D&D General What is player agency to you?

Good. Then I think we are in agreement there. My point was - and I think it's best illustrated with a question -

Why has it been suggested that D&D players have less agency because they cannot do what you describe above?!

Note: your example i'll tackle in a fresh post.
Has that been suggested? To be clear, I am understanding your question here as, "Why has it been suggested that D&D players have less agency because they cannot <make fiat declarations of benefit>?!"

And I am not saying that. Instead, what I have seen (repeatedly) is that D&D is claimed to be superior because it, unlike these badwrongfun storytelling games, just doesn't let players make fiat declarations of benefit. (Switching to "benefit" to avoid confusion with the 5e Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic.) Further, D&D does so specifically by having a central DM authority that can shut down such horrible things, a measure which cannot be avoided if one wishes to solve this problem.

That is, the assertion across this thread has pretty clearly been, "Games using stuff like PbtA let players make fiat declarations of benefit, which is absolutely unacceptable. We cannot allow in things like what PbtA does without also allowing in that absolutely unacceptable thing." Hence why I have said, repeatedly, that that both does not and in fact cannot happen in any of these games I've played, at least if you are playing by the rules and with appropriate decorum (meaning, non-degenerate playstyle). The criticism of "storytelling" games falls flat because it is, quite simply, not real.

Above, Spout Lore was explicitly cited by someone (maybe Oofta?) as being an example of "remembering" the world into a totally new state with new features and benefits--and thus my example was meant to show that there is no such "remembering" in that move. The most a player can do is tell me how they learned the information that I, the GM, gave them, which will almost certainly involve something like the school where the PC was taught, a specific book the PC read, or a specific situation from the character's life--all of which are perfectly valid things for players to invent when writing character backstory, even in D&D.

Neither PbtA nor FitD, but players can potentially do something like this in Fate; however, players must first (1) invoke an applicable/appropriate aspect, (2) discuss it with the GM whether such the new fiction is feasible, and then (3) spend one of their Fate points. So even if this were possible in Fate, my first question would be "What PC aspect could a player invoke to declare that?"
This is good and useful! So, Fate certainly treads closer to the line in the sand, but as you say, there's still a requirement the player must have first: an Aspect that permits such a declaration. In the context of my random example, a hostel in the middle of nowhere, would something like...

Aspect: Mendicant Friar
Effect: Spend a fate point to reveal resources you can draw upon as a member of your monastic order, so long as you are in a place where that order holds sway.

There seems to be some potential for rolls or the like relating to Aspects, so there could even be a roll involved in some way, but I don't know enough about the Fate system to really say more. (Just did a quick glance at the Fate SRD website, so hopefully the above isn't terribly wrong!)

That's certainly true, but "less agency than FATE" is not the same as "no real agency", as some have claimed.
Seriously: Who? I for one have claimed that someone using their decades-old lorebook to shut down things the players attempt is pretty clearly a problem for player agency (as it rigidly fixes a great deal of the world to something totally external to actual play). And I have certainly claimed here or at least elsewhere that railroading, illusionism, and other "viking hat DM" approaches are pretty corrosive to player agency. But I have not claimed that players just always have "no real agency" in D&D--nor have I seen anyone else do so.

What are these "tons of choices" players make that have nothing to do with their PCs choices?
Character creation. Character advancement. Strategic coordination in combat. Several forms of interacting with the skill and/or saving throw system. E.g., the player choosing to fail a save against an illusion because they think it would be more interesting for the character to believe the illusion is real. Backstory writing, as noted previously. Emotional responses to events--it is the player who decides whether Gonad the Barbarian feels sick relief that his ex-lover survived a perilous fall, or burning resentment. (I don't know about you, but IRL, I have little choice in a lot of my emotional responses to things, the only choice I have is how to act on those emotions.) In 5e specifically, things like applying Inspiration, or invoking certain class features (e.g. Fighter's Action Surge/Second Wind/Indomitable, Barbarian's Relentless Rage, Rogue's Stroke of Luck). These things fail to map to character choices, and yet they are often pretty important tools in the players' hands.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Good. Then I think we are in agreement there. My point was - and I think it's best illustrated with a question -

Why has it been suggested that D&D players have less agency because they cannot do what you describe above?!

