D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Aldarc]

IMHO, sticking my head in here, but I find that one of the most confusing, if not aggrevating, things about this discussion is how some people are far from consistent about the principle actor of agency: i.e., "the player's agency." There is a pretty big difference between the agency that a player exerts in play and the actions of the PC that they may control. Players don't exist in the fictional world. PCs do. PCs don't declare actions. Players do. There are many more other examples that I have found somewhat frustrating reading that conflates the player with the PC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

what part of 'you don't need to be the ones creating the world to have agency influencing how it exists and over what you choose to pursue' is so hard to comprehend?

Hyperbole (on both sides) aside, people just have a different definition of agency. Some people (like me!) believe that players making choices for their PCs in the world based on what those PCs know and are personally capable of is agency in RPGs, and others (like @EzekielRaiden ) seem to think that's not enough.

That's fine, we feel differently. But I think we also need to accept that no one in either group in going to change their minds, and both have explained themselves.

@bloodtide , I hope this has helped you with your group.

 

[FrogReaver]

The part where you keep asserting that the things we're talking about become magical wish-granting engines where the GM must meekly accept whatever wish the player(s) demand, without criticism, comment, or conflict.

But if the DM doesn't accept whatever the players wish without criticism, conflict or conflict, then isn't he taking away player agency by your definition?

So do games like PbtA or BitD allow the GM to not accept those kinds of things? And if they force him to accept those things then isn't that criticism valid on it's face, at least to some degree? And if they don't force him to accept then what the heck is the problem with D&D doing the same, cept on a broader scale?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Hyperbole (on both sides) aside, people just have a different definition of agency. Some people (like me!) believe that players making choices for their PCs in the world based on what those PCs know and are personally capable of is agency in RPGs, and others (like @EzekielRaiden ) seem to think that's not enough.

That's fine, we feel differently. But I think we also need to accept that no one in either group in going to change their minds, and both have explained themselves.

@bloodtide , I hope this has helped you with your group.

Well, it would help if the players were actually making choices and not being led around by the nose and prevented from going anywhere the GM doesn't feel like letting them go. Which is the real contention here.

Because to me that's what people keep describing. A world where the only choices you get to make are of the form "I attack this instead of that," "I act in the only way permitted by the world lore I'm not allowed to know," or "I try to do things, but actually whatever I do gets invisibly and secretly bent so it becomes what the GM wanted me to do anyway."

And I fail to see even the tiniest problem with, for example, the Flashback mechanic that has been brought up so much. It's established in context that preparations occurred, they just aren't roleplayed immediately.

Is the issue that a player choice is not perfectly 1:1 mapped to a character choice? Because if that's the case, why in God's name does that matter here when there are tons of choices players make that cannot even in principle be mapped to a character choice?

 

[Pedantic]

IMHO, sticking my head in here, but I find that one of the most confusing, if not aggrevating, things about this discussion is how some people are far from consistent about the principle actor of agency: i.e., "the player's agency." There is a pretty big difference between the agency that a player exerts in play and the actions of the PC that they may control. Players don't exist in the fictional world. PCs do. PCs don't declare actions. Players do. There are many more other examples that I have found somewhat frustrating reading that conflates the player with the PC.

This point is pivotal, but I think there's more than one way to react to it. Either you view this as an insight that opens up the design space, or you view it as a tension your design seeks to alleviate.

You can set the design goal (rarely supported with any rigor) to try and keep player and character incentives aligned so that they're both interested in declaring the same actions. That's generally the preferred state of affairs for everyone going on about fictional worlds. It requires that you prune your action list down to only causally forward facing actions, that you establish a specific locus of control for every game move, and so on. A lot of this discussion about "advantage" I think, is orthogonal to the actual point. You've got a set of players assuming that harmonizing player and PC decision making is obviously a design goal. If it isn't, but one expects it to be, then any time it occurs reads as exploit.

 

[Scott Christian]

We had "session zeros", and many players said they wanted "player agency" in the games. Of course, no one could tell me what that was other then the "internet buzz words". So I got a lot of "player agency is when the player feels fully responsible for their own actions (whether they were guided or not). As long as the player feels like their hand wasn't forced, they feel like their actions in a game are their own." Or "Player agency is whenever the player performs any input to make any (informed) gameplay decision." Or "Player agency is the ability of a player to affect the course of the game."

