D&D General What is player agency to you?

[dave2008]

So question @bloodtide: do you have an issue with player agency or "reality altering" agency or both or some combination of the two? Do you understand the difference? Do your players?

 

[pemerton]

This does not seem like a hard concept.

Normal reality: Player Character Abel does not know NPC Zorn. This is true for weeks of game play, and the player even says so in character many times.

Changed reality: suddenly the adventure swings in the direction of NPC Zorn being part of the plot. And the player just says "oh yea, my character Abel is Best Friends with Zorn" to gain some advantage in the game play.

Well, the examples I used are based on your Burning Wheel examples.

In my BW game, there were three examples of meeting PCs. None involved the PC not knowing someone and the player saying so in character many times.

And none involved the player just saying "Oh, I know a guy". Two of them involved use of the Circles mechanic. And one involved use of the Relationships mechanic.

This is why I am asking you what RPGs you can identify that fit what you're saying. I know how Burning Wheel works, but it isn't an example of what you're saying.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Actually, there I was talking about my game system where this is directly supported by the rules.



Right. Players in your game have less agency. They can only add things to the gameworld if they clear it with you in advance and get your approval.

Less agency than what? Than your game? Then is your preference? Ok?

 

[cbwjm]

I've been meaning to respond to this thread but didn't for some reason, now that I have a couple beers in me, here is what I think player agency is.

Player agency is the ability to affect the fiction, it doesn't necessarily mean being able to do anything in the game (though being able to say, "I leave the group to explore that region over there that otherwise has no relevance to the adventure in question" is an extreme version of player agency. Basically, I feel like player agency allows the players of an adventure with a sequence of encounters of A, B, C, to come up with something that allows them to go directly to C from encounter A, completely bypassing encounter B.

One thing to remember is that, just because you're following an adventure doesn't mean that you're railroaded or that player agency can't be taken into account. I feel like most players accept that when they begin an adventure with a clear goal that they are on that adventure and stick to it, it's only when they try something that should reasonably affect the adventure that gets shot down by the DM because it doesn't fit the structure of the adventure that player agency is taken away.

 

[pointofyou]

By the way, it's possible to run 4e D&D in the way I've just described - I know because I've done it. I know from experience that AD&D can also be played in this way, although it is not as robust and now that I know of systems that are better for this approach I wouldn't go back to it.

It's been possible to run every edition of D&D I've played the way you describe. It's how we played 1e and 3.x and it's how we're playing 5e. We skipped 4e because reasons but I have no doubt it too could be played this way.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It is. Sadly what happens is some gamers play some of the Other Games and think they are beyond great. But then they go back to playing D&D, and bring the ideas with them. So even though 5E D&D does not have a "I know a guy" rule, players will whine or demand it be added to have "player agency".

Actually, there are some “I know a guy” rules in 5e. Backgrounds offer a ton of them. They work very much like you describe, except in functional ways rather than your caricature. I think they’re one of the strongest examples of player agency in the 5e ruleset and that they make for super fun no worry about the dickhead GM kind of play.

****
I think reading through this thread has given me a good idea of what player agency means for D&D: it’s when the game allows the player to tell the GM what happens.

If you can consult your 25 year old spiral notebook of setting lore to deny what the player just said, then you can’t claim to run a game that’s all that concerned with player agency.

So think about your game, and think about when play works in such a way that the player gets to tell the GM what happens… and crucially, cannot be vetoed… and that’s where the agency is.

It’s that simple.

 

[SkidAce]

If you can consult your 25 year old spiral notebook of setting lore to deny what the player just said, then you can’t claim to run a game that’s all that concerned with player agency.

So think about your game, and think about when play works in such a way that the player gets to tell the GM what happens… and crucially, cannot be vetoed… and that’s where the agency is.

It’s that simple.

I'm not that sure.

Why can't the player have agency over the actions of their character within the framework?

DM agency and Player agency...not one or the other.

IMO, I have agency if I tell the group "my fighter does this". None of them would gainsay me that authority.

On the other hand, if I tell the DM something that contradicts the world setting we have been playing...I feel I would be in the wrong.

If its a gray area we work it out together.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The BIG diffrence is the GM revealing things as part of the game being a neutral individual.....and the player(s) revealing things to gain or change something in the game for their own benefit.

Like at any time a player can just say "oh NPC Bob owes my character a ton of money, so i go collect it from him"...and suddenly the player has just altered game reality to make their character rich.

And, as I have shown above, none of the actual games that people talk about on here do that. Literally, actually none of them. Zero. If you can name one that does, I welcome it!

Every single example people have brought up, it is either the GM who actually determines what (if anything) results, or the player must actually expend precious resources and then actually play through the process of acquiring any possible benefit, including the possibility that they simply fail--as is the case with any other stuff people play.

It's my preferred way of doing it.

