If you wish to know about player agency in games: https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/107893/what-player-agency

Now for an example of what it is like to NOT have any agency:
Around 15 years ago, I was asked to join a group by a novice GM (first timer).  I only stayed for half the session. It went like this:
GM: Okay so you defeated the cultists who-
ME: I take the sword.
GM: Well, when you try to take it, it disappears.
GM: So, after a good night's rest-
ME: Wait! I wanted to buy something at the inn.
GM: No. After a good night's rest, you head back onto your journey to the City. Half way there in the middle of the night you are suddenly attacked by cultists.
GM: What do you attack with?
ME: You mean, what do I do?
GM: No. You have all been waylayed. So there's no choice but to fight.
ME: I surrender.
GM: You can't.
ME: WHY NOT??
GM: Because it's NOT PART OF MY STORY! So, what do you fight with?
...
I still have no fucking clue what that meant!
If you think players should have NO AGENCY or such a thing doesn't exist, then all an RPG becomes is an RNG combat simulator (or worse!). Random encounters aside, At the halfway break, I asked the GM when I could make a decision. His reply was: I want to run this campaign like a module, so I can't let you make any decisions. I heard the group disintegrated after the second session, because he refused to allow a PC to heal another PC, which ended with the wounded PC dying in another pre-planned fight.
Now you know what NO AGENCY looks like. How does it feel?
IT SUCKS.

Quote from: consolcwby on December 20, 2020, 09:19:21 PM

Around 15 years ago, I was asked to join a group by a novice GM (first timer).  I only stayed for half the session. It went like this:
GM: Okay so you defeated the cultists who-
ME: I take the sword.
GM: Well, when you try to take it, it disappears.
GM: So, after a good night's rest-
ME: Wait! I wanted to buy something at the inn.
GM: No. After a good night's rest, you head back onto your journey to the City. Half way there in the middle of the night you are suddenly attacked by cultists.
GM: What do you attack with?
ME: You mean, what do I do?
GM: No. You have all been waylayed. So there's no choice but to fight.
ME: I surrender.
GM: You can't.
ME: WHY NOT??
GM: Because it's NOT PART OF MY STORY! So, what do you fight with?

You just gave a great example of a crap GM, no special terminology needed.

Quote from: lordmalachdrim on December 20, 2020, 10:44:52 PM

Quote from: consolcwby on December 20, 2020, 09:19:21 PM

Around 15 years ago, I was asked to join a group by a novice GM (first timer).  I only stayed for half the session. It went like this:
GM: Okay so you defeated the cultists who-
ME: I take the sword.
GM: Well, when you try to take it, it disappears.
GM: So, after a good night's rest-
ME: Wait! I wanted to buy something at the inn.
GM: No. After a good night's rest, you head back onto your journey to the City. Half way there in the middle of the night you are suddenly attacked by cultists.
GM: What do you attack with?
ME: You mean, what do I do?
GM: No. You have all been waylayed. So there's no choice but to fight.
ME: I surrender.
GM: You can't.
ME: WHY NOT??
GM: Because it's NOT PART OF MY STORY! So, what do you fight with?

You just gave a great example of a crap GM, no special terminology needed.

I noticed that novice was used to describe the GM. Probably the root cause.

For me I try to be receptive to the GMs style and/or talent.  I don't mind a certain level of railroading particularly if they have put a lot of work into the campaign.  I tend to try to follow the GMs prompts that they want the story to go in a certain direction.  I don't try to trip them up.  What do people think of that?

Agency is having the ability to make meaningful decisions for your character, as stated.

So getting railroaded means no agency. Having meaningless decisions (the quantum ogre left/right path) lacks agency.

Sometimes too much agency can be bad -- you need SOME guidance.

Player agency is a bit of a crap term that means being able to make decisions as a player, which have meaningful effects on your character in the game. So the GM isn't just ignoring what you (the player) have decided. Those decisions are still set up by the GM and the PC's interaction with the world, but the decisions are important. They have in-game effects that are meaningful (e.g. avoiding/meeting the quantum ogre, being able to get off the railroad, not taking the "mission", avoiding the inevitable double-cross, etc)

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 20, 2020, 03:33:41 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on December 20, 2020, 02:30:37 PM
IMHO, Player Agency is the constant and consistent war against Boxed Text.

