D&D General What is player agency to you?

[soviet]

I know. It's just that it puzzles me that anyone would be puzzled by that. Puts us in quite a conundrum.

What this does is frame very limited player agency as correct. Calling any greater exercise of player agency as 'altering reality' makes it something artificial, unwanted. Game-breaking. Note that no exercises of GM authority are ever called this.

But the fact is that there is no reality to alter. It's all made up. It's fiction. Unless the exercise of player agency contradicts something already established, nothing is being altered at all. At best an emptiness is being filled. What's being advocated is an act of creation. Not alteration, not destruction, not reversal: creation.

My own game Other Worlds allows players narrative authority based around their character's templates (broadly, race/class/schtick) as long as it doesn't contradict something else established. So if you're playing an elf you get to say things about elven culture and rituals. If you're a fighter who used to serve in the King's Army you get to say things about that King and that army. If you're a griffon rider with your own pet griffon you get to say things about griffon physiology and behaviour.

This to me feels so much more natural than 'I don't know, Mr GM what would my elf do when a friend dies?'.

 

[Oofta]

What this does is frame very limited player agency as correct. Calling any greater exercise of player agency as 'altering reality' makes it something artificial, unwanted. Game-breaking. Note that no exercises of GM authority are ever called this.

But the fact is that there is no reality to alter. It's all made up. It's fiction. Unless the exercise of player agency contradicts something already established, nothing is being altered at all. At best an emptiness is being filled. What's being advocated is an act of creation. Not alteration, not destruction, not reversal: creation.

My own game Other Worlds allows players narrative authority based around their character's templates (broadly, race/class/schtick) as long as it doesn't contradict something else established. So if you're playing an elf you get to say things about elven culture and rituals. If you're a fighter who used to serve in the King's Army you get to say things about that King and that army. If you're a griffon rider with your own pet griffon you get to say things about griffon physiology and behaviour.

This to me feels so much more natural than 'I don't know, Mr GM what would my elf do when a friend dies?'.

So altering the reality of the fictional world is not altering reality? Obviously everything we do in-game is fictional, this feels like parsing words only to make a point. Saying that "my character doesn't alter the [fictional] world, the player does" is meaningless pedantry. Saying that in some games the player can alter the reality of the fictional world is not a put-down of those types of games, it's just contrasting the default assumptions of games like D&D with those other games.

 

[soviet]

So altering the reality of the fictional world is not altering reality? Obviously everything we do in-game is fictional, this feels like parsing words only to make a point. Saying that "my character doesn't alter the [fictional] world, the player does" is meaningless pedantry. Saying that in some games the player can alter the reality of the fictional world is not a put-down of those types of games, it's just contrasting the default assumptions of games like D&D with those other games.

Once again, the fictional world has no reality to alter. It does not exist. There is nothing to alter.

 

[FrogReaver]

So altering the reality of the fictional world is not altering reality? Obviously everything we do in-game is fictional, this feels like parsing words only to make a point. Saying that "my character doesn't alter the [fictional] world, the player does" is meaningless pedantry. Saying that in some games the player can alter the reality of the fictional world is not a put-down of those types of games, it's just contrasting the default assumptions of games like D&D with those other games.

I feel we've been down this path before, the whole 'less agency' isn't bad, it's just what it is by my definition - no value judgement. Only the roles are a bit reversed now.

 

[CreamCloud0]

What this does is frame very limited player agency as correct. Calling any greater exercise of player agency as 'altering reality' makes it something artificial, unwanted. Game-breaking. Note that no exercises of GM authority are ever called this.

we are not saying that limited player agency is correct, and i have a couple of refutations to that, 1) a player can have lots of agency but a player does not need to be 'altering reality' to have agency, they can have agency interacting with all pieces that the game/GM has already presented to them as they already are, convincing the General you met 3 sessions ago who has no stakes in the fight to bring his armies to oppose the lich king can be agency, 2) we are not framing it as incorrect to have 'world changing' agency, just that DnD is a game where players only have very limited amounts of it in most areas that aren't directly related to their character's personal lives.

But the fact is that there is no reality to alter. It's all made up. It's fiction. Unless the exercise of player agency contradicts something already established, nothing is being altered at all. At best an emptiness is being filled. What's being advocated is an act of creation. Not alteration, not destruction, not reversal: creation.

some of us prefer that when we are in a world, just because the players haven't encountered something yet that doesn't mean there is 'nothing there', the world we haven't explored yet is not an unpainted canvas to us but a painted one that is merely hidden in darkness

My own game Other Worlds allows players narrative authority based around their character's templates (broadly, race/class/schtick) as long as it doesn't contradict something else established. So if you're playing an elf you get to say things about elven culture and rituals. If you're a fighter who used to serve in the King's Army you get to say things about that King and that army. If you're a griffon rider with your own pet griffon you get to say things about griffon physiology and behaviour.