Note: your example i'll tackle in a fresh post.
I was thinking a few minutes ago as I was driving back from Starbucks with my wife's coffee. No Myth and Traditional play actually have the same amount of player agency. No Myth doesn't really give any more. Player Agency is the player being able to make decisions for his character and having those decisions matter. It's not being able to decide outcomes. Deciding outcomes is DM agency.

All No Myth does is give players some level of DM Agency, not any additional Player Agency. So those folks who constantly decry more traditional play as "low" or "minimal" Player Agency and their favorite playstyle as "high" Player Agency are simply conflating the two types of agency.
 

I was thinking a few minutes ago as I was driving back from Starbucks with my wife's coffee. No Myth and Traditional play actually have the same amount of player agency. No Myth doesn't really give any more. Player Agency is the player being able to make decisions for his character and having those decisions matter. It's not being able to decide outcomes. Deciding outcomes is DM agency.

All No Myth does is give players some level of DM Agency, not any additional Player Agency. So those folks who constantly decry more traditional play as "low" or "minimal" Player Agency and their favorite playstyle as "high" Player Agency are simply conflating the two types of agency.
You have taken one way of playing as the default. The division you cite between player agency and DM agency is an artificial one.
 

I was thinking a few minutes ago as I was driving back from Starbucks with my wife's coffee. No Myth and Traditional play actually have the same amount of player agency. No Myth doesn't really give any more. Player Agency is the player being able to make decisions for his character and having those decisions matter. It's not being able to decide outcomes. Deciding outcomes is DM agency.

All No Myth does is give players some level of DM Agency, not any additional Player Agency. So those folks who constantly decry more traditional play as "low" or "minimal" Player Agency and their favorite playstyle as "high" Player Agency are simply conflating the two types of agency.
When are outcomes decided by players in these games?

Do you have specific examples, e.g. particular games where that is commonplace or particular rules where that works?

Because thus far the only thing that even approaches that is Fate's Aspects. And Fate is not generally considered a "no myth" game. (And, notably, even DW is not inherently "no myth." I don't run a "no myth" game myself--though I intentionally take great care to not over-prepare.)
 

There are many, many, many more points on that spectrum than those you list. Minimal agency would be being able to pick your class, but not your race or anything else, including in game play. A bit more than that lets you pick your race, and so on. By the time you get to picking all of your creation AND making choices for your characters that matter, you have a good amount of agency even if the DM is narrating(not deciding, because in D&D many outcomes are decided by dice and other situations) all of the outcomes.

When people try to say that more traditional game play has "minimal" player agency, but their way has more or the most agency, it comes across as One True Wayist, even if not intended that way.
The list was not intended to be exhaustive but every item in it has more agency than the one before.
 

You have taken one way of playing as the default. The division you cite between player agency and DM agency is an artificial one.
No more artificial than yours. 🤷‍♂️

Why do you get to artificially create a different kind of player agency and then judge the rest of us against your creation?
 


When are outcomes decided by players in these games?

Do you have specific examples, e.g. particular games where that is commonplace or particular rules where that works?

Because thus far the only thing that even approaches that is Fate's Aspects. And Fate is not generally considered a "no myth" game. (And, notably, even DW is not inherently "no myth." I don't run a "no myth" game myself--though I intentionally take great care to not over-prepare.)
Then sub outcomes with control over the narrative, which is DM Agency. D&D is the baseline as it was first and is biggest. Other games get compared to it. If D&D has Player Agency: 3 and DM Agency: 3(which includes narration), then No Myth giving a degree of narrative ability to players is reducing the DM's DM Agency and giving some DM Agency to the players.
 

