Quote from: Skarg;1032296Googling "player agency" turns up a slew of discussions, articles, podcasts, etc with many different ideas about what "agency" means. There is no one agreed definition, except at the high level of "what players can or can't choose to do and affect".

Here in this thread, Greentongue the OP spelled out the context he was asking about pretty clearly, and it was not about storygaming or players having "agency" over traditionally-GM-domain things.

Yeah, I think Skarg is most on-point here.

To Skepticultist - Chill out. You're welcome to post here, but the hysterics don't win you any favors.

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032150You both appear to be describing character agency.  Player agency has more to do with exercising control over the fiction of the setting.

An example of player exercising player agency would be a player saying something like "I reach out to my street contracts and find someone who will sell me a map of the secret sewer entrance to the castle," when the GM has not established that any such entrance exists.  If the GM allows this action, then they are encouraging player agency.   If the GM disallows this action, then they are limiting player agency.

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032150Edit:  I run HERO System, which has two Complications -- Enraged and Psychological Limitation -- that both remove character agency, but since a player chooses to take complications and gets points for them, it's not removing player agency.  They defined their character that way.

OK, so what about a system like Pendragon where players are *required* to take the equivalent of Psychological Limitations?  Since the players are required to make their character subject to passions, does that remove player agency?  That's what the OP is talking about.

I find that a lot of players prefer having full control over their character. Even in the HERO system where they get points for it, many players prefer to role-play out their Psych Lims by character choices - rather than being overridden by the GM telling them what they do when a Psych Lim applies.

Quote from: tenbones;1032480/scratches off his first attempt at Narrative RPG Design.

It's all been done.

Quote from: jeff37923;1032487I'm not saying you are wrong, but the way you have said it just sucks the fun right of doing it that way. Sometimes it is the journey and not the end result and sometimes it is the end result and not the journey (or why I made character death in Traveller chargen the decision of the player all those years ago).

Sorry, didn't mean to be disparaging.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032453Because people are dumb and need a way to distinguish between actual choices (i.e. "meaningful" ones) and selecting between whims (i.e. what people commonly consider "choices").

Choosing between Pepsi and Coca-cola, preferences aside, isn't a real choice.

Choosing between death by fire and getting laid by the princess isn't a real choice.

Games often present meaningless choices to players: the right one and the wrong one. Choosing between two bad options or choosing between two ambiguous options is far more difficult and interesting.

Plus, the "other thing" being banded as an alternative--players bringing things into the game world--already has a perfectly good piece of jargon for it, "Narrative Rights".  Jargon, is insider language by definition, and only useful for discussing the finer points of the concepts.  

At the table, it's all but meaningless, assuming the GM has his head screwed on halfway straight.    "Here, player X, do you want to get set on fire by the princess or laid by the dragon?"  "Can I just die instead?"  

Quote from: Crawford Tillinghast;1032492Sorry, didn't mean to be disparaging.

Oh no, we're cool.

I mean, hey, you're not being a sperglord like Skepticultist so it is OK.

Quote from: jhkim;1032491
OK, so what about a system like Pendragon where players are *required* to take the equivalent of Psychological Limitations?  Since the players are required to make their character subject to passions, does that remove player agency?  That's what the OP is talking about.

I find that a lot of players prefer having full control over their character. Even in the HERO system where they get points for it, many players prefer to role-play out their Psych Lims by character choices - rather than being overridden by the GM telling them what they do when a Psych Lim applies.

6E HERO made a cosmetic change in that:  You are given extra points and assigned a certain number of "complications" (the new word for disadvantages) and can use the extra points to buy stuff, or buy off the complications.  Thus you can get the "Courtly Knight" package of complications.  I don't know enough about Pendragon to say, but I doubt you can buy off the complications and still be a knightly character;  You shouldn't be able to in Arthurian HERO.

HERO psych limits can be graded:  A need, a compulsion, or an obsession.  The last is where you cross over into physical limits:  The character cannot deny their requirement.  It is past the point of unthinkable.

OK, what about a character who has a compulsion or obsession with being seen as a hero, one of the good guys, that stems from a sense of desperately wanting to be liked and accepted?

Quote from: jeff37923;1032510OK, what about a character who has a compulsion or obsession with being seen as a hero, one of the good guys, that stems from a sense of desperately wanting to be liked and accepted?

Then you get Detective Lassiter from Psych.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1032212And now comes three hundred posts of "definition bingo" and goal-post moving.

I agree with Big Green, personally.  But this thread is done for.

I think you called it. But I suspect he's gone for the duration

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032458...But please, keep being petty little bitches and getting your panties...