This to me feels so much more natural than 'I don't know, Mr GM what would my elf do when a friend dies?'.

i don't find the three first examples of equal comparison to the latter, the last one is entirely a personal matter, it involves only your character's opinions and expression, nothing the GM needs to have a say in, whereas the first three, you are speaking outside of yourself, you are declaring facts about the world, outside reality is shaped by you saying those things, if you say 'Elfin cries when his friend dies' or 'he shouts and rages at the unfairness' or 'he is silent holding his emotions in check' that has no influence on what the reality happening outside them is,

i see little real difference between being able to say 'XYZ is how griffin biology works' and 'i conveniently 'picked up' a scroll of revivify from somewhere' because it changes what the reality is outside the character.

 

[soviet]

some of us prefer that when we are in a world, just because the players haven't encountered something yet that doesn't mean there is 'nothing there', the world we haven't explored yet is not an unpainted canvas to us but a painted one that is merely hidden in darkness

When a GM adds something to the world during play - e.g. if the characters explore somewhere that hasn't been defined yet, or ask about a detail that the GM hadn't considered - is that GM 'altering the game reality'?

i don't find the three first examples of equal comparison to the latter, the last one is entirely a personal matter, it involves only your character's opinions and expression, nothing the GM needs to have a say in, whereas the first three, you are speaking outside of yourself, you are declaring facts about the world, outside reality is shaped by you saying those things, if you say 'Elfin cries when his friend dies' or 'he shouts and rages at the unfairness' or 'he is silent holding his emotions in check' that has no influence on what the reality happening outside them is,

My intention was that it's about cultural attitudes to death, rituals they observe, and so on - things that derive from the character's place in the world rather than just their personal reaction. 'Elves do it this way'.

i see little real difference between being able to say 'XYZ is how griffin biology works' and 'i conveniently 'picked up' a scroll of revivify from somewhere' because it changes what the reality is outside the character.

This is the heart of it - 'players can't be trusted'.

Are you really saying that you play with people who would do that? And that if you did, no-one (including the GM) would be brave enough to say anything? 'Oh OK, adventure solved I guess, have a million XP'.

 

[pemerton]

What characterises the RPGing I prefer, whether that be 4e D&D or (back in the day) vanilla narrativist AD&D or RM, or (these days) Burning Wheel, or Agon 2e, or Classic Traveller approached in the spirit of a PbtA game, or the various other RPGs that I enjoy, is that the GM, in talking about the stuff that it is their job to talk about, has regard to the players' goals and aspirations for their PCs.

I'd suggest the same is true of most D&D play (at least these days).

I see zero evidence of this. Most D&D play that I see described involves the GM, in talking about the stuff that it is their job to talk about, relying on map, key and other notes - either working directly from these, or extrapolating from them.

 

[pemerton]

a player can have lots of agency but a player does not need to be 'altering reality' to have agency, they can have agency interacting with all pieces that the game/GM has already presented to them as they already are, convincing the General you met 3 sessions ago who has no stakes in the fight to bring his armies to oppose the lich king can be agency

While it is described entirely in terms of what happens in the fiction - eg a PC interacts with a bit of architecture, or a PC attempts to convince a General to fight a lich king - we can have no idea what if any player agency was involved. Because player agency is a thing that occurs for real, in the real world; it's not something we imagine about the fictional world of the game.

If what happens when the player declares that their PC interacts with something or with someone is decided by the GM, then the player is exercising little agency.

 

[Oofta]

Once again, the fictional world has no reality to alter. It does not exist. There is nothing to alter.

Which is why I specified fictional reality. It should go without saying that nothing we do in the game world is real.

 

[Oofta]

When a GM adds something to the world during play - e.g. if the characters explore somewhere that hasn't been defined yet, or ask about a detail that the GM hadn't considered - is that GM 'altering the game reality'?

Yes. Then again the DM creates the lore outside of individual PCs, so their potentially altering it all the time.

My intention was that it's about cultural attitudes to death, rituals they observe, and so on - things that derive from the character's place in the world rather than just their personal reaction. 'Elves do it this way'.

It's one thing for a player to talk about their individual preferences and beliefs, but if the player is speaking for more than just their character it's different. I've run a campaign for decades, they could easily contradict lore. On the other hand, if they ask to add lore outside of game time for something like this I'll work with them. I just want the final call because I want to make sure it fits my vision of the world so I can be consistent and logical with my own head canon.

This is the heart of it - 'players can't be trusted'.

And then we go to the BS insulting attitude. It has nothing to do with players not being trusted. It's about agreed upon roles for the game.

Are you really saying that you play with people who would do that? And that if you did, no-one (including the GM) would be brave enough to say anything? 'Oh OK, adventure solved I guess, have a million XP'.

I've played with people that if you give them an inch they will take a mile. People that are only happy when they, personally, dominate combat. So yes.