To be fair, it sounds like you wanted examples. If those are the definitions they gave you, I can't think of any D&D game I've seen that doesn't meet those definitions.

1. I'm not a fan of the players or characters. And the big part of this for me is I don't give out advice or help to the players ever. As the DM I answer factual questions, but not "Hey, is it a good idea for my 1st level halfling bard to dive into the Pool of Deadly Lava and look for treasure?'' I know a great many fan DMs would say "No, wiat, don't do that your character will die", I am NOT one of them. So..in the wacky way: because I don't tell the players what to do...they feel they lack Agency.

Aside from not being friends, I see no problem in this. But if I were to "read into this," I would say this might be an information problem as opposed to telling them what to do problem. You might describe something, and they want more specifics - to make an informed decision. And you might just give them the same information.

A small example might be a PC looking at a desk.

DM: In the corner of the room there is a small desk with no chair.
Player: I walk up to the desk and look underneath.
DM: It looks like a desk.
Player: Are there any papers on it?
DM: No.
Player: I touch the top. What does it feel like?
DM: It feels like wood.
Player: Are there drawers?
DM: Yes.
Player: (Who is now a little frustrated at having to gather basic information they should have known about at first glance.) I open the drawer.
DM: A series of darts flies out of the desk from various places. Give me a dex save.

I have seen DMs require players to ask for specifics. And I have seen players expect to be given specifics. In this case: small holes in the desk where the darts come from, drawers, material, etc. When these two meet, it sometimes causes consternation. And in my personal experience, many of those DMs say things like: "I just give them the facts," or "I give the players information. What they do with it is up to them."

The problem often arises when those facts or information is not thorough enough.

2.My game is loaded with lore and information. It's one of my favorite things. Even the player that just coasts through the game will have to go through a little. But then they would have to remember things and use things in gameplay. And plenty of casual players refuse to do this. They are "forced" to listen to flavor text, but they never speak to NPCs in character or interact much with the game world. Their character walks into an inn common room and sees an open book in the fire place that is not being consumed by the flames...and they just ignore it and say "when are we going to fight something?" This comes up a lot for the "informed agency" thing. Players say they "don't know stuff", so they can't make informed decisions. My counter is the players are unwilling to role play, interact or immerse themselves in the game to learn anything. And the classic "they don't write anything down"

Having great players is great. Note takers. Role players. Tacticians. Players that pay attention to detail.

But...

In my experience, DMs suggesting some piece of lore that players need to connect to, and then upset that they don't, almost inevitably fail at completing these things:

1. Foreshadowing the lore.
2. Give the lore a concrete connection to the players.
3. Give the lore an isolated moment. Not placing it in with other descriptions or other pieces of lore.
4. Highlighting the lore through NPC actions and/or PC-NPC interactions.
5. Repeating the lore in several places.
6. Give the lore a strong visual component.

Obviously, a DM can't do all these things for each piece of lore. But if you want them to notice something, the onus is on you as DM to make sure they notice, not the other way around. These are players that are sitting for hours and being bombarded with a lot of information. If you want one piece to stand out, then you need to make it stand out. Let's use your book in the fire example:

