D&D General What is player agency to you?

[nevin]

In this case, Alex is a very independent gamer....and he does not like the other two players at all. So he keeps apart and independent , but still plays the game with them. Billy goes to the full Lone Wolf extreme of ignoring all the players...though he does the "copy Alex" thing. Billy will make a big deal that is "not" coping Alex, and that he is just randomly picking the same things as him every time.

As they are "Summer Mash up" games....they are far from perfect.



This is the big split between me and the Gaming Collective. I don't think any and every action a player randomly has a character randomly take can and should alter game reality.

A lot of my requirements are fairly basic: Pay Attention, Focus, Engage and use Common Sense.

HUmmm....possible.


They might be mixing Easy Button play with Player Agency. Most of the players are used to the "no effort easy button" play where their Fan DM just alters game reality and rolls out the red carpet no matter what they do. I'm nothing like that.

if the actions of the players don't change anything then that's the definition of no agency. Not saying every action should make a measureable change in the game world but it should make a measurable change in the pond they play in.

I will say I've never had a table with players that didn't like each other that didn't blow up at some point. Usually it starts with a table of people that get along great then someone brings a friend or a few or a couple bring friends and then the arguments or in game player disfunction starts. It's not a common thing but I've seen it and It makes me very uncomfortable running a game with players that don't want to be in the same room with each other. That all by itself can blow up the game even if everyone is staying in thier own lanes. Some people just cant sit in a room with people they don't like and enjoy themselves. Is it possible that is your issue and no one wants to admit they are the bad guys that can't play nice with people they don't like.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The DM making the final call is part of D&D's DNA and pretty much always has been. Obviously each group should run the game the way they see fit, but the default role of the DM is pretty clearly spelled out.2

From the PHB
One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee
... the DM determines the results of the adventurers’ actions and narrates what they experience.

From the DMG
as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.

Smacks a bit of One True Wayism to me. Even back in the '70s there were plenty of people who didn't hold with it. Heard of the 'West Coast Style'?

 

[Oofta]

Smacks a bit of One True Wayism to me. Even back in the '70s there were plenty of people who didn't hold with it. Heard of the 'West Coast Style'?

I never said there was one true way. I said it was the default. Like all things D&D, this should be discussed with the group. However the DM making the final call has been the rule in every game I've ever played and it's always worked reasonably well. There are some DMs I wouldn't play with, but changing this aspect of the game wouldn't change that.

I think a DM should listen to their players and good DMs will try to work with their players to ensure that everyone is having fun when possible. But no DM is right for everyone and vice versa.

If I wanted to play a PbtA style game, I would. I don't. Fortunately nothing stops you from you and your group running your game any way you want.

P.S. I've heard of West Coast Customs, but I rather doubt you're talking about customized hot rods.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I never said there was one true way. I said it was the default. Like all things D&D, this should be discussed with the group. However the DM making the final call has been the rule in every game I've ever played and it's always worked reasonably well. There are some DMs I wouldn't play with, but changing this aspect of the game wouldn't change that.

I think a DM should listen to their players and good DMs will try to work with their players to ensure that everyone is having fun when possible. But no DM is right for everyone and vice versa.

If I wanted to play a PbtA style game, I would. I don't. Fortunately nothing stops you from you and your group running your game any way you want.

P.S. I've heard of West Coast Customs, but I rather doubt you're talking about customized hot rods.

Well, I think the author of this thread might be the living example of why it's not a universally good idea! I'm not even sure its a 'default' anymore, given the huge proliferation of non-trad techniques and games. Even 5e kind of skirts around the whole question, though its design certainly has GM-only story as a default. Its sad really. I love D&D, but if it won't adapt, well...

 

[Oofta]

Well, I think the author of this thread might be the living example of why it's not a universally good idea! I'm not even sure its a 'default' anymore, given the huge proliferation of non-trad techniques and games. Even 5e kind of skirts around the whole question, though its design certainly has GM-only story as a default. Its sad really. I love D&D, but if it won't adapt, well...

One person's sad is another person's "It works". When I play Gonad the Barbarian, I want to inhabit that persona, be thinking only in terms of how my barbarian can be affecting the world. I don't want to think about or influence the world outside of my words and deeds. If I want to come up with lore or decide who the villains and NPCs are? I'll DM.

No changes to the rules can make every bad DM into a good DM. Your way is not the one true way either.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I want a shirt that says 'GAMING COLLECTIVE' now.

And if Daddy DMing is in the game's DNA, it's time to fire up CRSPR.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I want to inhabit that persona, be thinking only in terms of how my barbarian can be affecting the world. I don't want to think about or influence the world outside of my words and deeds. If I want to come up with lore or decide who the villains and NPCs are? I'll DM.

exactly, i don't want the ability to influence the world for my character because that's not something people have the ability to do in reality, my suspension of disbelief is in effect for orcs, elves and magic, not meta-influencing reality.

compare previously mentioned thurgon's unidentified portal to getting an unknown phonecall, if i were playing thurgon i'd expect as much ability to declare that that portal was conveniently opening at my hometown as my, me the realworld person, ability to declare that it's 'tom from college' who i haven't thought about in years is going to be on the other end of the line when i answer it, because that's not something i expect people to just have the ability to casually do.

edit: this point is actually reminding me of conversation of another thread in TTRPG general section, primarily that of immersion, and how the presence of meta-currencies and abilities (inspiration and luck points and such there but in this case narrative influence) breaks their immersion and disrupts their enjoyment, as they're not something the character would know of or be aware to use and capitalise on.

