D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Yora]

Agency is when players have the ability to influence what's going to happen to their character. They might not get the exact outcomes they are hoping for, but the results will depend on their actions and choices, not on the GM's preset script for the adventure.

 

[pointofyou]

No agency is the GM tells the players what the characters do without asking for action declarations or any other input from the players. Possibly the GM has decided everything ahead of time.

Minimal agency is the players get to declare actions but the GM decides and narrates all outcomes. Possibly the GM has a story in mind.

More agency than that is the players get to decide what success looks like and probably what failure looks like. Possibly the GM is reacting to what the players are doing.

More agency than that opens up the possibility that the players get to decide what's in the world or what the story of the game is about.

 

[overgeeked]

Most of my normal games are on summer time breaks too. Nearly all my players head off for the summer. So, like I said, It's just me and maybe two other DMs...and like 20 players that are "left" for the summer.

So then take a break. Don't run anything for the summer.

I don't agree with all the "stuff", but that's why I'm asking for more detail.

You're asking for a definition, you're given one, then you reject it. Your players' definition of player agency is right and correct. The definitions provided to you here are right and correct. It's a really odd stance to take.

They do talk about video games often....I kinda hope it's not this...

A lot of people consider it impolite to say so, but a lot of younger players are more interested in D&D as video game.

Only if that was simple....

It literally is.

I can not stand sitting there and doing nothing, so the "common idea" of a sandbox where the players just do random, dull, boring stuff is not my sort of game.

That's not what a sandbox is. A sandbox is you set up several hooks for the players to follow and let them choose which ones they follow. The only way that results in boring or dull is if the players aren't interested or you fill your sandbox with boring and dull stuff for them to do.

No sandbox here....I'm a Railroad DM.

Are you using "railroad" here to mean running a linear module? Because that's not what railroading is.

Railroading is the negation of player agency to ensure the referee’s story unfolds in a pre-planned way. It’s important to note that railroading is not linear storytelling. They are separate and distinct.

Player agency is the players’ ability to make choices for their characters and for those choices to actually matter to the unfolding story of the game.

 

[Quickleaf]

Summertime! So most players and nearly all DMs run off for the summer at the Rec and pause or end games. Leaving some players, and no other DMs around for the summer. But players what to play. And I'm there to DM. It's not a good match, as the players are people that dislike or hate me...both inside and outside the game. And I don't care so much for them. But still they form themselves into groups and have me DM a Summertime Campaign. Four groups, three 5E and one 3.5E.

Dude. Why even run the game if you don't like each other?

Isn't no D&D better than bad D&D? I mean, after saying something like that, pretty much ANY other conversation you're inviting is going to be tainted by this foundational problem.

We had "session zeros", and many players said they wanted "player agency" in the games. Of course, no one could tell me what that was other then the "internet buzz words". So I got a lot of "player agency is when the player feels fully responsible for their own actions (whether they were guided or not). As long as the player feels like their hand wasn't forced, they feel like their actions in a game are their own." Or "Player agency is whenever the player performs any input to make any (informed) gameplay decision." Or "Player agency is the ability of a player to affect the course of the game."

So to me, that is all Word Salad. And without anyone having a definition with any bias in reality...we just start the games. In my Classic Old School Hard Fun Killer DM Railroad Tycoon Unfair Unbalanced Style.

So, now, six game sessions in...a couple players in each game are complaing about the "Lack of Agency" in my games. They don't "feel" like they have any "player agency", but they are not sure "why". The rest of the players are fine, or don't care.

For clarity, Two Big Things I notice:

1. I'm not a fan of the players or characters. And the big part of this for me is I don't give out advice or help to the players ever. As the DM I answer factual questions, but not "Hey, is it a good idea for my 1st level halfling bard to dive into the Pool of Deadly Lava and look for treasure?'' I know a great many fan DMs would say "No, wiat, don't do that your character will die", I am NOT one of them. So..in the wacky way: because I don't tell the players what to do...they feel they lack Agency.

2.My game is loaded with lore and information. It's one of my favorite things. Even the player that just coasts through the game will have to go through a little. But then they would have to remember things and use things in gameplay. And plenty of casual players refuse to do this. They are "forced" to listen to flavor text, but they never speak to NPCs in character or interact much with the game world. Their character walks into an inn common room and sees an open book in the fire place that is not being consumed by the flames...and they just ignore it and say "when are we going to fight something?" This comes up a lot for the "informed agency" thing. Players say they "don't know stuff", so they can't make informed decisions. My counter is the players are unwilling to role play, interact or immerse themselves in the game to learn anything. And the classic "they don't write anything down"

So again, I turn to the 'Net. What is player agency to you? What "should" a DM do? What "should" a player do?

I'm going to give it to you straight.

