D&D General What is player agency to you?

[bloodtide]

I wonder if the agency issue runs deeper and what they are really complaining about is that they have no say in the theme and style of the campaign. For example:

Players: 'We want to play Indiana Jones, hunting for treasure and lost cities in the jungle'
DM: 'Too bad, I am playing Curse of Strahd, so you will be Van Helsing hunting vampires in a horror setting'

instead of

DM; 'That sounds like Tomb of Annihilation could be a fit. Here is what that is about ... Should we play that?'

They did pick the adventures: one 5E spelljammer save the town (in space) adventure, and the other three all picked the Slay a Dragon adventure.

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.

I don't know how BW works. Your example was: Characters need a ride, so you did the circle thing rule, and then you the player said Game Reality was altered by your PCs best pal Bob floating by on a boat.

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.

You count character back grounds as player agency? That is a new one.

****
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.

Well, I'd say that is Never. By that definition my games have zero player agency.

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.

Setting lore, common sense and DM whims will always trump whatever random stuff a player says.

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.

I see people do it all the time. But I'd need to see some game play to point it out.....maybe if someone had a play by post to share?

And, yes, in the examples the GM always agrees...but that is part of the game. The GM read the rules and on page 44 it said "let the players make up stuff and alter reality", so the GM nods and says "ok,".

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."

No, that is accurate. Though I use the Invisible Railroad and I'm a Smooth Operator. But I do think that most of the time there is only one way when talking about such vague marco things.

Like if I want the PCs to take a ship, I will alter the world to make it so. Like the destination they want to reach is on an island....so they HAVE to take a ship to get to the island.

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.

Not following you here....

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!

Every example I've seen or read or heard about sure fits. Maybe you or someone could give some examples.

 

[Maxperson]

You count character back grounds as player agency? That is a new one.

I certainly do.

1) It's a player choice about the PC.
2) The background can add small villages, NPCs(hermits, allies, etc.) to the world.
3) The background will often come back into play during the game.

 

[pemerton]

This thread is tagged "D&D general". 4e D&D is a version of D&D. In 4e D&D, players get to establish quests - that is to say, adventure frameworks that the GM is obliged to flesh out. This has more in common with the play procedures of Burning Wheel (where the GM's job is to frame scenes that will challenge player-authored PC Beliefs) than with (say) the modules Dead Gods (2nd ed AD&D) or Expedition to the Demonweb Pits (3E D&D), where all the quests and goals of play are already established by the adventure author.

Gygax's AD&D is a version of D&D. In his advice to players near the end of his PHB, Gygax makes it clear that it is the players' role to set goals for play, and to do their best to control what scenes are framed (he doesn't use the language of scene-framing; he focuses on entering/exploring dungeon rooms - but in dungeon-crawl play, to open a door is to trigger the framing of a scene). This is quite different from an approach to play which assumes that the players will proceed through a series of scenes determined by the GM (say, the 3E module Speaker in Dreams).

The idea that D&D has - across all its iterations - some monolithic uniformity in how it handles player agency is just wrong.

 

[pemerton]

I don't know how BW works.

Then perhaps it would make sense not to comment so confidently about how it works.

 

[mamba]

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.

Huh? Backgrounds function not at all like the 'I know a guy' thing was described....

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.

well, that basically is never. They can tell the DM what they are doing, but that is not the same thing

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.

I don't think anyone claimed that the game was all about player agency Apart from that, a lore book does not limit player agency, the rules do and the situation does.

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.

They can never tell the GM what happens, they can tell the GM what they do, the outcome is not exclusively up to them

 

[Mort]

Like there are Casual GM that don't make up much of anything for the game. Then when something is needed they just ask a player to do the GM work and make something up. So they player just says something random like "the town is full of gnomes with guns" and then GM just says "wow, cool, OK". And every so often some new random stuff is added, and everything is changed....and nothing ever makes any type of sense. This is not my type of game.

Have you actually seen this type of game? It's certainly not "standard" 5e or Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark, or anything else I'm aware of.

If a DM is just riffing, still ok, but that's no games fault.

As GM I'm making the setting for the players to explore and interact with...and not alter the game reality.

What about altering the game through their characters actions.

Or what about specific 5e abilities that ALLOW reality alterations?

Backgrounds are an easy example:

DM: ok it will take you 10 minutes to get to x point in the city.

Player 1: I'm an urchin. I can get the group there in 5 minutes.

DM: the Flaming Fist isn't letting anyone into their compound tonight, you're going to have to wait until morning.

Player 2: I'm a Flaming Fist military veteran, they should recognize my rank and let us in (military rank feature from background).

Do you shut these down cold?

It's always helpful for me to read such discussions. As I've said it's hard to get most of the real life players to talk about the game.


Except this is how an adventure works. And the players did agree to go on the adventure.

I get there are some game play styles where the GM just sits back and lets the players just do endless random simple things. Oh, the players pick to do this for a couple minutes, or then this other thing. Or another thing. Or whatever. So you get five hours of whatever and nothing....but it's Fun for Some.

A lot more game play styles are more focused. The players are doing a job/task/quest, and ONLY that.

Nothing wrong with helping the players focus where you want them to. Plenty of mechanics exit to help here.

Well....nothing about a Killer DM means "no matter what" your character will die. In the Ye Olden Terms it means : your character can die at any time, anywhere and in anyway. It's saying I will not alter things just to save your character. This is a very common thing for GM to do.

Sure, as long as this is made clear to the players. Also current play tends to shy away from completely arbitrary character deaths that give the player no chance whatever.

It's the player that just comes up with a random act, and then wants it to work 100% and work 100% exactly the way they want it to benefit their character. Then when I say it does not happen they whine about 'agency'. The classic example here is the rock toss. Two orcs guard a back door. Player Bob has the idea to have his character toss a rock "over there". I have the guards ignore it. Bob gets all upset as in his mind the guards should have abandoned their post and run off into the woods for at least an hour looking for the source of the noise.

But games have mechanisms for this, 5e certainly does. What if the PC has a really high deception skill? And wants to fool the guards into going to investigate a false sound. Would you allow Bob (through his PC) to utilize his deception skill like this?

 

[Charlaquin]

Now look at the OP

now back to me, now back at the OP, now back to me. Sadly, he isn’t me, but if he stopped using railroad andventures and switched to sandboxes, he could DM like he’s me. Look down, back up, where are you? You’re in a module with the DM the OP could run like. What’s in your hand? back at me. I have it, it’s a book with two feats for that character you love. Look again, the feats are now subclasses. Anything is possible when OP runs like a sandbox DM and not a railroader. I’m on a displacer beast.

 

[Vaalingrade]

well, that basically is never. They can tell the DM what they are doing, but that is not the same thing

That sounds miserable.

 

[mamba]

That sounds miserable.

I don't see it, do the players in your game tell the GM 'I attack the Orc and chop off his head, killing him instantly' ? That is telling the GM what happens. Saying 'I attack the Orc' is telling the GM what you do.

Or in case you complain about there being rules for combat, how about 'I search the cupboard and find a sword +1 and two healing potions' rather than 'I search the cupboard'?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yeah I completely believe that players in your game have lots of agency and aren't just repeatedly shouted down by 'definitions' you claim to have invented earlier.

Mod Note:

Disagreement with a poster’s opinion is fine. Lobbing shots at the poster themselves is not.

Please don’t repeat this behavior.