Don't forget the crap GM's who tell you what your character is thinking and doing in order to set up the next scene in their would-be novel.

There is one situation, at least in D&D, where you have to do this: when a PC has been hit with a mind-affecting spell. Especially the charm spells. It's annoying, but if you have good players, they roll with it.

"Agency" in the context of discussing fictional characters is a buzzword invented by Portland Hipsters to advance a Motte and Bailey fallacy that certain literary tropes should be off limits and characters belonging to "protected classes" are only ever allowed to be good guys.  In effect Protected characters are required to have an invisible force field around them and nothing bad can ever  happen to them.

In the context of an RPG, the Motte is the reasonable assertion that DMs shouldn't railroad or force their characters into dumb situations.  The Bailey they are actually advancing is that their characters must be perfect, flawless Mary Sues who would never fall to such petty tricks as a mind-control spell.

Quote from: Dropbear on December 20, 2020, 07:56:22 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 20, 2020, 07:51:53 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on December 20, 2020, 07:33:53 PM
In my own experience, the only people who have used that exact term in any of my games were the ones who have come into a campaign with a written multi-page background that introduced elements that had nothing to do with the setting established for the game (and that they were aware of, and agreed to, before character generation began) and used in an effort to introduce game and setting breaking material that they wanted their character to be or have.

That's not player agency, that's player entitlement. Agency is about the freedom to make meaningful choices in the game. Entitlement is expecting everything you want to come true.

It's the difference between "oh, you mean I can go anywhere?" and "I demand a staff of the magi at first level!".

My point being the term is not often used to illustrate player agency, but rather player entitlement.

There is no term--no matter how well defined and aligned with a concept that actually appears as a recognizable behavior in play--that cannot be perversely twisted by bad players and/or bad GMs to attempt to justify their own behavior.  Plus, it is almost as if there is a group of people in RPGs that want to twist language to support an agenda ...

Technically, there are two levels to player agency:

1. You have control over your character but not the setting (as other have said clearly above).

2. You have control over what the group agrees beforehand that you have control over--no more, no less.  That is, player agency in a story game is very different than player agency in an RPG.  Player agency in a railroad is much more limited but still technically there, as compared to a sandbox.  You might have signed up for the railroad and find it fun, but there is still some defined level of control over the character even so. 

As to whether it is a useful term or not, I'm on the fence.  Maybe it is useful in talking about what happens in prep and group planning when defining what the group wants.  After the game starts, if it arises it indicates a problem.  In a good game, you shouldn't ever need to talk about it in play.

Edit:  If a player identifies as "entitled twit" by using/misusing "player agency", the term has served at least one useful purpose.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 05, 1975, 01:06:26 PM
There is one situation, at least in D&D, where you have to do this: when a PC has been hit with a mind-affecting spell. Especially the charm spells. It's annoying, but if you have good players, they roll with it.

And you already know that wasn't what I was referring to (and already noted that as a point where it was okay). And that what I'm referring to is in line with "you do as the NPC asks happily and without question even though he's a snide condescending asshole to you after he called on you for help. No you can't demand double and no you can't refuse."

So, you already knew this. Why bring it up?

Quote from: lordmalachdrim on December 20, 2020, 10:44:52 PM

Quote from: consolcwby on December 20, 2020, 09:19:21 PM

Around 15 years ago, I was asked to join a group by a novice GM (first timer).  I only stayed for half the session. It went like this:
GM: Okay so you defeated the cultists who-
ME: I take the sword.
GM: Well, when you try to take it, it disappears.
GM: So, after a good night's rest-
ME: Wait! I wanted to buy something at the inn.
GM: No. After a good night's rest, you head back onto your journey to the City. Half way there in the middle of the night you are suddenly attacked by cultists.
GM: What do you attack with?
ME: You mean, what do I do?
GM: No. You have all been waylayed. So there's no choice but to fight.
ME: I surrender.
GM: You can't.
ME: WHY NOT??
GM: Because it's NOT PART OF MY STORY! So, what do you fight with?

You just gave a great example of a crap GM, no special terminology needed.