1. DM: "The sign at the inn is strange. The wooden plaque shows a hearth, but instead of a stew pot cooking over it, there is a book. It appears to be roasting or something. You are unsure as the image makes little sense."
2. DM: (To the lore bard of the group at a different time before the book encounter. Maybe when the lore bard was perusing a library?) "In the center of the library, you see a large memorial tapestry. It is a memorial to the brave people that saved the books during a fire. One part of the tapestry shows people collecting books from the burnt building after the fire. Strange that there were some books spared by the flames."
3. DM: "You walk in. It is a common inn, like the dozens of others you've seen. One thing stands out - sitting in the fire in the corner of the room is a book. It is not burning. It is just sitting in the fire and looks as commonplace as a cast iron pot. None of the patrons are even looking at this book sitting in the fire."
4. DM: (During the group's meal) "The bartender delivers your meal; porridge full of carrots and potatoes and a little meat. Directly after, she walks over. Her long gait and thick shoulders look like she's in a hurry. Amazingly, you see her grab the fire poker, and start to turn the pages in the book, like she is spreading out coals."
5. DM: (Looks at the players and one of them asks for a history or arcana check to see if they know anything about this book.) Based on the roll, the DM gives a history of this book which was once a gift from an elemental wizard to a fire giant. How it came to this inn, you have no idea. The DM also states there were dozens of these bequeathed to the fire giant kings by that same wizard. They were built so the fire giants could learn to read.
6. DM: (One of the players says their character is going to have a closer look.) "The fire licks at the book edges like a tongue testing to see if a piece of food is too hot. The blue coals near the base illuminate the thick leather coating, which should be aflame. And on top, at the pages it is open to, you see a Dwarvish script in what you think is the language of the giants. The handwriting is neat and level with little flair. On the other page, you see a small charcoal sketch. It looks like a cartoon; a dwarf and giant sitting together, and the dwarf is trying to dive into the giant's mug of ale."

Obviously, this takes a lot of prep. And if these players want that, and you're an impromptu type of DM, maybe that is part of the problem. And even for a prep DM, the players might ignore this. That's okay. That's why you should prep other stuff too. But sometimes DMs throw things like this, and a dozen other things out there. When there are too many, it becomes mundane. If you want something to stand out - you as DM, need to make it stand out. It's a balancing act between railroading, choices, player agency, and session zero expectations.

 

[Pedantic]

Is the issue that a player choice is not perfectly 1:1 mapped to a character choice? Because if that's the case, why in God's name does that matter here when there are tons of choices players make that cannot even in principle be mapped to a character choice?

I think that's exactly the issue, but I don't think the situation this thread started with has anything of merit to add to basically any discussion of agency.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, it would help if the players were actually making choices and not being led around by the nose and prevented from going anywhere the GM doesn't feel like letting them go. Which is the real contention here.

This isn't what happens in my games.

Nor do I see how you can believe it's happening on any kind of large scale because with a bit of critical thinking it's apparent that if players are being treated that badly then they just wouldn't keep playing.

Because to me that's what people keep describing. A world where the only choices you get to make are of the form "I attack this instead of that," "I act in the only way permitted by the world lore I'm not allowed to know," or "I try to do things, but actually whatever I do gets invisibly and secretly bent so it becomes what the GM wanted me to do anyway."

You are clearly describing degenerate playstyles. Yes those things can happen, but they don't in general. And the general the solution to them isn't to prevent them with game rules, it's to prevent them with the social contract.

And I fail to see even the tiniest problem with, for example, the Flashback mechanic that has been brought up so much. It's established in context that preparations occurred, they just aren't roleplayed immediately.

Let's talk about that. BitD has players going on a score (a heist or heist adjacent mission). Isn't it plausible that whatever happened in the flashback may have changed the players decision about which score to try and pull off next? Would what have happened in the flashback plausibly have changed prior interactions with NPC's in the score or prior to it as well, possibly their strategy, or their numbers, etc? But the flashback mechanic as written doesn't give players the agency to consider any of those details prior to the present moment the flashback mechanic is engaged in the present scene.

Don't get me wrong, I like flashbacks overall in the BitD game, but there are tradeoffs to them being a game mechanic.

And honestly, it's broader than just flashbacks, it's a potential issue anytime players get to say, X happened in the past, or I remember the tower is here, or etc. Because, if that was always true then those facts might have changed their decisions up to now. Often times they don't, but they could.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But if the DM doesn't accept whatever the players wish without criticism, conflict or conflict, then isn't he taking away player agency by your definition?

Nope!

So do games like PbtA or BitD allow the GM to not accept those kinds of things?

They don't even have them in the first place. Which is what I've said. Repeatedly. They don't permit doing such a thing at all.

And if they force him to accept those things then isn't that criticism valid on it's face, at least to some degree? And if they don't force him to accept then what the heck is the problem with D&D doing the same, cept on a broader scale?

Because there is no forced acceptance at all. You are complaining about a problem that does not occur.

