D&D General What is player agency to you?

[hawkeyefan]

Yes. Here is an explicit example. Maybe you don't agree with this position?

Where in that example do I say that D&D doesn’t have agency? Or that it has less than any other game? I didn’t mention any other game.

 

[mamba]

What the character does is what happens. I don’t see the need for a distinction. Imagine a movie or novel. Would you ever describe what characters do in them as being something other than what happens?

It’s not about the outcome… the outcome can be in doubt. It’s about the player choosing what they want to do, and having some chance of achieving that effect.

as I wrote, we are using different terms, when I say ‘what happens’ I mean the outcome, as you are obviously free to decide your action

To bring it back to the backgrounds… if you have a character with the noble background, and it’s been determined they’re in an area where there is other nobility… the player gets to declare that they obtain an audience with a local lord or lady. That’s what the background feature for nobles does.

I’d say you can declare that you attempt to get an audience, whether you succeed depends on circumstances, having the background does not guarantee an outcome, but it makes it more likely

Your attempt could fail because there is a long running feud between your families or some other reasons. If there is no good reason why you should not get one, I’d say you succeed however

If the GM steps in and says “no, you can’t do that”, absent a very compelling argument, I’d say that’s problematic as it relates to player agency.

agreed, imo the GM can never say ‘you cannot do that’, short of it being literally impossible. All the GM has control over is the outcome, and even that should be reasonable.

To me the GM simulates the world, so if there is no good reason why your attempt should fail, it succeeds (or requires some check to succeed)

 

[Maxperson]

Then I'd go even further and suggest that the typical mechanical structure used to give players 'DM Agency' in No-Myth games also reduces actual player agency in certain ways as well.

I'm curious about why you think this?

 

[pemerton]

Just as the player tends to get narrative control over the world on a successful check, the GM tends to get narrative control over the character on a failed check. Example - player wants to cut the NPC's head off on a success. Player rolls a check and receives a failure. GM now has some limited narrative control over the PC and what happens to him. Perhaps his response is: about the time you would have went to swing your sword you experience a mind numbing migraine - you fall to the ground and shriek in pain.

I think it would be useful to have an example of an actual system here. I can't think of one that what you've described would fit into, but obviously I don't know all systems!

 

[Aldarc]

D&D has player agency. Overall, D&D has more player agency than some games but less player agency than others. Stating this is not a value judgment. The amount of player agency in D&D can further vary (i.e., constrict or expand) depending upon the latitude of player agency that the DM authorizes players through their own fiat.

There is nothing inherently or necessarily wrong with D&D having less player agency than other tabletop roleplaying games. Even if the amount of player agency is less than other games, the given range of player agency that D&D affords players is obviously popular, prevalent, and mainstream. There are a variety of good reasons for that. Some of these reasons have been discussed prior by people who dislike how expanded player agency is expressed in other tabletop games and their own subjective notions of immersive roleplay, simulation, metagame mechanics, etc. But if you think that a player’s role should include X and Y but not Z, that seems like an admission that the player has less agency to affect gameplay in the former than games in the latter case that additionally permit Z. In my opinion, this is something that should be embraced rather than denied.

It’s okay that British food is not as spicy as Southeast Asian cuisines. Nothing is gained by trying to talk up the spice levels of British cuisine or to downplay how spicy Southeast Asian cuisines tend to be.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which games? - Most if not all of them. I'd say all but this is the internet so there's inevitably an exception to eveything.

Give me names, not "most of them." Unless I have an actual game to look at, the claim is meaningless at this point, like being asked, "And who are these enemies you speak of?" and replying "You know, Them! You see Them everywhere!"

How? - Just as the player tends to get narrative control over the world on a successful check, the GM tends to get narrative control over the character on a failed check.

That's not a lack of agency...? Or I don't understand how it isn't.

Further, the example you gave is perfectly in keeping with things I've seen in every edition of D&D I've played (3e, 4e, 5e, and Labyrinth Lord, which AIUI is basically "B/X rules with AD&D options.") E.g. when I played LL, my character was immune to disease (Paladin-based homebrew), but one of the others wasn't--so when I touched a long-dead mummy it did nothing, but someone else touched it, rolled poorly, and fell to the ground, shrieking in pain. So if this is a lack of agency, it would seem every single edition of D&D also lacked it, meaning nothing has actually been lost.

Just a suggestion - but discussion would go alot better if you laid off such accusations.

That's fair, but...you did exactly that above. I asked for games. You gave a handwave: "Most if not all of them." Can you name one that does it? Point me to a mechanic in one of them? Anything that actually puts a name and a face to this boogeyman?

Or is it just this broad, abstract ghost that never actually manifests?

I already have in this thread. Flashbacks in Bitd. Players are deprived of any agency related to the outcome of the flashback in determining what score they ultimately take, what downtime activities they do, and really most any preplanning at all (yea, the game is premised on limited preplanning by the players and for good gameplay reasons, but that's still something a D&D player almost always has agency over that a BitD players doesn't).