Except that it's a term that helps identify a specific issue or aspect of cram GMing, which does not represent the totally of WTF being a "crap GM" entails. Calling someone a "crap GM" doesn't tell me absolutely ANYTHING about WTF that "crap GM" needs to fix. Telling me that he/she/xir keeps denying "player agency" in order to force their characters down his predestined story path or scenario tells me what that GM's specific issue is, or at least helps narrow it down. Telling me that he/she/xir is a "crap GM" is just a value judgement. It doesn't elucidate anything.

Mind control spells are an interesting case.  While they are legit mechanically and generally accepted, I still feel they reduce/remove player agency, which I think makes the game less fun.  I tend not to use such spells as a GM and don't include them in the games I write.

Quote from: Mishihari on December 21, 2020, 11:43:26 AM
Mind control spells are an interesting case.  While they are legit mechanically and generally accepted, I still feel they reduce/remove player agency, which I think makes the game less fun.  I tend not to use such spells as a GM and don't include them in the games I write.

I don't necessarily feel that they reduce player agency any more than other adverse hostile acts do. Mind control that temporarily takes over a character (or even non-magical social skills that charm/deceive/intimidate a PC into acting contrary to the player's wishes) isn't different in my eyes than taking an injury that prevents your character from taking the actions that you want them to take. However, much like long-lasting or permanent injuries, I do tend to avoid long-term mind-control/reprogramming of PCs.

Quote from: Mishihari on December 21, 2020, 11:43:26 AM
Mind control spells are an interesting case.  While they are legit mechanically and generally accepted, I still feel they reduce/remove player agency, which I think makes the game less fun.  I tend not to use such spells as a GM and don't include them in the games I write.

Same.  Some players enjoy acting out the loss of agency from mind control--as long as it is not too long or too extreme.  I did a particularly wild version of it once where every single character swapped minds with another character and was asked to play in their character's body with the personality of another character as it had been established in the game up to that point.  It took them several hours of game play to get the process reversed.  The players talked for a few minutes after that session and unanimously agreed that it was:  "A great session.  Glad we did it.  Lots of fun.  Never do that to us again."

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 21, 2020, 12:02:04 PM
I don't necessarily feel that they reduce player agency any more than other adverse hostile acts do. Mind control that temporarily takes over a character (or even non-magical social skills that charm/deceive/intimidate a PC into acting contrary to the player's wishes) isn't different in my eyes than taking an injury that prevents your character from taking the actions that you want them to take. However, much like long-lasting or permanent injuries, I do tend to avoid long-term mind-control/reprogramming of PCs.

The bolded is the reason I rewrote the social skills in my game system.

I HATE the "Diplomancer"... the 3.5e abuse of a giant diplomacy bonus and the Epic Level Handbook rules to instantly turn enemies into fanatical followers of you with a single skill check and where a good roll and "give me your kingdom" will cause a king to surrender their crown without question.

So instead the best result possible for a persuasion attempt is "takes what you say in the best possible way." So that king you told to give up his kingdom presumes that you're making some type of joke, not that you're trying to steal his kingdom with honeyed words.

By contrast, "your majesty, I implore you to send men to help reinforce the town of Southfort. If it falls then your realms are certainly next," taken in the best possible light is that you are legitimately warning him of a true danger to his realm and suggesting the course you feel will best protect his kingdom. He may still feel he has a better plan of action to take, but he acknowledges the threat and that something must be done. Now you just need to argue for why reinforcing Southfort is a better option than marshalling his forces at his own border (arguments he will also take in the best possible light because you've already persuaded him to be "friendly."

Likewise, a successful deceit check means that those hearing your words believe that YOU believe what you're saying, but the king's guards aren't just going to act on "the King is really a Red Dragon! Kill him now!" regardless of how well you roll. Now if the king has been behaving unusually in recent days they'll take the accusation more credibly, but an instant changing of behavior against reason just is not going to happen.

Likewise, "The King is really a Red Dragon and I have proof!"... well those same guards will believe you believe that and the request (don't act until you've heard me give my proof) doesn't require actions that go against their reason or beliefs and so is far more likely to be effective (particularly if your goal isn't to get the guards to turn on their king but to keep everyone distracted while your party is doing something else).

Conversely, used against PC's I have no problems regarding player agency with "He sounds believable" or "He does seem to believe the course he's suggesting will be in your best interests." That's just conveying information that the GM may not have the interpersonal skill to convey on their own, but its still ultimately the PCs choice on how to act on the information provided.