D&D General What is player agency to you?

[FrogReaver]

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.

Sorry but declaring it so doesn’t make it so. I disagree and you’ve said nothing persuasive here to change my mind.

 

[pointofyou]

Sorry but declaring it so doesn’t make it so. I disagree and you’ve said nothing persuasive here to change my mind.

OK then.

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

Think of the types as something like dimensions. n+n+n=3n. n*n*n=n^3. In either case something is incrementing.

 

[FrogReaver]

If this description of things is relevant to a RPG game or campaign, then it is a low player agency one! The GM is the one deciding what matters.

IMO. If someone uses their agency to choose to play that type of campaign then the DM doing anything else would actually take your agency away.

*In this specific case it doesn’t seem it was the players choice to play that type of campaign.

 

[FrogReaver]

OK then.

Think of the types as something like dimensions. n+n+n=3n. n*n*n=n^3. In either case something is incrementing.

depends on what values n can take.

 

[nevin]

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.

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?

Player agency is I do what i do in relation to what happens and DM doesn't try to tell me what to do. then consequences happen, rinse repeat and story goes on. If at any point DM is 'telling me' what i should be doing then I'm going to explain to them my PC's rationale for how they are acting and the DM can adjust or not. If they don't adjust I probably won't either. If I tell the DM that they've dropped an end of the world situation in my lap and none of his other plotlines are getting any attention, he or she better adjust the story or situation. My other pet peeve is the DM that wants to explain how borked my perception of the situation is because I'm not reacting like they expected. Tough fix your story.

 

[nevin]

Yea. My guess is that the lore is probably keyed to some map location or event and the exposition happens then. Interaction with the phenomenon probably yields additional lore, probably none of which is immediately important (thus the gripe about not taking notes).

to be perfectly honest I only take notes if my character is the kind of character that would pay attention to the details. If I play a happy go lucky flake, I'm probably not going to take notes I'll just remember what I remember.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

You'll need to define what a "hard railroad" is, because apparently there's (at least) three different definitions and...well. Let's just say one of those definitions is completely unacceptable (and very, very incompatible with player agency). The other two are varying degrees of tolerable.

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.

Good--though, as some others have said, you do need to be careful here. There is a difference between providing support, and simply deciding (without telling them) what things are actually important, fun but irrelevant window-dressing, and genuinely unimportant.

Sounds reasonable enough.

Worth expanding out here: note the bit where I said "what I should already know." It sounds like you and I agree that the world "exists" in some sense--not physically, of course, but it is intended to have a durable and meaningful presence which both surrounds and undergirds the PCs' actual in-session experience of it. Part of that, however, is that the player character will--must--know things that the players simply don't. Immediately after session zero, does the player know whether it is acceptable to shake hands with either one, or is it considered a faux pas to shake with the left hand? I wouldn't expect any player to have that knowledge, yet the character absolutely, 100% SHOULD know that. It would be not only unfair, but actively erode the "existence" of the fictional world, to have the players bumble through learning this fact when their characters should have known it from childhood.

So, some of the time, there really are things that you should just tell the players, because it would be far too tedious, not to mention fraught with both unnecessary and unproductive failure, to not tell them right away. As long as you're cool with that aspect of things, I have no complaints here.

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.

"Game reality and common sense too" = "from the choice itself," yes. As you say, rules do not define that bank vaults should be closed and locked when not in use, but they do define the Thievery DC to break in (or the Diplomacy/Deception check to get the key, etc.) Rules do not define how great a scandal it is to call the Jade Emperor himself an ignorant bimawen, but they do define the Diplomacy check to defuse the scandal before it fully explodes. Rules like that cannot be abrogated for light and transient reasons, and if they are, the players need to be informed so they can re-evaluate.

I'm not big on harsh consequences unless they're really warranted. I find "harsh" usually just means "drives the player away from the game." If harsh is actually warranted though, sure. As noted above, calling the Jade Emperor an ignorant bimawen is a great way to get in Huge Trouble. Basically, if I think the player hasn't given something a full think-through, I'll ask something like "Are you sure?" or "Is that what you do?" But they get just that one chance. If they say "yes" then...that's what happened and they live with the consequences.

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

As said above: Gotta define for me what "heavy railroad" means. Because, at least as I use the term "railroad," it is genuinely impossible to give the players agency while on one. They don't get to make meaningful choices in the first place. With a "heavy railroad," they may not even get to make merely incidental choices.

This....might be the best definition.

Glad to be of service, though a big part of (c) is that you have to be able to actually survive most (note: most, not absolutely 100% all) of your choices in order to be able to learn from them. "You won't live to regret this" style DMing largely nixes that, because you never really get the chance to learn from your mistakes, trapping you in a cycle of accident, unlucky dice, or misunderstanding until you just happen to get lucky enough to survive. Again, though, this shouldn't mean that literally every possible action ever is totally safe. Adventuring should be a challenging, dangerous business. But "challenging" and "dangerous" don't have to mean "character-removing." I very, very much favor consequences which open the door to new story rather than closing every door (and window) forever for a character.

