D&D General What is player agency to you?

[TwoSix]

As an outside observer, the player introducing 'the Falcon's Claw' doesn't seem to really be related to the Beliefs, or if so only in the most tangential of ways. I mean it's good to have a more concrete example, but it kind of seems the Falcon's Claw was established in the fiction more by player fiat than anything else. Though maybe there's more to the example and more details will reveal this assessment to be wrong.

Searching your old home for an item of both sentimental and practical value based on your detailed backstory seems in line with the general play procedures of Burning Wheel that I'm familiar with. It would be tough to say if it directly derives from the character's Beliefs as I don't believe they were explicitly stated, but assuming they revolve around the conflict with his brother, it seems pretty solid to me.

 

[FrogReaver]

Searching your old home for an item of both sentimental and practical value based on your detailed backstory seems in line with the general play procedures of Burning Wheel that I'm familiar with. It would be tough to say if it directly derives from the character's Beliefs as I don't believe they were explicitly stated, but assuming they revolve around the conflict with his brother, it seems pretty solid to me.

I'm not sure how any of that makes the introduction of the item not be player fiat. - Actually the last part if true maybe, but it certainly wasn't established in the example (not sure if it was in the actual play). And I think the Beliefs would have to be far more specific about the item in question than just conflict with the brother in general.

 

[Oofta]

It's funny that people are still arguing that the player in some games absolutely never-ever-double-dog-swear-doesn't-happen change the fictional reality of the world outside of their character actions with all the examples of just that happening. One random example...

...
One example that I have used before was a case when the party had to sneak into a noble's house but it was pretty well-guarded at the doors. One of the PCs was the "Disgraced Ex-Bodyguard of the Prince" (aspect), so the player invoked their aspect to declare a story detail. Because they were the ex-bodyguard of the Prince, they figured that they knew the ins and outs of the palace grounds, including some secret pathways. That seemed fairly reasonable considering their background. So we talked about it, and the player in-character declared that there were was a hidden path that led from the kitchen in the palace to the garden shed. The party used that to sneak into the palace.

This is a very clear cut case of the player adding something significant, a way of sneaking into the noble's house, to the fiction of the world (and I'm not picking on Aldarc, I appreciate the clear example). It's the way Fate works. As I said above, I have no problem with the way Fate works. Whether or not it works for me personally isn't relevant, it's just another approach to playing a game.

I also don't see it as having much to do with player agency, Fate just provides a different tool, a different option, for the player to achieve their goals. I just can't see how this is not a clear cut example of the player, via the rules of the game system, altering reality to achieve their goal of entering the house.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not sure how any of that makes the introduction of the item not be player fiat. - Actually the last part if true maybe, but it certainly wasn't established in the example (not sure if it was in the actual play). And I think the Beliefs would have to be far more specific about the item in question than just conflict with the brother in general.

I think I would quibble with the word "fiat" since the discovery of the item was mediated by a mechanic, as well as the DM agreeing that the introduction of a novel item was relevant.

But yea, in a narrative game, I would certainly expect introduction of novel characters/items/etc to be driven by both the player and the DM...it's kind of the point!

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

As I said, there is often no distinction between what a character does and what happens.

Any moment of play where a player gets to say "this is what happens" is an example of player agency. The longer those moments are... the further they shape what's happening in the game, the greater the agency.

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

Per the way the feature is described, it says nothing about attempting or a roll being needed or anything else.

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

This would likely (I hope) be known to me before the request, and so I would seek an audience with another local noble with whom there was no feud.

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)

But there are many people who would say that the DM must maintain the ability to ignore any rule they'd like to. Agency cannot be contingent upon approval. It's paradoxical.

Again, think of chess. If I move my knight and take your bishop, if you had the ability to say "hmm no, I think instead of being taken, my bisho reappears in his starting spot" you've eliminated my agency. A player has agency because they know how the game works and can rely on that when making their decisions. If the way the game works is obscured or subject to change, that impacts agency.

It's funny that people are still arguing that the player in some games absolutely never-ever-double-dog-swear-doesn't-happen change the fictional reality of the world outside of their character actions with all the examples of just that happening. One random example...



This is a very clear cut case of the player adding something significant, a way of sneaking into the noble's house, to the fiction of the world (and I'm not picking on Aldarc, I appreciate the clear example). It's the way Fate works. As I said above, I have no problem with the way Fate works. Whether or not it works for me personally isn't relevant, it's just another approach to playing a game.

