D&D General What is player agency to you?

[pemerton]

Look at faith. The DM has discretion to award faith based on play.

Huh? This isn't correct.

Being Faithful is a trait, which is either purchased in PC building, or earned via the trait vote. The GM is only one participant in the trait vote.

 

[CreamCloud0]

this isn't technically about GMs, but i think this is an interesting 15 minute video about games 'cheating behind the scenes' for player fun and satisfying play experience

 

[Golroc]

Do you then believe that perception dictates reality? That if you believe something to be true, that's all that matters?

No. I believe perception dictates experience. I don't really see what is so controversial and strange about claiming that perceived agency can have value. Imagination and the (voluntary) exposure to illusion is a cornerstone of many kinds of entertainment. It's quite possible to engage in such activities without being a solipsist or adherent of magical thinking.

Because that's literally, exactly what the issue is for me. I don't like being lied to. In fact, I absolutely despise it. If I find out that a video game really is secretly using false, dodgy math, I dislike that--a lot. I generally hold games to a lower standard than live persons, because (a) games are not moral agents, and (b) I understand that coding games is very difficult and thus allow some leeway for technical limitations that are not present when it's two humans discussing things with one another.

And there is nothing wrong with you having that preference. You are not the only one. I am voicing my opposition to the notion that a codified imagined reality with no room for illusion is the only reasonable basis for having agency. I am also confused why you seem to be upset that other people like illusion as part of their games. I am not going to try and convince you that you should feel the same way. Nor would I use such techniques if there isn't a consensus to do so.

You have the statistical data to back up this assertion, yes? Unless "a lot" is simply a squishy "some amount bigger than zero," at which point the claim adds nothing to the conversation.

(regarding my claim that lots of player enjoy varying elements of illusion and/or GM-dictated reality bending). No, I do not have anything but anecdotal evidence. But given the nature of this discussion, I shouldn't have to produce such material. First off, because RPGs haven't been studied to a degree where the body of empirical data even exists to do so. Secondly, because I don't think it's a particular outlandish claim to state that a significant number of players have these preferences. I am not claiming it's a majority (although I actually suspect it is), but that's also beside the point. I am trying to explain why accepting that a variety of playstyle exist has relevance to this topic. Almost everything in this thread (and elsewhere in the wider discourse on RPGs and playstyles) is based on anecdotal evidence and some amount of assumption. Looking at the advice presented in decades of published material, including the core rulebooks for the various major systems, 'GM discretion' is a pretty common technique.

It worked for you--but you cheated the players by doing so. Something so many illusionism-favoring DMs tell me, when I say that I dislike (random, irrevocable, permanent) death in my game, is that this must imply there are no stakes. But surely this illusionism you describe is far, far worse than that. You have genuinely removed all stakes--because the players cannot fail unless you feel like it. Whatever they think, whatever they do, turns out correct. You will ensure it. You will rewrite the world to suit them.

For effort to have meaning, it must be possible to fail. You have explicitly described illusionism used to prevent the possibility of failure. How is that not a serious blow to the validity of the method? Disappointment is one of the necessary parts of having a genuinely fulfilling experience--because if you can never guess wrong, then what value is there in guessing "right"?

I did not cheat my players. The social contract of these sessions and campaigns accepted illusion as a valid technique. And players absolutely can fail in games like this. I explicitly stated that illusion is only part of the experience - GM fiat is not the sole source of everything in these games. Players can fail. I don't see where I said my illusions were directed at preventing failure. The situation I described was about changing the direction of the narrative to include assumptions made by the players. Is that preventing failure? I don't agree with this notion of failure. The stakes in most of these games were to have fun - not to "win" nor to overcome some predefined challenging state. Making dice rolls, solving problems were certainly part of the experience. The existence of illusion and GM discretion absolute does not imply it will always be used. Part of the social contract in these games is that the GM does not go overboard in exercising this power. I've been on both sides of the screen in numerous games where we trusted each other to have this ability - and where it worked just fine! And the power can even be used to increase the stakes - or to add more chances of failing if the session is turning to be too low on risk for the appetites of the group.

