D&D General What is player agency to you?

Campbell said:

All of that depends on the social environment at the table. Just because the characters would be free to go on about their business does not mean that's how it feels at the table.

Click to expand...

I assume you are referring to a potential social contract being that the players will engage in what the dm introduces?

Raiztt said:

I second this why... narrativism can be slapped onto anything.

Click to expand...

I’m guessing it’s because 4e has a few built in mechanics that play nicely with it. I recall skill challenges being mentioned as meshing nicely with that style.

Oofta said:

I've played other games, I've read up on and watched streams for the PbtA game DW (Dungeon World) to understand it. But the entire approach and what people get out of it is very different. It really is comparing apples to oranges. In DW the players are adding to the fiction, moves are resolved with a roll of 2d6 modified by your ability and either it works (player gets to say what happens) or it doesn't and something bad happens. At a very high level anyway, it's been a while so I'm likely getting detail wrong. I just read and watched enough to know that it's not for me.

I didn't find that players had any more agency, they had different type of agency. So that's why I can't do a direct comparison, direct comparisons make no sense. The main difference was that there was more collaboration of the story for the world itself, but it was also less concerned with simulation.

The problem is that we don't get details from people who like both types of games, we get lopsided views because the games appeal to different personalities and goals.

Click to expand...

Oofta, I'm not trying to say anything about other types of games. I've very specifically been talking about D&D 5e. I have played in games of 5e that have had different amounts of agency. I've run games with different amounts of agency. I can point to the things that enhanced or diminished agency across those games.

Do you think that I'm wrong?

Do you have any examples of play you can share that somehow show differing levels of agency within 5e games?

Maxperson said:

You asked for an example of low agency or lowest or whatever. A railroad is the only way to not have agency, so I listed it.

Click to expand...

Right. The removal of choice. And now you're saying that the presence of any choice, no matter the amount or the meaningfulness of them, is all the same.

Maxperson said:

No. Agency is binary. How you value the aspects of agency determine whether it's higher or lower for YOU. Objectively there is no higher or lower for agency.

Click to expand...

How is that true? We can look at video games and board games and see different levels of agency very clearly. Risk certainly allows for more agency than Chutes and Ladders. How can it not?

Why are RPGs somehow exempt from this?

Maxperson said:

The DM doesn't add options. Options exist independent of the DM. The player thinks of them or he doesn't. If there's a door, the DM didn't add the option to pick the lock, cast knock or bash it down. They were there the instant the door was placed into position. Excepting something that would negate things, such a wizard lock on the door.

Click to expand...

What? You're the same person who claims the DM has total authority in the game. How can options exist independent of the DM under that dynamic? The existence of the railroad that you offered as an example proves that DMs need not offer choice. If they can eliminate all options, then of course they can eliminate only some.

Maxperson said:

I think that the game would be enhanced, because as a general rule, players like to have a better chance of success and that translates into fun. It's not adding agency, though. It's adding quality. Every class can already engage in a huge number options in all of the pillars. My wizard can attempt to track orcs, even if he doesn't do it very well. Adding in a spell to track better just makes tracking a higher quality option.

Click to expand...

So the game is enhanced by quality? What?

What constitutes quality? I feel like you're taking a very subjective thing and trying to present it as an objective thing in order to prove the other thing that's actually objective is subjective.

mamba said:

As before, to me it is more relevant why there are these options (they arise naturally from the situation), what they are, and who decided what options are available.

So you will still have to narrow this down. Having two ‘realistic’ options is still better than having one ‘realistic’ and four ‘unrealistic’ ones, where ‘realistic’ refers to probable chance of success or desirability of the outcome

I guess in summary I can say that no, in most cases the number of options has no impact on agency to me, provided that number exceeds 1.
If you try hard, you can probably construct a scenario where it does, but outside of that… I disagree with the simple equation of more options = more agency

Also, all of this assumes the players cannot simply say ‘I do this instead’ and ignore whatever options you presented, which is an option in most cases

Click to expand...

Is it?

Do most games you run and/or play in allow the players to just opt out of what the DM has prepared?

Usually, there's some expected way the game will go. There may be room for some variation within the overall framework of play, but in my experience, 5e comes with expectations of what play will be about.

Would you agree with that?

hawkeyefan said:

How is that true? We can look at video games and board games and see different levels of agency very clearly. Risk certainly allows for more agency than Chutes and Ladders. How can it not?

Why are RPGs somehow exempt from this?

Click to expand...