I reject that this is a lack of agency. The player already demonstrated that agency in advance; you pick the Score quite early, as I understood it, because (just like both fantastical heists a la Ocean's Eleven and real heists e.g. the Antwerp Diamond Heist that required eighteen months of preparation) these things are major efforts and unless you genuinely, thoroughly botch something to the point that the heist is a total bust, you're probably gonna keep going through with it despite the occasional wrinkle. If everyone bailed out at the first wrinkle, there would be a lot less crime in our world!

Plus, you have agency over when you want a Flashback or not (they aren't inflicted upon you by the DM), and you can attempt to get an advantage--just as you can with any preparation in D&D. So, again, I'm not seeing what is lost here.

 

[pemerton]

I am on board with that, I am just not expecting that the char searching the cupboard for a +1 sword increases the probability of the cupboard containing a +1 sword

<snip>

In my world the probability of my drawer containing the winning lottery ticket or the keys I misplaced does not increase depending on how much I wish for it.

There seems to be a conflation, here, of events and probabilities in the real world, and events and probabilities in the fiction.

What is the likelihood, in the fiction, that some person should go through all these adventures and grow in power from irrelevance to superhero or demigod? Near enough to zero. What is the likelihood, in the real world, that a 5e D&D PC will go through many adventures and grow in power from irrelevance to superhero or demigod? Quite good - the game is designed and its many adventure paths written to produce just that outcome.

What is the likelihood, in the fiction, that some cupboard or other will have a magic sword in it? Near enough to zero.

What is the likelihood, in the real world, that the imagined events in a RPG will reflect the preferences of the participants? Reasonably high. What about the player participants? Reasonably high, if those players have agency. In a game with high player agency, if the player is hoping and expecting that their PC might find a sword in a cupboard, then there is a good chance that such a thing will come to pass in the fiction.

it seems there would have to be some way to bring in yet unestablished facts into the world. Like in a no-myth game at some point the idea of a specific magic sword gets introduced. Howso? And wouldn't that introduction violate the 'reasonable and feasible' in a given situation. Then the sword must be found - not placed and then stumbled upon as this is no-myth. So the players try to determine it's location - howso, and doesn't specifying any location violate the reasonable and feasible constraint? Then finally the players get to the locations and search for the sword - i think we are good at this step but it's not clear to me how the preceeding steps don't violate the same thing.

The answer to this question is fairly straightforward:

For what it's worth, at least in Burning Wheel, just a player having her character search a cupboard for a magical sword wouldn't increase the probability of there being a magic sword in that cupboard. If a character is searching the cupboard for a magic sword, there needs to be a reason for the character to expect that specific cupboard possibly contains a magic sword (hopefully a specific magic sword).

<snip>

assuming Horace the Pickler is and has only ever been a purveyor of fermented cucumbers and it hasn't previously been established in play that Horace the Pickler somehow does have a magic sword in his outhouse, then he just doesn't have a magical sword in his outhouse. No amount of searching will change that. This would be a failure on my part as GM if we got into a situation where both (1) the player was searching Horace's outhouse for magical swords and (2) there was no justifiable reason for magical swords to be in the outhouse.

Assuming that the situation established between the players and GM in Session 0, prior to the beginning of play isn't about retrieving magical swords, then it's going to come up through a belief a player creates for their character. That belief doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with magical swords, but the sword would have to come out of the player pursuing their character's beliefs. And if the situation established is about retrieving magical swords, then it's going to come out of the players' beliefs, too — one player might have a belief about a magical sword being located in their village and another might have a belief about Horace being more than he seems, so they start investigating and stirring things up, and, yada yada yada, it turns out Horace the Pickler might have the magical greatsword of King Ivan the Scrupulously Clean in his, er, honeybucket.

In Burning Wheel, it is the job of the GM "to challenge and engage the players" by "introducing complications to the story and consequences to the players' choices" (Revised p 268; the same text is found in Gold). And as pp 12-13 explain,

players take on the roles of characters . . . represented by a series of numbers . . . and a list of player-determined priorities. . . . Manipulating these numbers and priorities within situations presented by the game master (GM) is what the game is all about. . . .

The conflicts of the characters' aforementioned priorities creates (sic) situations for the players to resolve, and resolving conflicts (and creating new ones) is what play is all about.​

So we shouldn't even be hearing about a cupboard, or a pickler called Horace, or the possibility of a magic sword, unless it somehow pertains to a player-authored priority, and hence is part of a situation in which challenges to those priorities, and/or conflicts, complications or consequences resulting from them, are present.

The only time a player declared a Scavenging test to find a magic item, in my play, was when the PCs, after being marooned in the Bright Desert, had successfully made their way north to the Abor-Alz, and to the tower where the sorcerer PCs had studied with his brother (as per his backstory, which included two Rogue Wizard lifepaths; a hostile relationship with his brother, with the hostility pertaining to the reasons why they had been driven out of their tower; an affiliation with a sorcerous cabal, and a reputation as a minor illusionist; his PC sheet also included a picture of the tower, a photo of an Indian castle taken from the interwebs).