I also don't see it as having much to do with player agency, Fate just provides a different tool, a different option, for the player to achieve their goals. I just can't see how this is not a clear cut example of the player, via the rules of the game system, altering reality to achieve their goal of entering the house.

What's been altered? If the character has a trait or background or something similar that strongly implies they're familiar with the castle, then how is it altering reality that they may know such secret routes? It seems more like building upon what's already there. You yourself describe it as "adding", which it is.

What this has to do with agency is it gives the player more areas in which they can steer the direction of play.

Unless it's been established prior that they absolutely do not know such routes, nothing is being altered.

 

[TwoSix]

I also don't see it as having much to do with player agency, Fate just provides a different tool, a different option, for the player to achieve their goals. I just can't see how this is not a clear cut example of the player, via the rules of the game system, altering reality to achieve their goal of entering the house.

Really, this seems like more of a semantic debate around "changing reality". From my perspective (and presumably @Aldarc's from the example posted), reality never changed, because it was never explicitly stated that there wasn't a path there before. The player simply negotiated, based on character concept, what the actual fictional state of the palace is.

Now, to a dedicated simulationist, this feels like a "change", because simulationist play runs on the assumption, the feel, that the fictional setting is already cast and the characters (and the players through them) are discovering that fiction through play. Whereas, to players used to a narrative style, you simply assume that all the details of the fictional setting are fungible until declared in play; no setting details are being changed, only "created" to fit the narrative.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think I would quibble with the word "fiat" since the discovery of the item was mediated by a mechanic, as well as the DM agreeing that the introduction of a novel item was relevant.

But yea, in a narrative game, I would certainly expect introduction of novel characters/items/etc to be driven by both the player and the DM...it's kind of the point!

You are focused far to much on the discovery, whereas i'm primarily focused around the introduction of the item. I don't think the step of finding or not finding the item is fiat. I think the introduction of it is.

And yes, i agree that's the point in narrative games, but there's been alot of text in this thread suggesting that doesn't happen! Or at least that's how it comes across to not just me, but a number of us here.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Really, this seems like more of a semantic debate around "changing reality". From my perspective (and presumably @Aldarc's from the example posted), reality never changed, because it was never explicitly stated that there wasn't a path there before. The player simply negotiated, based on character concept, what the actual fictional state of the palace is.

Now, to a dedicated simulationist, this feels like a "change", because simulationist play runs on the assumption, the feel, that the fictional setting is already cast and the characters (and the players through them) are discovering that fiction through play. Whereas, to players used to a narrative style, you simply assume that all the details of the fictional setting are fungible until declared in play; no setting details are being changed, only "created" to fit the narrative.

Which is why I think that the point @Pedantic made before is correct. The use (and misuse) of the term "player agency" has nothing to do with this fundamental difference.

For example, if someone were to say that a soccer (futbol to the non-'Murikans) player lacked "agency" because they weren't allowed to just punch other players, people would look askance at them. Simply put, punching people isn't within the scope of the rules. On the other hand, not allowing a boxer to punch people would severely curtail their ... agency (not to mention their ability to compete).

People who are discussing a game like D&D view player agency within that game in a certain way. To them, the idea that a player has authority over the fiction is anathema, just as the idea that the GM would have authority over the player's declarations is anathema. On the other hand, there are games in which it is perfectly acceptable (and encouraged!) for a player to have authority over the fiction- and there are also games in which it is perfectly acceptable for the GM (or even other players) to have some authority over the player's declarations and history.

Trying to wrap up these salient difference in some type of misguided attempt to play Mah Playa Agency is Superior to Yer Playa Agency is not likely to be fruitful, as it mistakes freedom within the rules, and preferences for different styles of play, for some type of absolute scale of "player agency."

 

[pointofyou]

Has a thread about player agency on this thread ever not devolved into people trying to explain a style of play that doesn't exist at the average D&D table.

They also seem likely to devolve into people describing a style of play that doesn't exist at the typical table playing Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark.

 

[FrogReaver]

They also seem likely to devolve into people describing a style of play that doesn't exist at the typical table playing Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark.

I think there's a distinction between the idea that people are 'describing a style of play that doesn't exist' and people are 'critically thinking about the examples given with the lenses/definitions they've been using throughout the whole thread.

That people simply end up disagreeing about what things are, doesn't mean they are describing a style o play that doesn't exist.