For this tangent I’m going to be speaking under the assumption that different games have differing amounts of agency.
1) Particular game rules make for different games
2) particular game rules make for differing amounts of agency
Thus, To change the game rules is to change both the game and the agency it offers.
This next piece I think is why [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] has been working towards. Given that all games limit agency to some degree in order to be a game - then there should be games with more agency than PbtA or burning wheel or etc (and if they don’t currently exist then they theoretically do so as we can all imagine them). In short the posters saying they prefer higher agency games aren’t actually looking for the highest agency possible (shouldn’t be controversial). Instead they are content with the amount and types PbtA and others offer them. It’s not simply a desire for high agency - it’s also a desire for particular types of game rules.
What this and the points above together show - agency and game rules are inseparable. To be content with a certain level of agency is to be content with the rules of that game and to be content with the rules of a game means you are content with the level and types of agency it provides. This conception of agency in relation to playing games is a tautology - and that’s what was trying to be conveyed.
To add a bit of nuance - a game that can be played a few different ways under the same rules can clearly have a higher agency method and lower agency method of play. Linear adventure paths vs sandbox campaigns come to mind. In this comparison sandboxes offer more freedom of choice, more direction over outcome and more direction over play than linear adventures.