This all oddly sounds like what I agree with.

Perhaps the gap between us is smaller than it might seem. I certainly don't really agree with your attitude of how to behave toward players. The way I see it, part of how you ensure that the consequences are interesting, that the players are actually goaded to rise to the challenge, that the game proves that it is worthy of the players' investment, is by showing that you actually care what the players think. Showing respect for them as people who are trying to get an enjoyable and enriching experience, just as you are. But note that "enjoyable" and "enriching" are not the same as fun. High-cacao dark chocolate is, in the right contexts, an enjoyable thing to eat, but it is naturally quite bitter. Hops can induce retching if ingested whole because of how bitter they are, but they're an essential part of balancing out the sweetness of wort in order to make beer. Blue cheese requires active mold in order to taste right, even though eating mold is usually a bad idea (and, as has been relevant in my life, albeit not for me personally, someone with a compromised immune system should not eat blue cheese either!)

Making a game enjoyable and enriching often means having occasional periods that are very intentionally not fun at all. I find that, by far, the best way to achieve that is to show your players that you respect them as people. Showing respect for others means a lot of things, but among them are: genuinely consider their needs/wants/interests and be accommodating for those things when it's feasible, give them the benefit of the doubt when disagreements arise, sincerely listen to what they say (especially their concerns) and respond promptly and earnestly, and admitting fault and accepting the consequences when you've erred, while also accepting someone else's genuine contrition when they have erred.

Perhaps you would consider the above a form of being a "buddy DM," which as I understand, you are vehemently opposed to doing. Myself, I consider the above essential to actually having players that care. Because they know that I respect and value them as players, but do not take kindly to bad-faith play or ill intent, I give them a reason to reciprocate: They know, absolutely without doubt, that I will do everything in my power to deliver an interesting, enjoyable, enriching game. All they have to do is play ball, just meet some relatively mild standards of respect and decency, and they'll get a game eager to have them as players.

I guess what I'm saying is, it sounds like for you, "buddy DM" means some sort of insincere, glad-handing, sycophantic relationship where the DM almost slavishly produces instant gratification for the players. And if that's what you mean by it, then sure! I have little interest in doing that...ever, really. The problem comes in where your opposition to being a "buddy DM" becomes an opposition to developing a DM/player relationship of mutual respect. I don't really want to be a "buddy DM"--but I rather do think I want to be an ally DM. An ally is not a sycophant, but as a general rule, allies want success for one another while also expecting to benefit in some way from their alliance.

Again, if by "buddy DM" you mean this instant player-wish-granting-engine thing, then sure, that's bad. But I think you have taken your opposition to such a thing out of proportion, and it has caused you to fail to see the benefits of being an "ally DM."

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 always worth it to 'make' another player.

I basically never run published content (and the one piece of published content I have run, the very excellent The Gardens of Ynn by Emmy “Cavegirl” Allen, I heavily adapted and about doubled in length.) But I can understand how there's at least a difference in investment (that is, not a binary yes/no, but still a large gap) between content you've simply gotten from somewhere else, and content you made yourself.

What does it mean to "make" a player?

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Player agency to me means two things.

First, the players decide what their characters think and do (with exceptions, like mind control magic).
Second, the GM decides logical consequences of the characters' actions in the game world.

Both are required. If a character's actions don't have consequences in the world, or have unpredictable or strange consequences, then agency hasn't been respected. The world should respond in logical ways to what the characters do and don't do.

 

[nevin]

You'll need to define what a "hard railroad" is, because apparently there's (at least) three different definitions and...well. Let's just say one of those definitions is completely unacceptable (and very, very incompatible with player agency). The other two are varying degrees of tolerable.


Good--though, as some others have said, you do need to be careful here. There is a difference between providing support, and simply deciding (without telling them) what things are actually important, fun but irrelevant window-dressing, and genuinely unimportant.


Worth expanding out here: note the bit where I said "what I should already know." It sounds like you and I agree that the world "exists" in some sense--not physically, of course, but it is intended to have a durable and meaningful presence which both surrounds and undergirds the PCs' actual in-session experience of it. Part of that, however, is that the player character will--must--know things that the players simply don't. Immediately after session zero, does the player know whether it is acceptable to shake hands with either one, or is it considered a faux pas to shake with the left hand? I wouldn't expect any player to have that knowledge, yet the character absolutely, 100% SHOULD know that. It would be not only unfair, but actively erode the "existence" of the fictional world, to have the players bumble through learning this fact when their characters should have known it from childhood.

So, some of the time, there really are things that you should just tell the players, because it would be far too tedious, not to mention fraught with both unnecessary and unproductive failure, to not tell them right away. As long as you're cool with that aspect of things, I have no complaints here.


"Game reality and common sense too" = "from the choice itself," yes. As you say, rules do not define that bank vaults should be closed and locked when not in use, but they do define the Thievery DC to break in (or the Diplomacy/Deception check to get the key, etc.) Rules do not define how great a scandal it is to call the Jade Emperor himself an ignorant bimawen, but they do define the Diplomacy check to defuse the scandal before it fully explodes. Rules like that cannot be abrogated for light and transient reasons, and if they are, the players need to be informed so they can re-evaluate.