Like, here, let me give you an example of a completely fictitious Spout Lore that could occur in my home DW game. I have two active players right now (and three in various stages of IRL issues that prevent them from playing, sadly.)

Spoiler: Long example attempting to capture how my players actually speak/play

Ayser: "Zeke, you said Shamil knew my parents before my mother disappeared. Right?"
Me: "Yes, that's correct. Your parents met while your dad and Shamil were on campaign in the south, near the Elf Forests."
Ayser: "And that was during the old Sultan's reign. The Sultana's dad."
Me: "Yep. Sultan Iskandar was well-known for his skill as a battlefield commander in his youth."
Ayser: "Given that's the best lead I've gotten on my mother in months...which campaign was that?"
Me: "Good question. You have a rough idea of when the timing was, but you'll need to narrow it down to be more specific. How do you intend to do that?"
Ayser: "Well, we just went to a library with lots of newspaper type stuff. Wouldn't they have people talking about a campaign so far south?"
Me: "Absolutely! You consult with Misfar, and he has plenty of material for you to work with. Sounds like a Spout Lore roll to me!"
Ayser: "That's +INT, right? And I would get my War Knowledge?"
Me: "Yep. Should be +4."
Ayser: "Alright." [Uses roller bot.] "Hmm. That's a 9. Taj, any help?"
Taj: "Sure! This ain't my first library rodeo. (What an image!) Ayser is more used to battle stories told from academic historians and generals, not the civilian angle, right?"
Ayser: "I believe so."
Taj: "We'll want to check obituaries and scandal rags, the former for soldiers who...er, took the low road home, the latter for spouses that got caught with their hands in the cookie jar."
Me: "Sounds reasonable to me, and we already know they have a good selection of gossip media and such from the previous visit. Give me that Aid roll."
Taj: "12! Nice."
Me: "Alrighty Ayser, that's enough to get you 10. At first it's hard to solidly nail things down, but with Taj helpfully pointing you to the gossip sections you had originally overlooked, you get a solid idea from a sordid affair between a young woman and the husband of one of Al-Rakkah's generals. Sultan Iskandar waged three major campaigns in the south during his reign, and it was definitely the third of those campaigns where your parents met. You even have a good idea of roughly where your mother first appeared, because that campaign was mostly closer to Al-Tusyoun, but fought one battle on the outskirts of a large village about fifty miles north of the Elf Forests. If you're going to find out anything about her origins, that is where you want to look."

This (made-up example) occurred at the player's prompting. He used knowledge already held (a recent clue from an NPC), and sought out advantageous information. He made his case, did the research, and came up just a hair shy of full success; he asked his co-player for help, and said co-player gave good reasons for both why and how that PC could help, and got a good roll. I then followed the rules of the move in question: I gave Ayser an answer that was both interesting and useful. At no point did the player "change" the world. And, in this case, there is no need for me to ask how the player acquired this information. We already know that; it was from consulting this library. I suppose I could have asked where he learned about Al-Rakkah's military history, but since he is an active, commissioned officer of the Sultana's army, that's not really mysterious either. For something more obscure, like identifying an ancient magic weapon, then it would be perfectly within my rights to ask where he learned such information, and that would be purely a personal revelation, not this badwrong "changing the world" people get all twisted upon.

The key point here is, nobody has a trump card. Nobody can just shut down the conversation of play. Instead, we go back and forth, working out what makes sense from the context of play. We continue having the conversation until it becomes clear that an uncertain outcome must be resolved before we can continue conversing, and that is both trigger and requirement for making a move, Spout Lore in this case. We execute that move as it is written, with both player and GM equal in needing to follow the rules of that move, and once we do, we can proceed to the next part of the conversation (which will presumably involve either more focused fact-finding somewhere else, or preparations for an overland journey to the sites of battle for that campaign.)

 

[FrogReaver]

Nope!


They don't even have them in the first place. Which is what I've said. Repeatedly. They don't permit doing such a thing at all.


Because there is no forced acceptance at all. You are complaining about a problem that does not occur.

You are going to have to be a bit more specific for me to follow. I bolded a few places where I'm not clear what precisely you are saying.

Will reply with the example in mind once i get some clarification.