At the start of the session where the PCs had returned to the tower, the player announced an additional bit of backstory - prior to being driven out of the tower, his PC had been crafting a nickel-silver mace (the Falcon's Claw) in anticipation of enchanting it. This did not violate any credibility test, and in fact seemed rather consonant with the already-established character and backstory. The PC therefore searched through the ruined tower, looking for the Falcon's Claw. A Scavenging check was called for, and failed. Thus the PC did not find what he was looking for: instead, he found something unlooked for - cursed black arrows in what had been his brother's workroom, which were significant because they seemed to indicate that his brother had been evil before the downfall of their tower, whereas the PC's plans for reconciliation with his brother had all rested on a premise that it was only afterwards that his brother had been corrupted.

This is an example of how searching is framed and resolved in a game that relies on player agency rather than GM notes to handle such things.

 

[FrogReaver]

Give me names, not "most of them." Unless I have an actual game to look at, the claim is meaningless at this point, like being asked, "And who are these enemies you speak of?" and replying "You know, Them! You see Them everywhere!"

The description of pretty much every narrative/story now/whatever you want to call them games is much more accurate and exhaustive than me trying to give you the exhaustive list you are asking for.

If you just want some examples then the one I've actually played is BitD. If you want to talk about ones that get brought up alot, Apoclypse World or Burning Wheel seem like some of the more popular.

That's not a lack of agency...? Or I don't understand how it isn't.

Another suggestion - instead of saying 'no it's not' with no other details, give me something to work with. Because I'm really tempted to just respond 'yes it is' when I see style of comment.

Further, the example you gave is perfectly in keeping with things I've seen in every edition of D&D I've played (3e, 4e, 5e, and Labyrinth Lord, which AIUI is basically "B/X rules with AD&D options.") E.g. when I played LL, my character was immune to disease (Paladin-based homebrew), but one of the others wasn't--so when I touched a long-dead mummy it did nothing, but someone else touched it, rolled poorly, and fell to the ground, shrieking in pain. So if this is a lack of agency, it would seem every single edition of D&D also lacked it, meaning nothing has actually been lost.

IMO. There's a big difference there. In the fictional world, touching a mummy causes disease (unless you are immune to disease). Contrast to my example, there was no fictional cause action the player attempted that fictionally caused the headache. In D&D terms, the player could have avoided the disease by not touching the mummy - and most likely has learned to not touch any future mummies they may encounter. In my example, the player couldn't do anything to prevent the headache, the only prevention was to roll a success on the dice.

Do you see how the D&D player has more agency in that situation? He can actually make decisions to avoid the mummy's disease, but the other player cannot make any decisions to avoid the headache.

That's fair, but...you did exactly that above. I asked for games. You gave a handwave: "Most if not all of them." Can you name one that does it? Point me to a mechanic in one of them? Anything that actually puts a name and a face to this boogeyman?

You asked for the games that do this, not for me to give you an example of a game that does this. I even explained the specific style of mechanic that made it possible which all the games of this category that I know of share in common. Notice how in the same post a few paragraphs down when you did ask for a specific example I gave one.

Or is it just this broad, abstract ghost that never actually manifests?

Again. Stop this if you want to continue our discussion. It's not true and even if it was it's pure snark.

I reject that this is a lack of agency. The player already demonstrated that agency in advance; you pick the Score quite early, as I understood it, because (just like both fantastical heists a la Ocean's Eleven and real heists e.g. the Antwerp Diamond Heist that required eighteen months of preparation) these things are major efforts and unless you genuinely, thoroughly botch something to the point that the heist is a total bust, you're probably gonna keep going through with it despite the occasional wrinkle. If everyone bailed out at the first wrinkle, there would be a lot less crime in our world!

It seems to me that you are suggesting here that it's not a lack of agency here because the player shouldn't have had any agency here to begin with. Yet we can compare with a D&D heist (despite the usually lackluster heist gameplay). In a D&D heist if a player botched some pre-mission setup for in mission advantage, the players get to take that into account and make decisions based on it. That is agency. None of that is present in BitD flashbacks.

Plus, you have agency over when you want a Flashback or not (they aren't inflicted upon you by the DM), and you can attempt to get an advantage--just as you can with any preparation in D&D. So, again, I'm not seeing what is lost here.

Sure. But I'm not saying every time a player uses a flashback it does this. When it's successful there's no loss of agency. The issue happens when the flashback fails.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Protip: If you see the term "player agency," and view it as an excuse to argue why one game is better than another game, you're doing it wrong.

Always remember the enworld maxim, ""I double-dog dare you to describe how totally awesome your favorite (game/playstyle) is, WITHOUT comparing it to any others."

 

[Scott Christian]

In the 5e approach, the search is resolved very differently from the attempt to decapitate the Orc. In 4e and BW, not so much.

4e works the same way as 5e. The DM looks at their notes and sees what is in the cupboard. There are rules regarding the amount of treasure players should get based on their level, and there are randomized tables (the odd/even number and 20 rule if I remember correctly). But, it is still in the DM notes. Or if the DM doesn't do prep like that, then they could just roll. But they are still the same.