Again, noting that when most folks use the term "railroading," what they mean is, "The GM permits no real choice, and any 'choices' that appear are either outrightly false [read: every choice actually results in the same exact ending], or are actively stymied by the GM until the 'correct' option is chosen." The stereotypical example being that the players need to take a ship to get somewhere, so every land route is blocked or too expensive or barred, and the town teleport circle is broken, and plane shift doesn't work in this city, and, and, and, and, until the party finally does choose the correct option of taking a ship.

I fear I have forgotten, but I believe you have said you mean something rather different when you use the term "railroading."

I'm not an expert in every player. We all game at the library or rec center. So I see them, know some names and we clash every so often. I have seen them play many games across the room.

That would be why people keep telling you to ask them. Because that's the only way you can actually learn much of anything about them.

And here is the thing....we are playing summer games. When I suggest any game it will get shot down....they just want to play D&D 5E....though I did convince one group to play 3.5E. But then they jump on the whole agency thing.....for D&D.

So...you're willing to "make" players (and drive away the many who refuse) within the scope of 5e, but you're not willing to just say, "I'm going to run <other system,> if you want to join, awesome, come have some fun." Just seems very weird that you do stuff completely without regard for what the players want in one context and yet only adhere to what players want in the other.

While a LOT of people feel they can ONLY do something in an RPG if they have a printed "offical" rule in a book right in front of them.........I will let you know this is not always the case.

A great many people can just "do stuff" with no rules. People can just make stuff up.

You're answering the wrong question.

What RPG has rules where the rules specifically ask for the player to do this? As opposed, for example, to telling the player to not behave that way. Because what you're talking about there is in-character actions, which as you say can be supported by a variety of things. But that is not the same thing as talking about player actions and what the game actually supports. D&D does not support players using it to write a symphony; that doesn't mean the players cannot do so, but doing so is completely irrelevant to playing D&D.

Further, you have yourself asserted that this IS a thing, actually IN the rules: The player simply CAN, officially, declare that they get an advantage, whenever they want, with no cost or difficulty, and that advantage just HAPPENS, no ifs, ands, buts, whatever.

I am telling you that that does not actually happen. Not one of the games people have mentioned here works that way. Not even Blades in the Dark and its Flashbacks!

So I ask again: What game actually works this way, as in, the rules actually do tell players to do this? Anyone can choose to be a crappy player. That's not the fault of the game. The thing you're taking umbrage with is the allegation that the rules themselves tell players to behave in such a way. So: Which rules? What games? When does this actually happen?

Or is it just a boogeyman people keep raising up, a false specter designed to shut down conversation despite being unreal?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not that sure.

Why can't the player have agency over the actions of their character within the framework?

Because, at any time, if the GM so chooses, any such action can be immediately and unquestionably vetoed. Players do not have agency; they have at best conditional input. It is the GM who has agency--permitting or not permitting new entries in the ledger.

It is the difference between being a member of the House of Representatives and being one of the Delegates from the US territories. The former actually participate in the legislation process, even if each and every individual person does not actually determine what bills become law. The latter merely observe and suggest.

DM agency and Player agency...not one or the other.

It is the way the GM is exercising their agency here which forbids players from exercising theirs. The players are mere observers who can offer suggestions. The GM actually writes the tale.

IMO, I have agency if I tell the group "my fighter does this". None of them would gainsay me that authority.

Except that the GM explicitly can do that, whenever and wherever they like, so long as they can point to anything in their tome of lore to support the claim. You do not actually have the power to declare what your Fighter does. You have only the power to suggest that your Fighter does something. It must then be approved by the GM. Once it is so, then the GM makes it true. You are an adjunct to this process. You have absolutely no ability to question or challenge the Tome-o-Lore.

On the other hand, if I tell the DM something that contradicts the world setting we have been playing...I feel I would be in the wrong.

If its a gray area we work it out together.

Nothing about the description implies any amount of "working it out together."

 

[SkidAce]

Because, at any time, if the GM so chooses, any such action can be immediately and unquestionably vetoed. Players do not have agency; they have at best conditional input. It is the GM who has agency--permitting or not permitting new entries in the ledger.

It is the difference between being a member of the House of Representatives and being one of the Delegates from the US territories. The former actually participate in the legislation process, even if each and every individual person does not actually determine what bills become law. The latter merely observe and suggest.


It is the way the GM is exercising their agency here which forbids players from exercising theirs. The players are mere observers who can offer suggestions. The GM actually writes the tale.


Except that the GM explicitly can do that, whenever and wherever they like, so long as they can point to anything in their tome of lore to support the claim. You do not actually have the power to declare what your Fighter does. You have only the power to suggest that your Fighter does something. It must then be approved by the GM. Once it is so, then the GM makes it true. You are an adjunct to this process. You have absolutely no ability to question or challenge the Tome-o-Lore.


Nothing about the description implies any amount of "working it out together."

Well, I guess we have different opinions on agency.

No worries. Game on!