D&D General What is player agency to you?

[hawkeyefan]

Sure, but from a simulationist perspective, that's a worthwhile tradeoff to make in order to assert the reality of the setting trumps player need.

If you don't sometimes nix a player's idea because of the existence of pre-generated fiction states, you're not really pursuing a simulationist agenda.

Absolutely! But then when someone makes that choice, they're saying "I value the sense of simulation that my prep provides more than I value the players' ability to influence the events of play."

As you say, it's only because of a perceived value judgment of "player agency" being always desirable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think @Mort already did a good job of commenting on these.

It seems that the DM's job appears to be finding a reason to work with the player's idea, or finding a way to shoot it down.



My point is that whatever reason it is, this is an example of the DM overriding the player's idea. Can you see how that impacts player agency?

I can see that, but I don't have a problem with it here. The ability to force a meeting with a noble is not necessarily entirely within the PCs control, so it doesn't necessarily impact agency in a way that would bother me, on either side of the screen.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's the big thing. The DM needs to examine why he's saying no. What is the reason to do that? I think if we self-examine these moments rather than just rely on play assumptions from past experience, then maybe we can get to the actual issue.

Why does a DM decide to choose his prep or his sense of what makes sense or any other reason over the player's idea?

Because that's the dynamic established by that game, and specifically at that table. The DM makes the world, and the PCs live in it, making choices based on what they know and what they are capable of.

Other games have different dynamics. And that's fine.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Thanks for the clarification. That is one of the reasons I use an example of the impromptu DM. Nothing wrong with it. It's just another playstyle.

Yeah, I just want to be clear I'm not talking about other games. I have played and especially GMed a ton of 5e.

We will just have to agree to disagree. If, a player gave me a character background of a noble, and as we played, I, as DM, saw that this was part of their character - and then planned a plot point around it, that is using player agency. If the plot point happened to be a scorned younger brother had usurped the father and mother and banished them, then that brother might absolutely know he is on a hit list, especially from his older brother/sister. And he will do everything to thwart that sibling from reaching him - including trapping the secret passageways and/or sealing them up.

This does not remove player agency at all. It adds to it.

I don't think the DM crafting plot around a player's background choice is the best description of agency. I like the idea of the player and DM working together on that stuff.

I was referencing the background feature, specifically. The noble has one, but many other backgrounds do, too.... criminal, folk hero, soldier... many others. They're in my opinion designed to give the players some input on how things go. I'm a noble, I can get an audience with other nobility. The DM still has plenty to say.... maybe it's a noble who doesn't like my character, or is annoyed by the audience, or who uses the audience to leverage his own goals. The same can apply to the other backgrounds.

It's just another point where the player can have some say in what's going on in the game. Taking it away... I mean, that seems self-evident that it's taking away agency.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The DM's narrative.

Yes, and? The players certainly contribute to the narrative too, they just do it through the actions of their PCs.

 

[Mort]

the DM already examined that and concluded he had a good reason


there is no actual issue, most of the time the answer ie ‘sure, you get an audience’, sometimes it ie ‘sorry, no’, and the latter always with an in-world reason

Do the players get to know the "in world" reason? If not, how is that honoring the players choice of background.

How often does this come up? Unless it's a REALLY heavy court intrigue game (in which case, maybe the background feature itself is not really appropriate) likely not a lot. If the player only uses it once or twice and every time is denied - that sucks for the player.

So if the DM grants the audience and then denies all the char’s requests, is that ok? How is that different from not granting an audience in the first place?

Because then, at least, the players (and the PCs) know exactly what they are dealing with/up against as opposed to not even getting the chance to see what's going on.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do the players get to know the "in world" reason? If not, how is that honoring the players choice of background.

How often does this come up? Unless it's a REALLY heavy court intrigue game (in which case, maybe the background feature itself is not really appropriate) likely not a lot. If the player only uses it once or twice and every time is denied - that sucks for the player.



Because then, at least, the players (and the PCs) know exactly what they are dealing with/up against as opposed to not even getting the chance to see what's going on.

I don't see frequency of how often a feature comes up as a reason to determine how often it works. The two have nothing to do with each other in my view.

 

[Mort]

Then I have to back to this advocating for the rules to trump the narrative.

Or the rules to help the narrative go in a specific direction sure.

Point is, if you or @mamba reserve the right to negate the feature - then the player needs to be told that at session 0 (or when otherwise generating the PC). It may well prompt them to pick a different background.

 

[Mort]

I don't see frequency of how often a feature comes up as a reason to determine how often it works. The two have nothing to do with each other in my view.

Of course it's relevant.

If the ONE TIME this feature comes up the DM nopes it (for "reasons") then that really sucks for the player.

 

[mamba]

Do the players get to know the "in world" reason? If not, how is that honoring the players choice of background.

depends on the reason, they might know it beforehand and just take their chances, they might learn it then and there, they might discover it later, depending on how the campaign progresses

The choice is honored by there being a reason, and the DM not just being willfull

How often does this come up?

rarely

Unless it's a REALLY heavy court intrigue game (in which case, maybe the background feature itself is not really appropriate) likely not a lot. If the player only uses it once or twice and every time is denied - that sucks for the player.

I am not arguing for the players never getting an audience, I am arguing for the feature not guaranteeing one

Because then, at least, the players (and the PCs) know exactly what they are dealing with/up against as opposed to not even getting the chance to see what's going on.

no, they still might have no idea what they are dealing with. There is such a thing as not telling the whole truth, or even lying