Has that been suggested? To be clear, I am understanding your question here as, "Why has it been suggested that D&D players have less agency because they cannot <make fiat declarations of benefit>?!"

And I am not saying that. Instead, what I have seen (repeatedly) is that D&D is claimed to be superior because it, unlike these badwrongfun storytelling games, just doesn't let players make fiat declarations of benefit. (Switching to "benefit" to avoid confusion with the 5e Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic.) Further, D&D does so specifically by having a central DM authority that can shut down such horrible things, a measure which cannot be avoided if one wishes to solve this problem.

That is, the assertion across this thread has pretty clearly been, "Games using stuff like PbtA let players make fiat declarations of benefit, which is absolutely unacceptable. We cannot allow in things like what PbtA does without also allowing in that absolutely unacceptable thing." Hence why I have said, repeatedly, that that both does not and in fact cannot happen in any of these games I've played, at least if you are playing by the rules and with appropriate decorum (meaning, non-degenerate playstyle). The criticism of "storytelling" games falls flat because it is, quite simply, not real.

Above, Spout Lore was explicitly cited by someone (maybe Oofta?) as being an example of "remembering" the world into a totally new state with new features and benefits--and thus my example was meant to show that there is no such "remembering" in that move. The most a player can do is tell me how they learned the information that I, the GM, gave them, which will almost certainly involve something like the school where the PC was taught, a specific book the PC read, or a specific situation from the character's life--all of which are perfectly valid things for players to invent when writing character backstory, even in D&D.


This is good and useful! So, Fate certainly treads closer to the line in the sand, but as you say, there's still a requirement the player must have first: an Aspect that permits such a declaration. In the context of my random example, a hostel in the middle of nowhere, would something like...

Aspect: Mendicant Friar
Effect: Spend a fate point to reveal resources you can draw upon as a member of your monastic order, so long as you are in a place where that order holds sway.

There seems to be some potential for rolls or the like relating to Aspects, so there could even be a roll involved in some way, but I don't know enough about the Fate system to really say more. (Just did a quick glance at the Fate SRD website, so hopefully the above isn't terribly wrong!)


Seriously: Who? I for one have claimed that someone using their decades-old lorebook to shut down things the players attempt is pretty clearly a problem for player agency (as it rigidly fixes a great deal of the world to something totally external to actual play). And I have certainly claimed here or at least elsewhere that railroading, illusionism, and other "viking hat DM" approaches are pretty corrosive to player agency. But I have not claimed that players just always have "no real agency" in D&D--nor have I seen anyone else do so.


Character creation. Character advancement. Strategic coordination in combat. Several forms of interacting with the skill and/or saving throw system. E.g., the player choosing to fail a save against an illusion because they think it would be more interesting for the character to believe the illusion is real. Backstory writing, as noted previously. Emotional responses to events--it is the player who decides whether Gonad the Barbarian feels sick relief that his ex-lover survived a perilous fall, or burning resentment. (I don't know about you, but IRL, I have little choice in a lot of my emotional responses to things, the only choice I have is how to act on those emotions.) In 5e specifically, things like applying Inspiration, or invoking certain class features (e.g. Fighter's Action Surge/Second Wind/Indomitable, Barbarian's Relentless Rage, Rogue's Stroke of Luck). These things fail to map to character choices, and yet they are often pretty important tools in the players' hands.
Other than @bloodtide , who here have made objective-sounding value judgements on any of this? People are expressing their preferences, which in my experience often leads to over-sensitivity when a poster clearly does not share yours. I experience this myself, so I know of what I speak.

Most of the examples you gave of choices, by the way, would be against my preference, either because they're not acting in character, or they represent a mechanic I don't care for personally. Also, not a binary (again). Sometimes choices like you're talking about slip through, and you have to occasionally treat the game like a game. Doesn't mean it's objectively better or worse than what I do like.
 


Remove ads

Top