Again, I'm not asking you to enjoy this style of gaming - it's quite obvious you don't. But I am appealing to you for recognition that some players find meaning in a game that isn't fully codified, and that the acceptance of the GM's power to bend reality behind the screen isn't all or nothing.

It absolutely is passive and imagined. No player created anything here. They made a suggestion (without knowing, of course.) You decided, "hey, that idea is better than what I had. I will rewrite the world to make that idea true, and the players will never be able to find out that it wasn't true before, no matter what conflicts that might cause." It is purely passive, as they have no influence here. Only you do. You just happened to take a shine to what they said.

Like...this is the equivalent of a dictator saying that, because he heard someone complain about something on the street and thus said dictator passed laws addressing that problem, it was really the person on the street who exercised agency in dealing with the problem. No! Not in the slightest! It was, and would always be, the dictator doing so. The person on the street had no ability to influence what occurred. They simply (without knowing) provided a suggestion, which the dictator chose (agency!) to act upon.

...

These players do not, at any point, exercise agency. They exist in the GM's world. The GM just happens to include some of the things the players opine about as things which alter the contents of that world. It is, and will always be, the GM exercising influence and/or control over the fictional space.

I can't say much else than I greatly disagree with this interpretation of passivity and agency. Having a GM with discretionary powers and the final authority to shape the narrative is a requirement for groups that enjoy having some element of illusion in their games. I object to the comparison with a dictator - the style is based on consensus and a social contract that places these powers with the GM. In a court of arbitration, the involved parties have agency. The existence of a judge (or GM) with final say does not predicate that the other parties are irrelevant. Their contributions very much impact the outcome. It does require the GM to have the ability to wield these powers as a mediator and to act within a framework that isn't fully codified.

These players can walk away at any time. Noone is forcing anything on anyone. You describe a situation where the GM is deceiving the players, where the GM is some kind of narrative tyrant. That's not the case when a table has agreed on this kind of playstyle. I enjoy passing this kind of authority to a GM. It doesn't make me passive that someone is the arbiter of our imagined reality. It doesn't take away my feeling of excitement and having stakes that GM can change the level of challenge at their discretion. I've lost plenty of characters in such games to bad luck or (in-character) failure. Also nothing about how the GM is given power or not impacts the enjoyment I get from role-playing and interacting with the other players and the GM in-character. To me that's such a big part of the experience, and being able to decide what kind of character I play and what role to take on is a key part of my player agency. Even if everything else in the game is 100% GM fiat and I have no say on anything - and the GM bends reality constantly for whatever (this is hypothetical - I expect a more nuanced and mediatory GM'ing performance) - I still have the role-playing as something fully in my control.

Finally, there is a wider philosophical discussion about how entrusting power and expectation with another party can in itself be an exercise of power. The players dictate the expectations and conventions that the GM is acting within. Then you could object that without being able to know what is illusion and what is not - the players will never know if these conventions are upheld. But then we're back to how perceived reality is what matters to some people. That's why dice and game mechanics are important to some who enjoy this style. It provides an avenue of play where the group knows that there are no illusions. Although it should be noted that some groups even dial this down a notch by having (some or all) GM rolls be made in secret. Once again, appetites and styles vary. Nothing wrong with that.

Players who enjoy this style are not passive. They make decision constantly, they contribute to the narrative, they have moments of possible disaster. I think it's arrogant to dismiss this as imagined and irrelevant - we're dealing with an experience where everything is imagined. I am baffled by why it is such a problem that not everyone ascribes to a particular style and particular notions on what must be codified.

And here I thought bending reality was the utterly unacceptable thing. Now it's part and parcel of illusionism!

