellent point, and of course it depends on what the player wanted to do in their game and with their character. If they made it part of their backstory that they were in line for the throne and were pursuing succession to the throne as a long term objective, then this is just advancing their timeline.

But if I were caught in this scenario, my instinct would be to organically scale back the agency. "Phenomenal cosmic power, itty bitty living space." Being King is not necessarily easy or full of agency. I view Agency like currency. Having a lot of it often means having to do a lot more work managing it.

For example, the very first night as King, say some two-bit assassin tries to kill the PC, hinting at the fact that there are countless, nameless, faceless individuals who will try to kill you just because it would could perpetuate the process of replacing the King, which paralyzes the state as it tries to make the necessary adjustments to the change in leadership, causing it to overlook conduct that it might otherwise arrest. Or maybe the assassin was hired by a noble or royal counselor who wants to keep the head of state changing because they function as ruler while the royal line is busy playing musical thrones.

In a less direct threat upon the crown, have all the neighboring countries insist upon meeting and familiarizing themselves with this new head of state. Make sure their demands are reasonable enough to believe, but totally unacceptable (hopefully to every other country involved). Make sure there is a visceral threat of a loss of trade relations, an increase in cost, an iron wall border preventing travel through neighboring lands, or even outright war if the newly minted King doesn't play ball.

Mix these first two recommendations to throw in international subterfuge with foreign spies, saboteurs, and assassins who might target the King's few trustworthy and loyal serfs just to undermine their bargaining position against foreign diplomats.

Besides the assassination attempts, include also the internal threats of the nobles, knights, and other local lords and peasants who sincerely beseech the King for aid, both the individuals with valid and invalid claims and frivolous suits. The King holds the country's treasury and people will constantly be seeking subsidies to support themselves. Even if everyone in the Kingdom has a valid claim to aid, the treasury can't afford to help everyone as they need.

[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.

[Cozzer]

A silly example is, e.g., 'the king suddenly abdicates leaving you in charge, what do you do?'.

Well, this ties into my other big point about agency: every story has an "estabilishing conflicts" phase, and a "resolving conflicts" phase. It's normal for characters/players to have less agency during the first phase, but they definitely need lots of it during the second phase. This example is basically skipping the first phase altogether; if no big conflict has been previously introduced, the players won't know what to do with the sudden big-scale agency they have.

(Obiviously, you don't want the players to feel like they're being railroaded during the first half of a campaign, which is why you give them agency to solve smaller-scale conflicts while you estabilish bigger-scale conflicts they can't solve yet, which ties nicely into the way PCs get stronger).

So yeah, a "the king suddenly abdicates" moment can definitely occur, but it needs to occur after the players have learned of, like, the three biggest menaces to the kingdom and have a few ideas on how they could be dealt with.

[Lorsa]

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.

I guess that is an issue which complicates what might otherwise seem as such an easy thing; that we value different forms of PA.

I guess you will know what my answer to your questions is already; you tailor the game to the players in a way that grants them the type of agency they are interested in.

So for you, I will simply make an adventure with a clearly defined problem without any thought as to what character you will have. Then it is up to you to interact and try to solve this problem in which ever way you desire based on your character's capabilities and the given game rules. Did I understand your preferences correctly?

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 ****.

I believe it is difficult if not to write but to run a module without railroading. At least that has been the case for the modules I've read. There are just too many points where I think "hmmm, if the characters do this instead, the whole module ends here".

You are right though, I think, that GM skill factors heavily into this equation.

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.

You don't think it is too easy to end up with the problem of the GM writing a campaign based primarily on adventure hooks a Good character would be attracted to only to find you bringing an Evil character into it and thus invalidating all the hard work?

[Mordaedil]

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.

You're not far off here, but the idea is that the DM in most games don't have their plots frigid and easily upset by the players. The idea is that the DM prepares his scenarios with the players input in mind, so that you can more easily adapt to having wrenches thrown into the plot and build on what they've done to upset it. They aren't being jerk players by doing this, they are trying to test the extent of what their "Choices & Consequences" reach to impact your game.

This can be pretty huge.

Not everything is interesting to everyone.

Don't worry, I meant it isn't inherently more interesting, either one can be made interesting, but usually it takes more than just changing one aspect of something.

[Max_Killjoy]

I told people not to engage him, but people just keep doing it.

We're really making no headway talking to DU.

That said, I'm confused at why he thinks giving the players some agency means that the DM surrenders his role as a DM.

