Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is player agency to you?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Golroc" data-source="post: 9117342" data-attributes="member: 7042497"><p>It is possible to have something in-between these two extremes. I mean you let them create their characters with some freedom as to race/class/etc I assume? And they also get to choose what their characters do (even if you do reign them in, if they go outside certain boundaries of behavior).</p><p></p><p>That's also the players make decisions. I don't know if you do dungeon romps, sandboxes, "traditional" module style adventures, or whatever. But in any but the most simplistic adventures there's tons of room for players to steer the game. Do they flee and hide from the large cohort of mounted marauders suddenly cresting the hill? Do they parlay and weasel their way into the host? Do they make a heroic stand at some terrain where they can funnel the enemies and face them only a few at a time? If we say the marauders were intent on sacking a nearby settlement, these three outcomes vastly change the rest of the session. They didn't impose their will through story mechanics, but still they changed the future of the adventure by their actions.</p><p></p><p>Some tables want additional ways for the players to affect the narrative. That doesn't have to be any more all-or-nothing than the above. Depending on the mechanics and discretion involved, it can be anything from "you can ask the GM to edit reality, but the GM has final say"* to where the GM is purely framing the narrative weaved by the players.</p><p></p><p>* (regarding "GM final say" - some in this thread claim this kind of GM veto invalidates player agency, but I disagree - having the opportunity to contribute constitutes agency, unless the GM always vetoes (which is a weird hypothetical scenario). It might not be the preferred agency for everyone, and some might even hate having this kind of mechanism, but it's still a form of agency. We also have agency when we invoke game mechanics gated by random chance.)</p><p></p><p>I understand why you might not like players being able to contribute outside of character actions, but one can dislike something and still acknowledge that it exists. I'm sorry you have so many problematic players - but this doesn't mean that everyone else has the same ratio. It is possible to reach a compromise with players without being a servile GM. It is even possible to have similar tastes on how to distribute authority and create influence.</p><p></p><p>Earlier you said that you didn't use the term Table Harmony when I mentioned that concept. But I didn't use the words table and harmony as capital-cased words expressing some grand theoretical concept. English is not my first language, so maybe the words chosen weren't ideal, but the point was that it is possible to have more common ground with players. Not that I think it is so simple, but going by your categories, I would say I've had 75% good players, 22% average players and 3% bad players over the years. I don't think I have a particularly low standard. GM numbers are similar. Some of both kinds were even spectacular.</p><p></p><p>I've had problem players, sure. I've played with bad GMs. But not every case of having different preferences means they're bad. If you're playing with people who have different approaches than you, and they're not mature enough to stick to the social contract, then yeah sure, you can't play games where players have high agency when it comes to stuff like the narrative and the overall direction of the game. But is it really even worth playing the game then? </p><p></p><p>Social groups differ I guess, and it's also a matter of age. Kids, teenagers and very young adults sometimes lack the maturity for high trust styles. But when dealing with adults, I really don't see why one would accept playing with people one cannot trust to keep the social contract? It's a backwards perspective to me - assuming that players will just ignore the consensus reached before playing. Under such circumstances I certainly understand why you'd want low player agency, but are the players happy with this?</p><p></p><p>One cannot perceive the entirety of RPG gaming and the vast variety of styles and approaches through the lens of having to deal with one particular (and very pessimistic) player archetype. We might as well all just play board games and video games in that case. Why as an adult (and sorry if I assume incorrectly, but I'm guessing you're not a youngling) would one put up with such a status quo? Why not find a fixed group of like-minded individuals - or at least some of those 50% average that you probably compromise with - and avoid all the hassle of low-trust, low player agency? </p><p></p><p>Or (and I'm not being facetious) do you prefer if players are focused on interacting with your prepared material and playing out the roles and scenarios you set up? That's perfectly valid - and some players also enjoy this style. It's ok to not like players participating creatively, as long as this is agreed on beforehand. But that doesn't make it so all other kinds of players are all egotistical weirdos. Some just want a little (or a lot) more influence - very rarely do they want <em>all</em> the authority.