I think you're conflating me with someone else. I haven't expressed any problems with the concept of bending reality. On the contrary, I consider it not just acceptable, but a core pillar of most styles of roleplaying. But I accept and recognize that some players do not feel that way. Some want a fixed imagined reality (although I would object that even this style requires making up things when the session steps outside what has been prepared), some want players to have a greater capacity to do this, some want codification of when this can happen, etc. And that's ok with me. I've played games like this too. But all these styles have player agency. There are other important aspects to RPGs than the imagined reality. I really don't get this absolutist notion of agency and this insistence on a particular element (whether it's called narrative, shared fiction or imagined reality) as being the only possible thing to care about and influence. One can accept alternative styles and approaches without having to participate in them.

I get that you don't enjoy the same kind of style as me. That's fine. I don't get why you see upset that I have this preference. I can see how GMs that do this in direct conflict with the professed preferences of their players are being jerks. But with a table of similarly inclined players? What's the problem?

I am much more understanding of the posters who profess that they want the player contributions codified and prefer a system which has additional support for and opportunities for player impact on the narrative of the game. It's not what I would prefer as a baseline (although I want to try it out and thus challenge my preconceptions), but I can very much see where this preference would come from. I can also see how being denied this would constitute a massive loss of agency for such a player. But for us illusion-enjoyers? We can find agency in being part of a process that has a final arbiter and mediator. I object to this denial of agency.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. I believe perception dictates experience. I don't really see what is so controversial and strange about claiming that perceived agency can have value. Imagination and the (voluntary) exposure to illusion is a cornerstone of many kinds of entertainment. It's quite possible to engage in such activities without being a solipsist or adherent of magical thinking.

And there is nothing wrong with you having that preference. You are not the only one. I am voicing my opposition to the notion that a codified imagined reality with no room for illusion is the only reasonable basis for having agency. I am also confused why you seem to be upset that other people like illusion as part of their games. I am not going to try and convince you that you should feel the same way. Nor would I use such techniques if there isn't a consensus to do so.


(regarding my claim that lots of player enjoy varying elements of illusion and/or GM-dictated reality bending). No, I do not have anything but anecdotal evidence. But given the nature of this discussion, I shouldn't have to produce such material. First off, because RPGs haven't been studied to a degree where the body of empirical data even exists to do so. Secondly, because I don't think it's a particular outlandish claim to state that a significant number of players have these preferences. I am not claiming it's a majority (although I actually suspect it is), but that's also beside the point. I am trying to explain why accepting that a variety of playstyle exist has relevance to this topic. Almost everything in this thread (and elsewhere in the wider discourse on RPGs and playstyles) is based on anecdotal evidence and some amount of assumption. Looking at the advice presented in decades of published material, including the core rulebooks for the various major systems, 'GM discretion' is a pretty common technique.


I did not cheat my players. The social contract of these sessions and campaigns accepted illusion as a valid technique. And players absolutely can fail in games like this. I explicitly stated that illusion is only part of the experience - GM fiat is not the sole source of everything in these games. Players can fail. I don't see where I said my illusions were directed at preventing failure. The situation I described was about changing the direction of the narrative to include assumptions made by the players. Is that preventing failure? I don't agree with this notion of failure. The stakes in most of these games were to have fun - not to "win" nor to overcome some predefined challenging state. Making dice rolls, solving problems were certainly part of the experience. The existence of illusion and GM discretion absolute does not imply it will always be used. Part of the social contract in these games is that the GM does not go overboard in exercising this power. I've been on both sides of the screen in numerous games where we trusted each other to have this ability - and where it worked just fine! And the power can even be used to increase the stakes - or to add more chances of failing if the session is turning to be too low on risk for the appetites of the group.

Again, I'm not asking you to enjoy this style of gaming - it's quite obvious you don't. But I am appealing to you for recognition that some players find meaning in a game that isn't fully codified, and that the acceptance of the GM's power to bend reality behind the screen isn't all or nothing.