As far as I can tell, he thinks only in binaries and absolutes -- EITHER the GM is "in control", OR the players are "in control".

Or course the whole obsession over "control" and power also reveals some rather disturbing possibilities.

And you must let that happen otherwise you are not playing a game, you are taking people through a series of set-pieces and just having some boardgame attached to it.

That's actually a bit how some video game "RPGs" work, sadly -- fight, cutscene, fight, cutscene, etc.

[Lorsa]

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?

The Monster's Manual.

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)

What you've missed is that this alignment discussion is completely pointless and has nothing at all to do with the original arguments or their points.

It is at best a failure of understand by you how it is not important, and at worst an obfuscation attempt in order to avoid the real issue.

The argument I was making was that you should (or could), make two sides different from each other, so that working for one will provide different adventures and different a different game than the other.

You seem to be arguing from a side of "no, the two sides the players choose from should always be identical and give the exact same outcome because I really want to deny my players any chance of having an impact on their game".

Hell, even two normal equally moral grey human nobles could (or would probably) have different types of land and different types of economy. So working for one side would involve protecting valuable mines from intruders whereas the other would involve protecting farms. Or whatever difference you want. Two sides being absolutely equal except for the color of their tabards is just cartoonish.

Forget the moral stuff and focus on the discussion we are having; there is no reason at all why two sides should be identical and that working for them would result in identical adventures.

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

Except, apparently, that everyone has the same culture.

Yes, that would both be wrong.

Glad we established that.

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.

Unless your world is just One shade of grey, even in a grey world, no group is just as likely to betray the characters as any other group. People are DIFFERENT, some are more loyal than others. That's the thing with shades of grey. Some people are more loyal than others. And if the players happen to work for a more loyal person, the outcome in the game should be different compared to if they worked for someone who is disloyal.

Do you agree with that or do you think that both all people are equally likely to do any action always?

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.

Except your example has a problem in that it is not, in fact, good to imprison someone whom have acted on your orders just because you intentionally didn't give them a writ only so that you could later imprison them. It's not a good act by any measure.

This is just the one example problem here.

Using one example to highlight how a game could be different depending on the choices made is perfectly valid as it invalidates the argument that "no the game is always identical no matter what the players choose". The only counter argument is "I don't care about established NPC personality or verisimilitude or anything, I would never let the players make any choices that turn out to have meaning and the whole game is solely run based on my whim".

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

Sure, but this Grey Game discussion is really not the point of the Agency discussion. It's an unimportant sidetrack.

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''.

Either something is very possible and does randomly just happen OR it is rather unlikely and would never randomly just happen. You can't both have your cake and eat it. Choose what you want to argue for.

Yes.

So how often has it happened in your games that a Storm Giant with Greater invisibility has cast Lightning bolt on the enemies of your players? Ten times? A hundred? Exactly how common is this? Since you say it is "very possible", it must have happened more than once and certainly along the lines of 10% of the time.

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.

Yeah, but which action? How can I select which action to take if I have no possibility to judge which is most likely to lead to success? Based on your "anything might happen" argument, I could either 1) Hit with my weapon, 2) Whistle a lovely tune or 3) Do the Hokey-Pokey and regardless of which way I go, anything might happen. So my enemy might take damage or they may not.

Either actions are divorced from their consequences or there is a link. Which way do you run your games?

In my games, hitting an enemy with a weapon is more likely to kill them than whistling. Your preferences can be different, but then you really shouldn't be in a discussion about player agency because your whole premiss is "I don't allow it".

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

No it can't. I can't be the president of USA, I can't survive standing in the middle of nuclear bomb explosion, I can't upload my consciousness to a computer. There are plenty of things that can't happen. It has never been, nor ever will be, "anything can happen". That's not how Real Life works.

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

Except that those details are really important, and can make the difference between life or death.

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.

But they will do different something.

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

As I said above, it's not a thing they do if the crimes are ones they've ordered themselves! That's not part of the idea of "good", even if it is a Grey Game without an alignment system. But this is a tangent also and we should drop this discussion as it has very little to do with the point that players making choices can affect the game in meaningful ways.

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

Does that mean that if all of us suddenly started to agree with you, you would change your opinion?

[Frozen_Feet]

I guess it is only fruitful then insofar as it helps us understand that while one side is the one providing PA, the other side is the one who will be most bothered by its absence.

Maybe, maybe not, but the scenario designer and game holder being bothered tends to have better returns.

So at this point it is perhaps safe to say that I am looking for both the ability to influence the outcome of the game by making choices, with a preference for very high agency, as well as complexity in the choices presented (high game difficulty)?

