This week started out with some fresh drama, as the SHL is wont to do. The New Orleans Spectres and the Edmontom Blizzard employed "questionable" tactics that drew the ire of many users in the SHL. While I have argued that the tactics are fine from a GM perspective, the larger issue I've come to recognize is one of player agency. 

Many of us have a player type in mind when we create a new player or when we add points to a stat. We envision the effects higher stick checking might have, as replays of Datsyuk steals swim in our head. Or maybe we up that shooting range and accuracy on our defenseman, seeing Brent Burns rip clappers from the blue line. Maybe we toss some checking, hitting, strength, and stamina in hopes of creating a Tom Wilson. All of these examples are to say that the fantasy of having a player is a very strong one and i would argue one of the biggest draws for the SHL. It's important to users to have agency over the fantasy of their player.

Indeed, this is encouraged in the build tool, with the dropdown of the player roles. It offers 21 archetypes for forwards and 14 for defensemen and each one has particular strengths and requires particular stats be fairly high. These are highlighted in red. The builder says "What do you want to make? We will help you." It hammers that fantasy home and offers more to fantasize about. Woah, I can be a goon? Or maybe Gretzky's office? It might be cool to be a garbage collector. Astute users will notice that many roles have large overlaps, and thus a player can be built to be suited for multiple roles. Maybe you're a scoring forward with good skating ability. Well that opens up many of the scoring archetypes. Or maybe you want to be a two-way forward. Many of the overlaps here align with Counter-Attacking forward, or shadow, or agitator. 

The point is, the roles are suggested to be in the players control. And they should be. But they aren't.

One of the reasons FHM was exciting to switch to was the fact that GMs had their own measure of control over how the team played. There was more fine-tuned controls over the tactics, how a given line played, how many minutes. It was possible to assign a specific player a specific role and if they were good at it, they would see success in that role. The combinations are nigh endless.

But what happened was that it allowed GMs to have agency at the cost of player agency. Most of the time, the players aren't even aware of the roles they've been assigned. GMs play players like chess pieces. While this is great for the job of GM and helps good GMs be better and bad GMs be noticeably worse, it comes at the cost of player fantasy. Here we see Exhibit A: The full agitator forward line-up. Again I will say, this is no big deal from a tactics standpoint. This is what tactics are for. You create a (less than) elegant solution to try to be the best team you can be. If you look at it purely as a game to be played, its fine. But as a simulation, as a fantasy, it's all wrong.

So we have our ruling. One agitator, crease clearer, goon, per team. This rule is completely beside the point. It doesn't give players any agency regarding their player role, it just stops GMs from employing "dirty" tactics that MAYBE affect your overall idea of the SHL fantasy, but does nothing to stop your power forward from being deployed as a goon if that's not what you want. And really, no player is going to say "I'm not going to play that role" because it's selfish. No one wants to say "My goals are more important that the team". But, those goals are treated as moot. Or at least they can be. And who wants to play for a team that isn't trying to win? It's a double-edged sword here. 

So what's the solution? 

Here's my take. At player creation, just like with SimonT, you pick 5 roles your player can play (or 4 for defensemen). It's not so small that your player gets pigeon-holed into a bad role, but not too broad as to allow every forward to pick agitator anyway. These roles live on your player page and do NOT affect your stats in any way. I think we want to get away from that sort of thing. Easy, breezy. 

GMs cannot deploy a player in a role they have not selected. Like, im not sending the softest goal-scorer I have out as a goon. But, they do have 5/4 options per player. We are limiting choices at game time, but opening up a new landscape of drafting and team-building strategy. Now things aren't just in terms of TPE or build, but now player roles play a big role in the fantasy of not just the individual, but of the whole organization and league. Drafting becomes a deeper mechanic in the league, rather than just looking at discord activity or TPE, you have to be mindful of their roles. Trading too becomes deeper. You will see more 1:1 trades, more tweaking of teams and a less stagnant trade scene. If Mike Izzy wants to hit as many dudes as possible, he can do that and you can't deploy him as a playmaking forward. Do you want that on your team? if not, don't draft him or trade for him. Simple as. 

I can see some users wanting this to not be permanent, or to maybe want to add more roles as your player progresses. This is, i think, a separate issue but one worth discussing anyway. I think if we have the ability to switch positions and reassign TPE, we should be able to pay to replace a role. 

I think this will be great for new users as well, since the fantasy element of picking a player archetype will be enforced by the GMs. More player agency, more important choices. 


1080 words, grade it