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Golroc, post: 9117342, member: 7042497"] It is possible to have something in-between these two extremes. I mean you let them create their characters with some freedom as to race/class/etc I assume? And they also get to choose what their characters do (even if you do reign them in, if they go outside certain boundaries of behavior). That's also the players make decisions. I don't know if you do dungeon romps, sandboxes, "traditional" module style adventures, or whatever. But in any but the most simplistic adventures there's tons of room for players to steer the game. Do they flee and hide from the large cohort of mounted marauders suddenly cresting the hill? Do they parlay and weasel their way into the host? Do they make a heroic stand at some terrain where they can funnel the enemies and face them only a few at a time? If we say the marauders were intent on sacking a nearby settlement, these three outcomes vastly change the rest of the session. They didn't impose their will through story mechanics, but still they changed the future of the adventure by their actions. Some tables want additional ways for the players to affect the narrative. That doesn't have to be any more all-or-nothing than the above. Depending on the mechanics and discretion involved, it can be anything from "you can ask the GM to edit reality, but the GM has final say"* to where the GM is purely framing the narrative weaved by the players. * (regarding "GM final say" - some in this thread claim this kind of GM veto invalidates player agency, but I disagree - having the opportunity to contribute constitutes agency, unless the GM always vetoes (which is a weird hypothetical scenario). It might not be the preferred agency for everyone, and some might even hate having this kind of mechanism, but it's still a form of agency. We also have agency when we invoke game mechanics gated by random chance.) I understand why you might not like players being able to contribute outside of character actions, but one can dislike something and still acknowledge that it exists. I'm sorry you have so many problematic players - but this doesn't mean that everyone else has the same ratio. It is possible to reach a compromise with players without being a servile GM. It is even possible to have similar tastes on how to distribute authority and create influence. Earlier you said that you didn't use the term Table Harmony when I mentioned that concept. But I didn't use the words table and harmony as capital-cased words expressing some grand theoretical concept. English is not my first language, so maybe the words chosen weren't ideal, but the point was that it is possible to have more common ground with players. Not that I think it is so simple, but going by your categories, I would say I've had 75% good players, 22% average players and 3% bad players over the years. I don't think I have a particularly low standard. GM numbers are similar. Some of both kinds were even spectacular. I've had problem players, sure. I've played with bad GMs. But not every case of having different preferences means they're bad. If you're playing with people who have different approaches than you, and they're not mature enough to stick to the social contract, then yeah sure, you can't play games where players have high agency when it comes to stuff like the narrative and the overall direction of the game. But is it really even worth playing the game then? Social groups differ I guess, and it's also a matter of age. Kids, teenagers and very young adults sometimes lack the maturity for high trust styles. But when dealing with adults, I really don't see why one would accept playing with people one cannot trust to keep the social contract? It's a backwards perspective to me - assuming that players will just ignore the consensus reached before playing. Under such circumstances I certainly understand why you'd want low player agency, but are the players happy with this? One cannot perceive the entirety of RPG gaming and the vast variety of styles and approaches through the lens of having to deal with one particular (and very pessimistic) player archetype. We might as well all just play board games and video games in that case. Why as an adult (and sorry if I assume incorrectly, but I'm guessing you're not a youngling) would one put up with such a status quo? Why not find a fixed group of like-minded individuals - or at least some of those 50% average that you probably compromise with - and avoid all the hassle of low-trust, low player agency? Or (and I'm not being facetious) do you prefer if players are focused on interacting with your prepared material and playing out the roles and scenarios you set up? That's perfectly valid - and some players also enjoy this style. It's ok to not like players participating creatively, as long as this is agreed on beforehand. But that doesn't make it so all other kinds of players are all egotistical weirdos. Some just want a little (or a lot) more influence - very rarely do they want [I]all[/I] the authority. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is player agency to you?
Top