The Agency Contradiction
You have player agency, now deal with the consequences...
As we work our way through the contradictions of modern gaming, we come to one of the more interesting ones. This is the Contradiction of Agency. As I outlined in the Contradiction of Story, one of the biggest demands from players is for agency. They want their actions to mean something and they want to be able to shape the game world. This desire isn't wrong, but problems arise when players forget that consequences for their actions can sometimes be negative. The Contradiction of Agency is built on a desire to have all of the positives of total player agency but with none of the negatives.
What are the potential negatives of player agency though? Well, it's Newton's third law. For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. This can be positive or negative depending on the action of the party and the reaction of the parties effected. Let's use the popular example of making a snide remark to a King. What modern players expect is that they'll be able to do something like that without consequences. In reality and in a game with true agency though, sassing a King could result in anything from a chuckle and a “I like the cut of your gib, sir” to an immediate execution without trial. This often depends on a reaction roll or something similar. Players used to understand this concept and acted accordingly knowing that upsetting a King would most certainly be bad for them. If a GM declared that the King was angered by their comment and ordered the guards to seize the character, a modern player would be apoplectic. “Woah, woah! It was just a joke! You're gonna kill my character over a joke?” Yes, I am and it's because of who you joked about. Actions have consequences and those consequences can be dire depending on the circumstances.
Agency is a two-edged sword. It grants total freedom of action to the players but, like all freedom, it comes with responsibility. You're responsible for the consequences of your actions up to and including the loss of your character. This is a concept that many of my generation do not understand though, whether in-game or in real life. To take the possibility of death at the hands of a King with a poor sense of humor off the table, you have to take the agency to make that joke away.
Why are modern players so opposed to negative consequences though? Somewhere along the way, players began to develop attachments to their characters to the point where modern players treat their characters as extensions of themselves. We've gone from random character generation being standard to building characters from scratch. They write in-depth backstories that paint their first level characters as Chuck Norris with the sexual charisma of David Bowie. An entire cottage industry has sprung up around custom miniatures, character portraits and other similar products that all say the same thing; “This is my beloved, precious character.”
When players view their characters this way, the notion of anything bad happening to them becomes an existential crisis. The fact of the matter though is that agency will continue to cause contradictions for gamers until they can let go of their characters. This is one of the advantages of running multiple characters that were randomly generated. I will do a separate article on character discovery versus character creation some other time, but the best way to combat this contradiction is to discourage this creation of OCs instead of characters.
In summary, this contradiction stems from an aversion to responsibility and a belief that the character is an extension of the player. As long as those two things exist in a player's mind, he cannot enjoy total agency. GMs, remind your players that their sacred cows will become sacred hamburger if they do something stupid. C’est la vie.