Sounds about right.

Well, as we've established we are approaching this from a different set of sequences. You are correct that for every possible scenario, there is at least one character that will go through it in a predictable way.

To be honest, I'm not sure if I am correct. "For every imaginable scenario, there it at least one character that will go through it in a wholly predictable way" sounds right, but I'm not sure if it actually holds up to rigorous examination. However, the reasons for my skepticism lie in pretty deep waters that are pretty far removed from the topic of this thread.

However, I still posit that if a GM looks at the character and then creates just that scenario, where the character will go through it predictably (quite possibly with the intent of railroading under the guise of providing agency), then the fault should not be with the player. This can be evaluated over multiple games, where at the start of the next game, the player makes a very different character but the GM again constructs a scenario with a foregone conclusion based on the character in question.

I know you might think I am trying to shift blame, but if this happens on multiple occasions, can the fault really lie with the player?

Yes. As I said earlier, the responsibility and hence share of the fault/blame always lies on the player in these kind of scenarios. It also lies on the GM, but it takes a minimum of two people to dance this tango.

It's actually fairly easy to start dancing it accidentally if the GM takes the concept of tailoring their scenarios to their players too close to heart and implements it dumbly. That is, the GM creates these scenarios which are a foregone conclusions given the character, out of the goodness of their heart, because they believe that's what it means to make your scenario based on the character, and they believe that's what the player wants. (Darth_Ultron is sort of a perverse inversion of this mindset; what I'm describing is more or less what Darth_Ultron defines as "player controlled" game.)

True enough. The responsibility is shared. That's a general truth for most roleplaying games. However, there is a sliding scale here too, so that even if I did have an influence on the outcome in the case of post-character scenario design, I still believe the GM has more. And, as I am apparently a hard player to please, I would like to be on the higher end of the player influence spectrum.

Generally speaking, the scenario designer and the game holder have more agency, more influence and just plain more everything as pertains to the game, than your average player. Not arguing against you on that point.

Unfortunately for me, we can not make the conclusion as I too engage in a blame-shifting game towards the GM for my perceived lack of agency, I must be intelligent.

Correlation sadly does not equal causation.

Ok so, these people achieve a feeling of having affected the game if there are multiple choices, with one of them being their "preferred perfect choice", even if it should be evident to any third party observer that the GM would have known far in advance that this is exactly where the game would end up? Basically, they will happily follow a railroad, as long as it is directed correctly and have the illusion of alternative choices?

Yes, in the same dubious way a person who wants to get to Town X by walking might be happy to get to town X via train if you somehow can fool them into thinking they walked. What I'm trying to get to here is that for most of these players, real agency must be present for them to feel like they have it, despite the fact that they use it in a wholly predictable way. It's the married guy grooming himself to look good before all the single ladies because "they like to keep their options open", despite the fact that every night he goes back to his wife like the dog he is and never explores any of them.

If they ever find the alternatives were illusory, such as the married guy finding out all the single ladies were just pretending to laugh on his expense, they will be sad. A little rational Devil in your head will keep telling you that it shouldn't matter, but it does anyway.

Whereas I achieve a feeling of having affected the game if there are multiple choices which are preferred (or none are preferred), and as such the GM wouldn't be able to predict my answer. Basically, I can be dissatisfied even with the presence of real choices and upset even if I am technically railroading myself.

That seems to be the case, yes.

The way I view the player, which may be an unfair characterization mind you, is that their behavior will lead to a lack of challenge in running the game for them. All I have to do, seemingly at least, is to describe a surrounding and then wait for them to follow their instinct for "what would be fun" and let them suffer the consequences thereof. It seems as though there wouldn't really be much for me to do as a GM, and I could run the whole game on pure improvisation alone. Even as a GM I like to be challenged, and this seems like it wouldn't be.

That's actually a pretty fair description of how a game with these sorts of players tends to go. The GM can often play reactive, or even remain as a fairly neutral spectator, as the Happy Fun Ball bounces up, down, up, down. So if your enjoyment of the game as GM is reliant on you having a lot of things to do, it is not a surprise if it isn't your cup of tea.

My assumption was based on that the player merely wanted to find an easy meta-game out for unwanted consequences they had caused themselves, and used the suicide as an excuse for that. It is hard to evaluate properly without the full game history.