 

[Starfox]

From the original post, it seems that the relationship between the players and GM would be pretty antagonistic, with a GM that withholds information and players that want the freedom to do stupid stuff. I would actually like to try to play in such a game, and I could say I am at present, in the Aliens game. And its great fun for everyone. I am friends with the GM, he is stingy with information and can spring nasty surprises on us, and gives us enough rope to hang ourselves.

We have a ship, and in our base of operations, we have a list of jobs we can choose to take or not. There is not a lot of information, but there is some. We have free choice, but some missions pay better than others. This gives agency. It also leads to fierce discussion between the players about which missions to take, especially those that are likely to disappear soon, so it is now or never.

We are responsible for our own interactions within the group. I play the captain of the ship, and this gives my words some weight, but we're also a functioning anarchy. What keeps us together is the ship. Having some central plot element like this gives the group some coherence.

We plan and we plot, but with the lack of information, our plans are sometimes irrelevant once we confront the problem, and we have to think on our feet - which is fun for us.

The game is not much about combat, in about of year of play we only had 2 regular fights and one spaceship fight, and in both cases we were playing second fiddle to NPCs. This works for us as we are very cautious about our ship, and a single fight could easily destroy the ship. Instead we confront various exploration challenges with a lot of environment interaction. Currently we are excavating a ship buried in a glacier.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Many things could be player agency...
Two recent scenarios that come to mind that may not be as obvious...

STORM KINGS THUNDER campaign (specifically the Ironslag chapter)
(a) The module states, in the lower level of the foundry 4 fire giants pump the huge bellows to fan the flames of the molten iron and 3 other fire giant weaponsmiths forge blades in the nearby forges. One of the players suggested to me (while they were in the middle of combat ) that it might be strange to have all the fire giants in full gear (full plate with weapons) when working in the foundry and forges. Perhaps some would have leather work-jerkins as opposed to full plate and a forge-hammer rather than their greatswords. Whatever the reason for the suggestion by the player - it was a good and reasonable one and something as DM I had not considered and certainly it was not considered by the designers (that I can see).
I quickly established a backstory for some of the fire giants, of why they were in full gear at the time and converted the stats of the others to leather jerkins with forging tools.

(b) I am trying to incorporate another player into the campaign and one of the other players at the table suggested an idea with some seeds of how we can get their character (half-orc barbarian) into the storyline faster. I took their idea and developed it a little further: He was captured by a fire giant shaman who was on a Vonindod expedition. The shaman was impressed with his fighting skills and whisked him magically back to Ironslag where he was quickly subdued by the lair's denizens. Thereafter several Geas spells were placed upon him, imagine magical giant rune tattoos across his naked body to make him comply. He now works with the orcs within the Dressing Mill (separating stone from ore). After a scrap or two, he quickly became the ring-leader of those slave orcs, but is still under the effect of all those Geas spells so he has been a slave for just over a tenday or more.
I offered this idea to the player of the half-orc for entry into the main campaign and he loved it. So if the party survives, doesn't leave and doesn't auto-kill the orcs once they see them, we get to use the backstory and he joins the party.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

One person's sad is another person's "It works". When I play Gonad the Barbarian, I want to inhabit that persona, be thinking only in terms of how my barbarian can be affecting the world. I don't want to think about or influence the world outside of my words and deeds. If I want to come up with lore or decide who the villains and NPCs are? I'll DM.

No changes to the rules can make every bad DM into a good DM. Your way is not the one true way either.

While I agree generally with what you're saying, I don't know that this exactly is what the original post was talking about. Some of the early issues brought up were about note-taking for example or other non-immersive behaviors. Do you want your inhabiting Gonad the Barbarian to be judged by the DM you hardly know (since this is a summer ad hoc group) based on how much note-taking you the player are doing?

"I don't want to influence the world outside of my words and deeds. If I want to come up with lore or DECIDE WHO THE VILLAINS ARE..." (edit: the caps are for my emphasis) To me, those two sentences seem contradictory.

If Gonad takes steps to anger and have a war of vengance against someone - let's imagine the whole scenario of Conan deciding he needs vengance against Thulsa Doom - you are exactly deciding who the villains of the story are. You're doing it with your agency and your words and actions - this is different than you saying 'Oh, of course I know the bartender. We went to school together'

I feel the friction comes from this side angle not being a piece of OP's lore, and the OP feeling you're not having a lore reason to do so. Factor in how we're generally seemed to reach consensus these people are playing in a space where they are the only gamers, and gaming with gamers you don't like may be the only gaming you're getting for the summer.