I can't say much else than I greatly disagree with this interpretation of passivity and agency. Having a GM with discretionary powers and the final authority to shape the narrative is a requirement for groups that enjoy having some element of illusion in their games. I object to the comparison with a dictator - the style is based on consensus and a social contract that places these powers with the GM. In a court of arbitration, the involved parties have agency. The existence of a judge (or GM) with final say does not predicate that the other parties are irrelevant. Their contributions very much impact the outcome. It does require the GM to have the ability to wield these powers as a mediator and to act within a framework that isn't fully codified.

These players can walk away at any time. Noone is forcing anything on anyone. You describe a situation where the GM is deceiving the players, where the GM is some kind of narrative tyrant. That's not the case when a table has agreed on this kind of playstyle. I enjoy passing this kind of authority to a GM. It doesn't make me passive that someone is the arbiter of our imagined reality. It doesn't take away my feeling of excitement and having stakes that GM can change the level of challenge at their discretion. I've lost plenty of characters in such games to bad luck or (in-character) failure. Also nothing about how the GM is given power or not impacts the enjoyment I get from role-playing and interacting with the other players and the GM in-character. To me that's such a big part of the experience, and being able to decide what kind of character I play and what role to take on is a key part of my player agency. Even if everything else in the game is 100% GM fiat and I have no say on anything - and the GM bends reality constantly for whatever (this is hypothetical - I expect a more nuanced and mediatory GM'ing performance) - I still have the role-playing as something fully in my control.

Finally, there is a wider philosophical discussion about how entrusting power and expectation with another party can in itself be an exercise of power. The players dictate the expectations and conventions that the GM is acting within. Then you could object that without being able to know what is illusion and what is not - the players will never know if these conventions are upheld. But then we're back to how perceived reality is what matters to some people. That's why dice and game mechanics are important to some who enjoy this style. It provides an avenue of play where the group knows that there are no illusions. Although it should be noted that some groups even dial this down a notch by having (some or all) GM rolls be made in secret. Once again, appetites and styles vary. Nothing wrong with that.

Players who enjoy this style are not passive. They make decision constantly, they contribute to the narrative, they have moments of possible disaster. I think it's arrogant to dismiss this as imagined and irrelevant - we're dealing with an experience where everything is imagined. I am baffled by why it is such a problem that not everyone ascribes to a particular style and particular notions on what must be codified.


I think you're conflating me with someone else. I haven't expressed any problems with the concept of bending reality. On the contrary, I consider it not just acceptable, but a core pillar of most styles of roleplaying. But I accept and recognize that some players do not feel that way. Some want a fixed imagined reality (although I would object that even this style requires making up things when the session steps outside what has been prepared), some want players to have a greater capacity to do this, some want codification of when this can happen, etc. And that's ok with me. I've played games like this too. But all these styles have player agency. There are other important aspects to RPGs than the imagined reality. I really don't get this absolutist notion of agency and this insistence on a particular element (whether it's called narrative, shared fiction or imagined reality) as being the only possible thing to care about and influence. One can accept alternative styles and approaches without having to participate in them.

I get that you don't enjoy the same kind of style as me. That's fine. I don't get why you see upset that I have this preference. I can see how GMs that do this in direct conflict with the professed preferences of their players are being jerks. But with a table of similarly inclined players? What's the problem?

I am much more understanding of the posters who profess that they want the player contributions codified and prefer a system which has additional support for and opportunities for player impact on the narrative of the game. It's not what I would prefer as a baseline (although I want to try it out and thus challenge my preconceptions), but I can very much see where this preference would come from. I can also see how being denied this would constitute a massive loss of agency for such a player. But for us illusion-enjoyers? We can find agency in being part of a process that has a final arbiter and mediator. I object to this denial of agency.

Have your players ever actually  said that they enjoy illusionism, or words to that effect? You said they were on board. How can you know that if they haven't essentially told you, "please lie to us in the interest of what you think we will enjoy, but for the love of Demogorgon don't let us know you lied". Have you had that conversation?