Just a random sampling of the total. Skepticultist, you lost your temper. No one ever comes out looking like the adult in the conversation when they do something like this. I'm sure, in your mind, it was completely irrational that people would not see the brilliance of your points and equally horrid that they were dismissive of your extensive expertise. Perhaps that truly is the case. Likely, the rest of us will never know. Simply put, you. did. not. make. your. case. There is a gap between what you thought you said and what actually came out in digital ink. It would have, frankly, been foolish for people to accept what you stated as wisdom, because to do so they would have to be telepathic and be reacting to what you thought you stated, and not what you did state (and that's assuming that you are right, which again, we'll probably never know). I am sure you have, while perusing the internet, seen someone get themselves neck deep into an online argument, not realize that they failed to connect the dots of their point, and instead of going back and completing the linkage, just kept digging. Apparently you are solidly invested in never acknowledging that that person could ever be you, but that's what the rest of us saw.

I hope you can come back and have a meaningful conversation here, but just remember, here you are expected to back up your case. And (as you've clearly demonstrated) there are no censors. So you will get called out and taken to task. It often leads to pointless arguments, but it can also lead to some real trial-by-fire fire-hardened positions. Hope to see (the best side of) you soon.

Quote from: Greentongue;1032133For example, in Pendragon there are Personality Traits. These are used to define the Character.
A "saving roll" can be used to determine if a Character acts according to the Trait as opposed to how the Player wants.
In real life we see people with addictions, there are a list of classic Sins that real people do.
What is the issue with modelling a game character's actions based on the character Traits?
The Player acts as the Character's will but the body does what it does.
As in real life, people avoid temptation as a way to not do things they feel are wrong (or against their Traits).
Why do many/most games assume that Characters have unbreakable will power?

Why don't more games include a Trait like mechanic? (Or do they and I just missed it?)
=

I think if you turn the books and squint, you can see similar things in all sorts of games.
As to the general question about agency (any type of agency)-- If I come to a table and someone says, "want to play a game?" If I say "sure" and sit down, I am not expecting the game to be "roll 1d20 and add 5, if the total is 13+, you win." In most games, the 'active' part of the game for the player is the making of decisions. Therefore, the times when the decision-making power of the player (either through dice taking the reigns, such as torture/addiction/charm) or non-addressable-through-decision-deception (illusions or the like where circumventing them is adjudicated by dice rolls/saving-throws) should be, if not rare, at least well defined. Thus a game usually only has those mechanics that the designers considered most relevant (such as morale and illusions in D&D, or willpower/virtues in White Wolf games).

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1032339The idea is it makes the character more "real", as if they actually exist as their own person, where even you can't tell them what to do. They have their own personality. The more the game trends in that direction, the more you're like their conscience that is along for the ride, or one of the angels or devils on their shoulder telling them what to do.

That's the concept as it was pitched to me. I've never seen it do that in play. Not even in games like Vampire or Exalted which are designed around that principle.

What I generally see happen is constant argument between player and GM about when its appropriate to roll the impulse control dice and a dickering over how to interpret the result.

I find it's best to have players who simply want to make "bad" choices in-game, which have fun out-of-game consequences.

I mean, how rational is it exactly to go into a monster-haunted dungeon for gold? If your players are already going that far, they're basically already playing characters who make disastrous life choices.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032452Different strokes.

If we're ever going to get away from neurotically typing "Just IMHO" "Only my $0.02!" and the dreadful "In my humble opinion..." we need to accept the courtesy that something said by someone is, in fact, their opinion by definition. When I type a response or a post of any variety, I am stating my opinion, not objective truth. Of course different people like different things; in this very forum, in this very post, people are talking about the different RPGs they're playing. The interesting part of the discussion is why.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032452Have you ever heard of morale checks? The characters of the game, rather than the players, decide they've had enough and run for their lives even though the player controlling them doesn't like it. Why? Because it makes sense and because folks find that a fun part of a game.

I make morale checks all the time.... For NPCs. Players can choose to be as brave (or suicidal) as they care to. I have never had a player complain that their character was "too brave", but I'd certainly get an earful if I told them they weren't.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032452Why hyperbole so much?

It's a rhetorical technique to highlight the absurdity of the design decisions. I mean, that's pretty much contained in the term hyperbole. Points for not only accurately identifying it, but using the proper term; that's a refreshing mastery of language!

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032452Pendragon does great things by taking away player agency. So does the Song of Ice and Fire RPG in its diplomacy rules. Sometimes your character is compelled to do things that are disadvantageous. That's fun stuff.

I disagree that its fun, as do the people I run for. Of course, we often willingly choose to make boneheaded decisions because it's what the character would do (or because its fun, which has always sufficed as justification for me). In other words, the need for such mechanics isn't present at our games. Perhaps your players aren't as awesome and fun as mine? I tend to luck out that way... ;-)

Quote from: Azraele;1032547If we're ever going to get away from neurotically typing "Just IMHO" "Only my $0.02!" and the dreadful "In my humble opinion..." we need to accept the courtesy that something said by someone is, in fact, their opinion by definition. When I type a response or a post of any variety, I am stating my opinion, not objective truth. Of course different people like different things; in this very forum, in this very post, people are talking about the different RPGs they're playing. The interesting part of the discussion is why.