False Equivalences are false. Board Games are not equal to Roleplaying Games. Not that it makes a difference. Agency is binary. More choices =/= more agency. Fewer choices =/= less agency. What you value in your choices = how agency feels to you. You may FEEL that more choices grant you more agency, but that's subjective opinion. Your agency remains the same. Either you have the freedom to make choices to affect the outcome of the game or you don't.

hawkeyefan said:

What? You're the same person who claims the DM has total authority in the game. How can options exist independent of the DM under that dynamic?

Click to expand...

Possibility =/= what is happening. Unless the DM actually engages that authority in an abuse to force you down one path or remove valid possibilities, he's not deciding what options are there.

hawkeyefan said:

The existence of the railroad that you offered as an example proves that DMs need not offer choice. If they can eliminate all options, then of course they can eliminate only some.

Click to expand...

And absent such an abuse of authority and power, this is not happening. Such abuses are rare.

hawkeyefan said:

So the game is enhanced by quality?

Click to expand...

Um, yes?

hawkeyefan said:

What constitutes quality? I feel like you're taking a very subjective thing and trying to present it as an objective thing in order to prove the other thing that's actually objective is subjective.

Click to expand...

Nope. Not presenting is as objective at all. Just look at people who love the fighter and hate the fighter. Think wizards are overpower or don't.

However, and I did say "I think..." which you conveniently ignore in order to accuse me of claiming objectivity, if you bring all the classes up to the point where they can engage all pillars equally, I think that it will enhance the game. That's a quality increase and not an agency one.

hawkeyefan said:

View attachment 292693

Click to expand...

Thank you!

hawkeyefan said:

Is it?

Do most games you run and/or play in allow the players to just opt out of what the DM has prepared?

Click to expand...

First of all, yes, they can 'deviate' from the 'prepared path'. Second, coming up with a different idea is not opting out of the adventure, they can still very much try to accomplish the same 'prepared' goal, they just go about it differently.

Notice how a while ago I said 'What do you want to do now' rather than saying 'Do you want to do X or Y' ? I could give them options that they are not bound to, but I frequently do not do that in the first place, and when I do it is more to summarize and accelerate the process by me presenting the most logical choices.

hawkeyefan said:

Usually, there's some expected way the game will go. There may be room for some variation within the overall framework of play, but in my experience, 5e comes with expectations of what play will be about.

Click to expand...

As I said above, trying an approach I did not mention does not really change what something is about. If you have to stop the evil necromancer from raising the Lich Lord, then that is what you need to do. That does not mean you have no say in how you approach it.

If they instead say 'that guy is too strong, we rather clear out the goblin cave for some treasure' then that is fine too, just don't expect the necromancer to just sit tight until you find the time / interest.

hawkeyefan said:

Would you agree with that?

Click to expand...

No. Can 5e be like that, sure, any published module to a degree is, regardless of how freeform the DM allows the game to be. Any sandbox is not however.

Oofta said:

I've played other games, I've read up on and watched streams for the PbtA game DW (Dungeon World) to understand it. But the entire approach and what people get out of it is very different. It really is comparing apples to oranges. In DW the players are adding to the fiction, moves are resolved with a roll of 2d6 modified by your ability and either it works (player gets to say what happens) or it doesn't and something bad happens. At a very high level anyway, it's been a while so I'm likely getting detail wrong. I just read and watched enough to know that it's not for me.

I didn't find that players had any more agency, they had different type of agency. So that's why I can't do a direct comparison, direct comparisons make no sense. The main difference was that there was more collaboration of the story for the world itself, but it was also less concerned with simulation.

The problem is that we don't get details from people who like both types of games, we get lopsided views because the games appeal to different personalities and goals.

Click to expand...

I would like to hear from someone who actually  likes both kinds of games, not just played them.

FrogReaver said:

I’m guessing it’s because 4e has a few built in mechanics that play nicely with it. I recall skill challenges being mentioned as meshing nicely with that style.

Click to expand...

There's nothing stopping you from using skill challenge structure in 5E, I use a modified version once in a while when it fits.

hawkeyefan said:

Oofta, I'm not trying to say anything about other types of games. I've very specifically been talking about D&D 5e. I have played in games of 5e that have had different amounts of agency. I've run games with different amounts of agency. I can point to the things that enhanced or diminished agency across those games.

Do you think that I'm wrong?

Do you have any examples of play you can share that somehow show differing levels of agency within 5e games?

Click to expand...

I've given examples multiple times over. Modules where you know the basic steps you take and ultimate goal versus a player-oriented and directed sandbox. I'm not going into any more detail because you keep asking the same question as if it hasn't been answered many, many times.

Micah Sweet said:

I would like to hear from someone who actually  likes both kinds of games, not just played them.

Click to expand...

I agree!