Based on what I've read of your preferred style of GMing, there's a lot of "I want" and "my game" there, and very little consideration of what the players want.

Sounds like a hostile gaming environment. I wouldn't run that game as GM and I wouldn't attend it as player.

Your deep lore/"my game" approach is not wrong with the right group of players - in fact, in can be a ton of fun. But it can be very wrong when you've mismatched with players who don't fit your style.

IME the GMs I've enjoyed playing with the most have a bit less of a hard line position. YMMV.

The "not enough agency" comments may be "we want more information from you so we can make meaningful and interesting decisions, beyond choosing between undifferentiated doors A and B." Or it may be that "we're overwhelmed with lore to the point that we can't parse what's relevant and what's irrelevant for our decision-making." But it could also be signaling (esp. for newer or younger players) that they're sensing that mismatch I spoke of, but either don't know how to communicate it or don't feel they have permission to communicate it.

At the end of the day, however, if you stick to your guns - "it's my game, and I don't like these players" - and don't sincerely ask for clarification and actually care about the players' experience... that's not a great recipe for a game.

 

[bloodtide]

There's a lot here, most of which doesn't seem to really relate to player agency.

Yea, it's a tricky concept.

"In my Classic Old School Hard Fun Killer DM Railroad Tycoon Unfair Unbalanced Style."
Umm ... okay. So basically you are not going to tailor your style at all to what the players want. "Classic Old School Hard Fun Killer DM" is just not going to work for a lot of people. Even if this is only a short term game some people want to become invested in their PCs.

I'm not sure why it would be expected to tailor my style? Few players do it.

"I'm not a fan of the players or characters. And the big part of this for me is I don't give out advice or help to the players ever. "
You never help people out, so of course they're going to get frustrated. They don't have a friggin' clue as to what their PC can do or not do, so you just punish them with instant death when they jump into that lava that as a player they have no way of possibly knowing how deadly it's going to be. No wonder they feel like they are just pawns in your game. It's not telling the player what to do, it's giving the information their PC should have in order to make an informed decision. "You can jump in the Pool of Deadly Lava if you want, but as far as you can tell it will be suicidal" is not telling the player what to do.

My style is more give the players pure neutral information. I'm not going to tell the players lava is hot, spikes are sharp or that a 1000 pound rock is heavy every couple of minutes when something like that comes up in game play.

"My game is loaded with lore and information. It's one of my favorite things. Even the player that just coasts through the game will have to go through a little."
I think someone else mentioned this. I can either play or I can take notes.

Is this really that rare of an ability? I took notes on paper for my whole younger life, and in the modern day take notes on my phone/tablet. Many of the players not complaining have no problem taking notes.

In addition, my PC is living in this world and in many cases it's a matter of life and death. Me? As a player? It's something I do for fun now and then. I don't want it to be like studying for a pop quiz. That, and honestly? Most casual players don't really care much about your lore, especially for a short term campaign. I create a lot of lore myself and some people really dig into it, others not so much. I don't punish the latter because they aren't a fan of my amateur hour fantasy fan-fic.

This is where I disagree, and a bit of a twist comes in for that "player agency". The players that want player agency want to make informed decisions....but they also don't want any information. For the Spelljammer game a couple sessions ago, a helpful npc gave the characters some scrolls on the whos who of the known kidnapped and enslaved people. Each player was given a copy of this scroll. Of course, the players in question just lost the paper and don't care. Until last session when they found a barge with some folks chained up on it. Now the players in question suddenly want to know and have their characters remember. And, I'm not that kind of DM.

Since this is not your regular group I'd suggest you try to meet the players halfway. You can have a directed campaign without being a complete railroad, even if you set destinations along the way you can give people options on what paths to take to get there. It's a short term campaign so I'd ease up on the lore and stop asking people to prep for their sessions like they're taking a "Bloodtide Campaign 101" course. You don't have to go down the route of doing whatever the players want but you can also have their choices matter. If you want them to pick up the book that's not burning in the fireplace give them a reason to care about such things other than another wall of boxed text.

I'd never have a game that is not a Hard Railroad.

For me, as a player, I feel I have agency when:

1. I get a chance to learn about the world (even if I don't take it),

Well...wow...I like this one, as it's my style. I make a world full of lore and information for the players that want it.

1. I can attempt a reasonable action based on what I should already know and what I have just learned,

Sounds reasonable enough.

1. I experience consequences which follow from the choice itself and the rules/structures/mechanics, not from invisible intrusions,

I'm all about harsh consequences. I hope you mean by game reality and common sense too. There is no "rule" that says the bank vault is closed and locked at night....but it is.

1. I get a chance to factor those consequences into future choices.

This too. Humm, I fit everything on your list...