I think you're being obtuse now. "Different strokes" doesn't mean "IMHO", it's shorthand for "guess what? Some people have fun that is different from yours. It's a preference, and doesn't take more explanation than 'this is a thing I like that doesn't need justification."

Quote from: Azraele;1032547I make morale checks all the time.... For NPCs. Players can choose to be as brave (or suicidal) as they care to. I have never had a player complain that their character was "too brave", but I'd certainly get an earful if I told them they weren't.

That's neat but doesn't even bear mentioning. Other people have fun that looks very different from yours but is just as awesome.

Quote from: Azraele;1032547It's a rhetorical technique to highlight the absurdity of the design decisions. I mean, that's pretty much contained in the term hyperbole. Points for not only accurately identifying it, but using the proper term; that's a refreshing mastery of language!

Publik skool didn' do me rong.

Quote from: Azraele;1032547I disagree that its fun, as do the people I run for. Of course, we often willingly choose to make boneheaded decisions because it's what the character would do (or because its fun, which has always sufficed as justification for me). In other words, the need for such mechanics isn't present at our games. Perhaps your players aren't as awesome and fun as mine? I tend to luck out that way... ;-)

Your opinion is utterly meaningless outside of your own head, of course.

We actually don't "need" those or any mechanics. These are games, after all. We, however, sometimes choose to play specific games because we enjoy them for a variety of reasons.

Your group, bound by its "needs" that require satisfaction, is clearly inferior.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032548We actually don't "need" those or any mechanics. These are games, after all. We, however, sometimes choose to play specific games because we enjoy them for a variety of reasons.

Your group, bound by its "needs" that require satisfaction, is clearly inferior.

The OP, to be fair, was pretty biased against opposing tastes. i.e.

Quote from: Greentongue;1032133Why do many/most games assume that Characters have unbreakable will power?

Why don't more games include a Trait like mechanic? (Or do they and I just missed it?)

The simple answer is - more games don't include it because more players don't like it. In my experience, most players don't want trait-like mechanics.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032548I think you're being obtuse now. "Different strokes" doesn't mean "IMHO", it's shorthand for "guess what? Some people have fun that is different from yours. It's a preference, and doesn't take more explanation than 'this is a thing I like that doesn't need justification."

That's a fair tack to take. But here's my question; how does removing the agency of making choices for your character lead to a more enjoyable experience? I'm a lot more interested in picking your brain about that point.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032548That's neat but doesn't even bear mentioning. Other people have fun that looks very different from yours but is just as awesome.

Clearly, I missed the boat on this one. As did everyone I ever played with. Perhaps you have a story, or an example of this awesomeness? A time when removing player choice led to a better experience than allowing a player to choose how their character felt or acted? (I'm willing to accept your definition of "better" for the sake of exploring the POV)

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032548Your opinion is utterly meaningless outside of your own head, of course.

I don't agree with this. I wouldn't share my opinion out here, outside of my head, if I felt it was worthless. Would you?

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032548We actually don't "need" those or any mechanics. These are games, after all. We, however, sometimes choose to play specific games because we enjoy them for a variety of reasons.

We do require mechanics for a game to take place, yes. As long as we're discussing games, we should assume that some variety of mechanics are necessary (or merely necessary as a rhetorical "given" considering the topic)

I comprehend that there is some reason you, specifically, like games that remove certain decisions from the hands of players (and possibly GMs) and places them in the hands of random number generators. As I said, what fascinates me is your reasoning.

For argument's sake, lets not draw a parallel between "making choices" in the sense of player/GM choice controlling action initiation ("My character tries to/acts like...") or feeling ("My character feels/thinks...") and a declaration of outcome (My character succeeds/fails at...).

Let's assume that this divide is meaningful (it is, to me specifically) and that the outcome declaration in the hands of randomizing agents is a generally accepted benefit to the games under discussion.

(At least, when that outcome is in doubt. Rolling to get out of bed is stupid)

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1032548Your group, bound by its "needs" that require satisfaction, is clearly inferior.

Oh it is on now XD

Quote from: Skepticultist;1032458Then you're an idiot.  Because I'm not bitching about terminology, I'm pointing out that the entire conversation in this thread is pointless, witless yammering.

You made your point and more, now move on with the conversation.

Everybody else quit responding to Skepticultist unless he does move on with the conversation. Otherwise the thread will be closed.

To the OP: Player Agency that mimics the lack of "real life" personal agency is totally possible. As long as everyone agrees that the method would be fun AND everyone agrees to get into it.

There are some games out there where the designer tried to award this kind of behavior/choice in the game. "Get 12 XP when you mutilate yourself and then drink a 5th of vodka..." To me, they all feel super hollow and artificial. Instead, I would rather a player who wants to portray a self-destructive personality just do so.

At some point, RPGers need to see The Play as some kind of reward unto itself (I am speaking to the in character make-believe pretending part). Otherwise, we are leaning super hard on the "game" part. I love this hobby for the hybrid of both parts.