It's usually fairly easy to evaluate on the spot, though. The important thing is that if a player can pursue an out-of-character goal via in-character action without breaking character or rules of the game, that's not a problem. If anything, it's sign of player skill. (I wouldn't even call it metagaming in all cases, as I consider pursuit of player goals for the game to just be part of the game, even if player goals differ from their character's goals.)

Character suicide is just one of many possible game moves that can be used as a "metagame out" of a tricky situation. All of these make me narrow my eyes in a wordless "I see what you did there", but not all of them are something to work against either as a player or as a Gm.

[Pleh]

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

In my game they do control it. By proxy through my DMing, to be sure, but that's what I mean by "sharing creative control." It's not just handing it over without retaining some measure of veto power. That would be an interestingly different style of play to actually have to adapt to literally anything the other players introduced into the story.

But that wasn't what I was suggesting ought to be done at all to begin with. What I mean is that when a Player asks for something to happen in the game and the DM acquiesces, that is the function of Player Agency, both the kind that occurs In Character and Out Of Character. They are using creative liberties to alter the course of the game.

I don't think ANY player should be considered to possess the right to operate unilaterally on creative liberties. Even the DM is supposed to be trying to help everyone have the maximum amount of corporate fun.

Ok, well this is all Game Zero stuff....

You're doing that thing again where you utilize meaningless (and usually misleading) definitions. "Game Zero" has no definition in this context and the statement doesn't really express anything.

But I suppose the best I could do is suggest to you that Game Zero "stuff" can and should be able to alter the live game scenario at any moment as necessary. That is part of DM and Player Agency.

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.

I am saying "yes, but" because THAT is the definition of Improv. I can release a portion of my control to the player without losing all control of the entire game. That is the spectrum you have been ignoring in favor of a strange bias to binary "tyrannical dictatorship or meaningless anarchy."

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.

Well, I certainly don't normally play with strangers, that is true. I typically don't play with people I don't trust, or at least I don't play any games where I actually care much about the game. I would happily play a stupid dungeon crawl with even the world's biggest munchkins, because who cares if they crap all over it? It was unlikely to matter outside the play session anyway and I save my game time for games that I can care about even in my off hours, thinking about it at work and developing more content for those games as a side hobby.

I just don't normally bother even playing at all with people I don't have a decent amount of trust with, and the few times I do I just reduce my expectations where it really doesn't waste much if the whole thing does go sideways.

So yeah, when my groups ask for more Player Agency than normally allowed, I will trust and verify, checking why they want it, what they want it for, and whether I feel like I can honor the use of that agency later in good spirit. I also try to construct rules and limitations for these bonuses to Agency to close loopholes and help the player disincentivize abuses of the newly granted power so they can cooperate in good faith as well.

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.

So close, yet so far.

"Having Player Agency is exactly like a normal conventional game....so, in other words, player agency is an essential component of 'normal, classic' games. Like when any game has just normal game play...the players have player agency."

This is why Railroading tends to be badwrongfun. It denies Player Agency, which is *supposed* to be there, taking something out of the game that was both intended by the game creators and expected by the game players. Player Agency is intrinsic to "normal" games and it lives on a sliding scale to be turned up or down to suit group preference. No one in the group should be adjusting the scale unilaterally in direct opposition to cooperative fun.

When the Players ratchet up the Player Agency without permission, they are hijacking the story. Not inherently wrong to do, but more than likely at least a little rude to not convince the DM to cooperate first. When the DM ratchets down the Player Agency without permission, they are Railroading the party (to some degree). Having the technical authority to take Player Agency away does not make it any less wrong to do this without permission from the players.

[NichG]

But if I were caught in this scenario, my instinct would be to organically scale back the agency. "Phenomenal cosmic power, itty bitty living space." Being King is not necessarily easy or full of agency. I view Agency like currency. Having a lot of it often means having to do a lot more work managing it.

Well, this ties into my other big point about agency: every story has an "estabilishing conflicts" phase, and a "resolving conflicts" phase. It's normal for characters/players to have less agency during the first phase, but they definitely need lots of it during the second phase. This example is basically skipping the first phase altogether; if no big conflict has been previously introduced, the players won't know what to do with the sudden big-scale agency they have.

So if we start to collect a list of things to enable higher agency tolerance:

- Keep them busy/distract them
- Ease them into it

I think another major group of techniques involves appropriate use of abstraction. That is to say, if you have a bunch of kingdom building rules you can muck around with that turn things into numbers, that gives a way to understand what exactly your newfound power actually means. If the abstraction layer is something that can be removed or fuzzed out once running things at that level feels normal, even better.