Or, as I have said in more pithy (but jargon-y) terms before: Agency requires (a) meaningful, informed choices which (b) directly produce the consequences observed, and which then (c) can be factored back into subsequent meaningful, informed choices.

This....might be the best definition.

With illusionism,

This all oddly sounds like what I agree with.

I'm gonna throw this out there: if you're having trouble getting new players up to speed with the way you like to play, and these are not meant to be long-term campaigns, why not just use published material, with which you seem to be familiar? Lost Mine of Phandelver works great, for example. So does Sunless Citadel; I used it with just such groups at D&D Camp. Dragon of Icespire Peak is similar to Phandelver. Ghosts of Saltmarsh, with a bit of fleshing out to link the adventures, can work well.

What is the benefit here? That a couple players might have played some or all of a published adventure and might remember some random things?

Is your goal to prove a point about the way you think D&D should be played, or to run a successful campaign?

Well...the first one. I do like opening a players eyes to the sense of wonder.

You would probably like the players a lot more, and they you, if you met them halfway.

This will never happen.

Using published material, so you don't have as much invested in the campaign, would probably make that easier. Why not accept that you aren't going to change your players, and stop beating your head against a wall? Let go of what your ideal campaign would be, because that ain't gonna happen here, and just have what fun you can with the players as they are.

Do other DMs that run published stuff not get invested in it? I might get one or two to defect from the other side and join my side. It's al ways worth it to 'make' another player.

 

[Oofta]

Yea, it's a tricky concept.


I'm not sure why it would be expected to tailor my style? Few players do it.

My style is more give the players pure neutral information. I'm not going to tell the players lava is hot, spikes are sharp or that a 1000 pound rock is heavy every couple of minutes when something like that comes up in game play.


Is this really that rare of an ability? I took notes on paper for my whole younger life, and in the modern day take notes on my phone/tablet. Many of the players not complaining have no problem taking notes.

This is where I disagree, and a bit of a twist comes in for that "player agency". The players that want player agency want to make informed decisions....but they also don't want any information. For the Spelljammer game a couple sessions ago, a helpful npc gave the characters some scrolls on the whos who of the known kidnapped and enslaved people. Each player was given a copy of this scroll. Of course, the players in question just lost the paper and don't care. Until last session when they found a barge with some folks chained up on it. Now the players in question suddenly want to know and have their characters remember. And, I'm not that kind of DM.


I'd never have a game that is not a Hard Railroad.

Well...wow...I like this one, as it's my style. I make a world full of lore and information for the players that want it.

Sounds reasonable enough.

I'm all about harsh consequences. I hope you mean by game reality and common sense too. There is no "rule" that says the bank vault is closed and locked at night....but it is.

This too. Humm, I fit everything on your list...

This....might be the best definition.

This all oddly sounds like what I agree with.


What is the benefit here? That a couple players might have played some or all of a published adventure and might remember some random things?

Well...the first one. I do like opening a players eyes to the sense of wonder.

This will never happen.

Do other DMs that run published stuff not get invested in it? I might get one or two to defect from the other side and join my side. It's al ways worth it to 'make' another player.

It seems like you don't really want advice. That's fine, I suppose. But if you want to fix the current situation, something has to change. Either you accept that you aren't the right DM for these people or you adjust your style a tad until your regular group gets back together.

If you're unwilling to do either, no amount of advice or explanation is going to matter.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Has the OP considered recording and uploading a session? We would have a much better understanding of the situation if we see it live.

 

[Oofta]

Has the OP considered recording and uploading a session? We would have a much better understanding of the situation if we see it live.

Does it matter? The OP seems pretty unwilling to change.

 

[FrogReaver]

No agency is the GM tells the players what the characters do without asking for action declarations or any other input from the players. Possibly the GM has decided everything ahead of time.

Minimal agency is the players get to declare actions but the GM decides and narrates all outcomes. Possibly the GM has a story in mind.

More agency than that is the players get to decide what success looks like and probably what failure looks like. Possibly the GM is reacting to what the players are doing.

More agency than that opens up the possibility that the players get to decide what's in the world or what the story of the game is about.

Those certainly reflect different types of agency. There’s an open question around how multiple types of agency should be combined together. Example: 1+1+1=3 or 1*1*1=1

I’m in the camp that having agency in 1 type of agency is equal in amount to having agency in 3 types (think more multiplicative than additive).

 

[pointofyou]

Those certainly reflect different types of agency. There’s an open question around how multiple types of agency should be combined together. Example: 1+1+1=3 or 1*1*1=1

I’m in the camp that having agency in 1 type of agency is equal in amount to having agency in 3 types (think more multiplicative than additive).

Sorry but no. Those are correctly placed in order of ascending amount of agency. Minimal agency is more than no agency. More agency is more than minimal agency.