 

[Golroc]

Have your players ever actually  said that they enjoy illusionism, or words to that effect? You said they were on board. How can you know that if they haven't essentially told you, "please lie to us in the interest of what you think we will enjoy, but for the love of Demogorgon don't let us know you lied". Have you had that conversation?

Yes and no, as the term "illusion" is never what we've called it. It's been more about whether to roll the dice in front or behind the screen. I've also been on the player side of these talks - and the angle was just.. different. We've focused more on what kind of setting, what system, what kind of overall narrative, etc. and not so much about the expectations of how to be a GM. I'll try to explain why I find even the concept of framing the conversation as you describe somewhat odd. (although in the future I will approach this differently when dealing with new acquaintances)

I guess having played mostly with friends it's never really been a problem to align on the stylistic side. That doesn't mean every session was always a creative firework where DM discretion, preparation and player contribution gave way to a perfect experience. Sometimes that GM came up with something dumb, the GM discretion went too far, the rolls turned wrecking things beyond what discretion could fix. Or we followed published material and it didn't work out. It's not like it is always been perfect. But "you lied!" has never been something that came up - however "that was dull/silly/weird" has come up. I have seen players upset at the GM for not fudging rolls/circumstances to prevent character deaths - but not particularly often. I have also seen players upset at the GM for getting the challenge wrong (in the direction of high lethality), but that was about getting the discretion wrong, not about having it in the first place. No one ever said "this should have been prepared in advance and the GM shouldn't change it once we've started the session".

Perhaps an explanation is that none of the groups I've played in have enjoyed the style of gaming where the point is to beat some challenging sandbox or set-piece "dungeon" through clever use of game mechanics or (in or out of character) cleverness. We've certainly played crunch-heavy at times, and fudging rules/rolls has generally been the exception. It's always been mostly about character development, role-playing, narratives and world building.

This is across decades of gaming and groups in three different cities. I have met people with different playstyles - usually either power-gamers or ones with ritualized approaches to gaming that were incompatible with my desires at the time (that's for another post). In those cases, I just didn't play more than one or two sessions with this combination of people (could be an individual, could be a group). I have also played at conventions where I had no idea whether the GM was fudging anything or not, but I've honestly never experienced anyone asking about whether this was ok or not.

I am actually currently without a group - but if I got back with some of the previous groups we wouldn't need to have this talk. DM discretion and player creative input through action is just how we did things, and I really don't think we'd even consider discussing it (although I might mention that I've come across people who play differently and ask what they think about that).

If my next group isn't one with familiar faces, it depends a bit on whether I am GM or not how I'd approach figuring out the social contract. As a visiting player, it's pretty simple to figure out what is expected. As a player joining a long-term campaign, I'd make sure the group aligned with my preferences (but that's probably more about whether I feel the chemistry is there than the system to use). As a guest GM, I think it's incredibly important to get consensus in place. When the time comes to GM a campaign again, I'll certainly make sure the players have the same preferences (by playing one-offs, conversations, session 0, etc.) before committing to a campaign. But there's a lot more ground to cover than whether GM discretion is allowed or not. It would probably be a hard pass for me if that's not part of the package.

I guess my experience with GM discretion is why I am slightly confused at the opposition to illusion (and even the concept of labelling it thus) in this thread - it wasn't ever a conversation we had. Many people in this thread seem to consider "illusion" the deviation from the norm - but that's not how it's been for me or my groups. People don't tend to discuss something they consider the norm.

The notion of the GM simply being an arbiter, NPC controller and scenario designer is so far removed from what we considered the role of the GM that I think we'd consider it an exotic experiment to try it out. But to me it sounds like a board game or miniature game with extra steps. I think for me playing an RPG where the GM isn't injecting ad hoc creativity is just plain worse. I can see how I could enjoy something like Dungeon World, The Burning Wheel, etc. - that's a different way of contributing to a dynamic narrative than I'm used to, but I think it could be fun. (one group did do something like this for a few sessions but without codifying it, we just allowed players to state reality whenever). However I don't think a purely "static reality" would be fun for me.