I'm not big on harsh consequences unless they're really warranted. I find "harsh" usually just means "drives the player away from the game." If harsh is actually warranted though, sure. As noted above, calling the Jade Emperor an ignorant bimawen is a great way to get in Huge Trouble. Basically, if I think the player hasn't given something a full think-through, I'll ask something like "Are you sure?" or "Is that what you do?" But they get just that one chance. If they say "yes" then...that's what happened and they live with the consequences.


As said above: Gotta define for me what "heavy railroad" means. Because, at least as I use the term "railroad," it is genuinely impossible to give the players agency while on one. They don't get to make meaningful choices in the first place. With a "heavy railroad," they may not even get to make merely incidental choices.


Glad to be of service, though a big part of (c) is that you have to be able to actually survive most (note: most, not absolutely 100% all) of your choices in order to be able to learn from them. "You won't live to regret this" style DMing largely nixes that, because you never really get the chance to learn from your mistakes, trapping you in a cycle of accident, unlucky dice, or misunderstanding until you just happen to get lucky enough to survive. Again, though, this shouldn't mean that literally every possible action ever is totally safe. Adventuring should be a challenging, dangerous business. But "challenging" and "dangerous" don't have to mean "character-removing." I very, very much favor consequences which open the door to new story rather than closing every door (and window) forever for a character.


Perhaps the gap between us is smaller than it might seem. I certainly don't really agree with your attitude of how to behave toward players. The way I see it, part of how you ensure that the consequences are interesting, that the players are actually goaded to rise to the challenge, that the game proves that it is worthy of the players' investment, is by showing that you actually care what the players think. Showing respect for them as people who are trying to get an enjoyable and enriching experience, just as you are. But note that "enjoyable" and "enriching" are not the same as fun. High-cacao dark chocolate is, in the right contexts, an enjoyable thing to eat, but it is naturally quite bitter. Hops can induce retching if ingested whole because of how bitter they are, but they're an essential part of balancing out the sweetness of wort in order to make beer. Blue cheese requires active mold in order to taste right, even though eating mold is usually a bad idea (and, as has been relevant in my life, albeit not for me personally, someone with a compromised immune system should not eat blue cheese either!)

Making a game enjoyable and enriching often means having occasional periods that are very intentionally not fun at all. I find that, by far, the best way to achieve that is to show your players that you respect them as people. Showing respect for others means a lot of things, but among them are: genuinely consider their needs/wants/interests and be accommodating for those things when it's feasible, give them the benefit of the doubt when disagreements arise, sincerely listen to what they say (especially their concerns) and respond promptly and earnestly, and admitting fault and accepting the consequences when you've erred, while also accepting someone else's genuine contrition when they have erred.

Perhaps you would consider the above a form of being a "buddy DM," which as I understand, you are vehemently opposed to doing. Myself, I consider the above essential to actually having players that care. Because they know that I respect and value them as players, but do not take kindly to bad-faith play or ill intent, I give them a reason to reciprocate: They know, absolutely without doubt, that I will do everything in my power to deliver an interesting, enjoyable, enriching game. All they have to do is play ball, just meet some relatively mild standards of respect and decency, and they'll get a game eager to have them as players.

I guess what I'm saying is, it sounds like for you, "buddy DM" means some sort of insincere, glad-handing, sycophantic relationship where the DM almost slavishly produces instant gratification for the players. And if that's what you mean by it, then sure! I have little interest in doing that...ever, really. The problem comes in where your opposition to being a "buddy DM" becomes an opposition to developing a DM/player relationship of mutual respect. I don't really want to be a "buddy DM"--but I rather do think I want to be an ally DM. An ally is not a sycophant, but as a general rule, allies want success for one another while also expecting to benefit in some way from their alliance.

Again, if by "buddy DM" you mean this instant player-wish-granting-engine thing, then sure, that's bad. But I think you have taken your opposition to such a thing out of proportion, and it has caused you to fail to see the benefits of being an "ally DM."


I basically never run published content (and the one piece of published content I have run, the very excellent The Gardens of Ynn by Emmy “Cavegirl” Allen, I heavily adapted and about doubled in length.) But I can understand how there's at least a difference in investment (that is, not a binary yes/no, but still a large gap) between content you've simply gotten from somewhere else, and content you made yourself.

What does it mean to "make" a player?

wow goading your players into actions. Just get rats no one will care what you do to them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

wow goading your players into actions. Just get rats no one will care what you do to them.

Firstly: Wow, no. No animal cruelty thank you.

Secondly: What on earth is wrong with goading people to action? I'm obviously not speaking literally, and the non-literal definition is, "something that encourages, urges, or drives; a stimulus." As a verb, to spur or incite. Unless you somehow thought I was physically using an actual pointed stick? In which case, wtf dude.