D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Bayushi_seikuro]

When both the player and the DM can be mature about what can and cannot be changed in the game so that the campaign can continue (and not destroy the social contract of the table)... absolutely!

I believe this is an issue comics have in a lot of ways. There are events that cannot be changed generally - the Waynes will always leave Bruce an orphan, Uncle Ben will die and give Peter Parker guilt, etc - but what they are running into are things where... Marvel used to have a policy where certain events - Ibelieve like the Fantastic Four getting their powers, Uncle Ben dying, etc - always being 'twenty years ago'. Not an issue for Peter to get his powers in 2003 instead of 1963. Captain America can stay asleep since WW2 without an issue, but it becomes harder and harder for Magneto to have been in the concentration camps.

 

[FrozenNorth]

If the player thinks a battle with pirates would be more enjoyable than it just being a merchant ship, it's not a disadvantage as far as the player is concerned.

Let’s go back to the definition we were discussing:

If the player is given authorial power to establish a prior event or detail for the purpose of gaining an advantage in the games present - (whether that's via PC memory or other means), then that is very much what it meant by 'altering the games reality'.

From your response above, “gaining an advantage in the game” includes “if the player thinks that their alteration to the world makes the game more enjoyable”.

So, a player is “altering the game reality” if the player is given authorial power to establish a prior event or detail for the purpose of making the game more enjoyable.

In other words, the concern isn’t “a player taking advantage of the system as an “I win” button”, the concern is “the player exercising authorial intent that the DM believes is rightfully his”.

Yup. That’s exactly my point.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Did the DM in that scenario decide before the game that this would be a merchant, or roll on a table with that result? If not, to me that would impact player agency.

Why does it make a difference?

Also, given the PCs claims that this is a pirate despite a clear description otherwise, is the DM then changing it to a pirate? Sounds to me like the PC is either delusional or lying, and neither should change the in-game reality of what the ship actually is.

The player is making the declaration, not the PC.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There's no RPG where the DM has sole authorial control.

Then there's no problems with the other players making changes!

 

[Oofta]

Let’s go back to the definition we were discussing:

From your response above, “gaining an advantage in the game” includes “if the player thinks that their alteration to the world makes the game more enjoyable”.

So, a player is “altering the game reality” if the player is given authorial power to establish a prior event or detail for the purpose of making the game more enjoyable.

In other words, the concern isn’t “a player taking advantage of the system as an “I win” button”, the concern is “the player exercising authorial intent that the DM believes is rightfully his”.

Yup. That’s exactly my point.

It seems like you're redefining agency in such a way as to make it sound like any DM, any game, that doesn't allow players to add to and change the fictional narrative of the world is playing wrong. That the only way to not have bad-wrong-fun is to give players broader authorial control.

That's why I have an issue with this version of agency. I don't want authorial control over the game world when I'm not the DM. It's not about the DM being a control freak stopping the woe-begotten players from doing things that the DM believes is "rightfully" theirs, it's having agreed to different roles in the game because it makes the game more rewarding and enjoyable.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Okay, but i'm not pushing back on those other games or saying they are wrong. Heck, i'm not even saying any give players willy-nilly authorial control. I'm simply stating at a high level that doing such would be potentially problematic for a D&D type game.

Then let me clarify what I meant. I believe it is possible in a D&D game for players to exercise some authorial control. Other games give examples of how it could be implemented, as do previous editions of D&D.

Then test it!

The purpose of the spyglass example was to test it. As was the Thulsa Doom example.

Tell me more about the player and his motivations for having his PC say that.

Do the player’s motivations matter? Does it matter if the player’s motivation is different from the character’s motivation?

 

[FrozenNorth]

It seems like you're redefining agency in such a way as to make it sound like any DM, any game, that doesn't allow players to add to and change the fictional narrative of the world is playing wrong. That the only way to not have bad-wrong-fun is to give players broader authorial control.

I didn’t define agency anywhere in my post, nor have I talked about agency at all in this thread. I have only been discussing under what circumstances a DM may feel that a player is “altering the game’s reality”, and why the DM might feel that is a bad thing.

That's why I have an issue with this version of agency. I don't want authorial control over the game world when I'm not the DM. It's not about the DM being a control freak stopping the woe-begotten players from doing things that the DM believes is "rightfully" theirs, it's having agreed to different roles in the game because it makes the game more rewarding and enjoyable.

Then why do you have such a knee-jerk reaction against people who propose giving players some authorial control? You constantly jump into these threads acting like if players have any authorial control at all, the 5e police will show up at your house and burn your books.

 

[Oofta]

Then let me clarify what I meant. I believe it is possible in a D&D game for players to exercise some authorial control. Other games give examples of how it could be done, as do previous editions of D&D.


The purpose of the spyglass example was to test it. As was the Thulsa Doom example.


Do the player’s motivations matter? Does it matter if the player’s motivation is different from the character’s motivation?

Is it possible for players to have more authorial control? Sure. You'd likely want to add limitations, restrictions and possible costs. Not sure what that would look like without rewriting D&D rules if the authorial control is much more than set dressing and minor changes.

Is it necessary? No. Does it make the game better? I don't think so. If I wanted authorial control as a player there are other games out there that are built around it and don't need to be hacked to make it balanced and fun for the group. In the merchant/pirate ship it's one person making the switch (assuming there actually is a switch). The other players may have preferred that it had stayed a merchant ship.

It also likely means the DM now has to improvise what's happening, which may derail the entire session. I don't know about you, but if I hadn't thought about prepping a pirate encounter I can't always whip up an engaging and fun encounter at the drop of a hat.

Different games have different goals and approaches. There's no inherent benefit to giving players more control to the fiction of the world. Players do not lack autonomy because they can only impact the fiction of the world through their PCs.

 

[Oofta]

I didn’t define agency anywhere in my post, nor have I talked about agency at all in this thread. I have only been discussing under what circumstances a DM may feel that a player is “altering the game’s reality”, and why the DM might feel that is a bad thing.

Then why do you have such a knee-jerk reaction against people who propose giving players some authorial control? You constantly jump into these threads acting like if players have any authorial control at all, the 5e police will show up at your house and burn your books.

What I have an issue with is the negative connotation and language to things like the following:

, the concern is “the player exercising authorial intent that the DM believes is rightfully his”.

There's no "DM believing" anything, the core assumption of D&D is and always has been that the players are responsible for their PCs and what they do, the DM is responsible for pretty much everything else. It's not the only way to design a game but it is the way D&D is designed and has worked for nearly half a century.

P.S. Last time I checked, you don't get to tell me my opinion on a subject is not worthy of posting. I don't tell other people (many of whom don't even play D&D) that come in and extoll the virtues of PbtA or other games that they can't post. I also don't have to agree.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then there's no problems with the other players making changes!

In all circumstances ever? I don't think that would be accurate. In some circumstances - sure.