Player narrative input however, is something that has been a topic. Not to the point of codifying it, but having talks about how much influence players have at sessions and between sessions in shaping the narrative and the world. I've played with groups that had a rotating GM chair, for example (with the same campaign, characters and narrative). But I've never experienced conflicts around narrative agency and/or authority (whereas as I have experienced clashes regarding intra-player conflict, individuals dominating the sessions socially, players having character concepts that made the game less fun for others, players disliking a system, players disliking a setting, etc.) I have seen conflicts where the GM was upset with the players for not taking the game seriously enough. So it's kind of interesting to see 'illusion' as a point of contention, when it just never came up.

So in conclusion - no, I never asked this question (nor was I ever asked by a GM), as we've always assumed that (responsible and restrained, yet theoretically total) GM creative authority was the baseline. It is probably the one aspect of gameplay which has been constant across the decades. But this thread has certainly prepared me that I might encounter players who assume differently (which I did already consider, just in a slightly different optic as described above).

 

[Maxperson]

Huh? This isn't correct.

Being Faithful is a trait, which is either purchased in PC building, or earned via the trait vote. The GM is only one participant in the trait vote.

Which doesn't really matter. If the DM can vote, he be played to get his vote. Any discretion allows the DM to be played.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Which doesn't really matter. If the DM can vote, he be played to get his vote. Any discretion allows the DM to be played.

The GM doesn't have a veto for the trait vote, and the vote needs to be unanimous, so you could just as easily play the other players to get their votes.

For what it's worth, I've tended to play this differently, based on a narrow reading of the rules. Under Trait Vote (BWGR, p. 59), "At the end of a campaign or adventure, the GM and the players nominate characters to receive new traits. Going around the table, players discuss each character who participated in the adventure. Possible traits are suggested for all the characters. After all the characters have been discussed, the players vote on the traits suggested for each character." I've read this as GM and players nominate, but only players vote. I'm not sure that's how most folks play it, though.

 

[Maxperson]

The GM doesn't have a veto for the trait vote, and the vote needs to be unanimous, so you could just as easily play the other players to get their votes.

Sure, but the DM can still be played. Let me ask you this. Is there any point at which things are not a vote and the DM has discretion with anything?

For what it's worth, I've tended to play this differently, based on a narrow reading of the rules. Under Trait Vote (BWGR, p. 59), "At the end of a campaign or adventure, the GM and the players nominate characters to receive new traits. Going around the table, players discuss each character who participated in the adventure. Possible traits are suggested for all the characters. After all the characters have been discussed, the players vote on the traits suggested for each character." I've read this as GM and players nominate, but only players vote. I'm not sure that's how most folks play it, though.

I really don't know. All I did was glance over the rules, which is why I didn't know about the voting process.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Sure, but the DM can still be played. Let me ask you this. Is there any point at which things are not a vote and the DM has discretion with anything?

In the entire system? Yes — off the top of my head, the GM has broad discretion in setting obstacles, determining consequences, and deciding whether to allow FoRKs, helping dice, and advantage dice.

 

[Campbell]

I think it's entirely reductive to treat all forms of GM discretion as fundamentally the same no matter what the GM is advised to exercise judgement over or how the GM is expected to make that decision. If we're going to do so we might as well stop talking about GM technique entirely because there is not a single roleplaying game or style of play that I am familiar with that does not rely on significant GM discretion at just about every moment of play.

Extending playing the GM to a mechanic like say Nature and Demeanor in Vampire which specify precise fictional triggers for when you gain Willpower back but still require ST judgement to determine when they apply is quite a stretch in my opinion. As would applying to something like Pathfinder Second Edition when it specifies that a GM determines what the level of a Request would be in order to determine the DC for convincing someone to do something.